Cowardly Will Question
Discussion
He doesn't have to leave the money to the kids, sounds like he's choosing to? If so he must have a reason, so let that reason be that he leaves the money to the kids he likes best, doesn't matter if they're step kids or not. And make it very clear to the family that this is the reason so there is no bickering.
If he's only leaving the money to the kids so it doesn't go to the sisters, has he thought about leaving it to a charity instead? That would side-step the whole issue.
If he's only leaving the money to the kids so it doesn't go to the sisters, has he thought about leaving it to a charity instead? That would side-step the whole issue.
Steve H said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Steve H said:
Is there any reason why the will can’t just allocate 25% of the estate each to two of the kids by name and 16.6% each to three others?
He could do, but that's including the step kids. he doesn't want to include or exclude them. He wants that to be Mrs C's problem. If, as said above, just saying children excludes step children, he'll be fine with that. No one (apart from me) will know he knew they would be excluded. After his death, he doesn't want Mrs C to think he excluded them. And he doesn't want Mrs B to think he included them to the financial detriment of his biological family. As I said in the title, cowardly.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Wednesday 27th November 20:43
Note that my great aunt who had no children named 47 people specifically in her will with the provision that if any of them had passed away thier share would be split equally amongst the others. The original 47 shares were not equal but the 45th share of the 2 people that had died before her were equally shared.
When I wrote my will recently, I did a flow chart for the solicitor.
Richard-D said:
I'm going to go against the majority of people on this thread and say that I have some sympathy for the guy's position here. These are not easy things to talk about for everyone and this is compounded by different perceptions of what is 'fair'. He's already doing better than a hell of a lot of people by tackling the issue at all. If the OP is open to advice I would offer that his friend should give very careful consideration to who the executor should be and make his intentions clear to them.
He's saying to one of his sisters "here is £50k..You get to decide which children get it" So let's take a step back. Is she happily married and sees the step kids as her own ? If she says "Only the children I gave birth to get a share" would her husband be very upset. How would the step kids feel ?
Hence I would make decision for her.
I feel sure that my own sisters will, is probably designed to upset a few people on purpose. She probably won't leave anything to nephews (2) or nieces (2) or great nephews (5) and nieces (0), but will give it to a God daughter who has no time for her, or some child of a family she lived with in The Cameroon in the 1980s whilst employed by the Catholic Church. Or to a donkey sanctuary.
Am I the only person thinking it's almost impossible to be ambiguous here? Aren't adopted and step children legally equal to children? Meaning that stating "Children" automatically includes any adopted and step kids.
The OP's cowardly friend needs paid legal advice if he genuinely wishes to create a situation in which the kids spend their inheritance on fighting over who gets the inheritance.
The OP's cowardly friend needs paid legal advice if he genuinely wishes to create a situation in which the kids spend their inheritance on fighting over who gets the inheritance.
Zeeky said:
He could leave Mr's B's 50% share directly to her kids in equal shares and Mrs C's 50% share to Mrs C and Mr A's solicitor to hold in a discretionary trust with the named beneficaries including Mrs C's 2 kids, and her 2 step-kids.
If he does that, he's making a decision. He wants to avoid that issue completely, like it never even crossed his mind. The decision has been made, money being left 50% to the children of Mrs B & 50% to the children of Mrs C.
C4ME said:
Having not left Mrs C any say in the matter plus excluding the step children, she and her family will have strong feelings on the subject and he will get the blame.
Weird way of trying to manage your reputation after death.
Why. By not mentioning the step kids, it could mean he never wanted them to get any money, or it might mean he never considered for a moment they would be treated any differently to bio kids. Mrs C and the step kids will have no idea which one is true. Weird way of trying to manage your reputation after death.
Edited by C4ME on Friday 29th November 03:52
Pit Pony said:
One question I have is whether he might state "Biological or Legally Adopted Children of Mrs C"
Then he's making a decision to exclude the step kids. Exactly what he wants to avoid. They aren't legally adopted by Mrs C. Why would they be, they have a mum. And a dad, who is married to Mrs C TwigtheWonderkid said:
If he does that, he's making a decision. He wants to avoid that issue completely, like it never even crossed his mind.
The decision has been made, money being left 50% to the children of Mrs B & 50% to the children of Mrs C.
Seems a bit unfair for the 3 kids of B...The decision has been made, money being left 50% to the children of Mrs B & 50% to the children of Mrs C.
Pit Pony said:
Richard-D said:
I'm going to go against the majority of people on this thread and say that I have some sympathy for the guy's position here. These are not easy things to talk about for everyone and this is compounded by different perceptions of what is 'fair'. He's already doing better than a hell of a lot of people by tackling the issue at all. If the OP is open to advice I would offer that his friend should give very careful consideration to who the executor should be and make his intentions clear to them.
He's saying to one of his sisters "here is £50k..You get to decide which children get it" So let's take a step back. Is she happily married and sees the step kids as her own ? If she says "Only the children I gave birth to get a share" would her husband be very upset. How would the step kids feel ?
Hence I would make decision for her.
I feel sure that my own sisters will, is probably designed to upset a few people on purpose. She probably won't leave anything to nephews (2) or nieces (2) or great nephews (5) and nieces (0), but will give it to a God daughter who has no time for her, or some child of a family she lived with in The Cameroon in the 1980s whilst employed by the Catholic Church. Or to a donkey sanctuary.
I can see how someone might look for a way to make sure his blood descendants got everything but wanted to do it in such a way as he didn't upset people or make them remember him in a bad light. It sounds like the actions of a person who isn't confident and feels like they have to second guess everything. Life's difficult for people like that. Lots of things are very easy if you're arrogant and pig headed. It's unfair but that's just reality.
Your sister's sounds like a guaranteed mess. I don't envy whoever has to deal with that.
I had a difficult to deal with situation with my Dad's will last year. My brother didn't like what he had decided and went out of his way to make the process as hard as possible. As we were both executors he had quite a lot of potential to mess things up. As a result mine will be extremely clear and the executor will be very carefully chosen and instructed.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
C4ME said:
Having not left Mrs C any say in the matter plus excluding the step children, she and her family will have strong feelings on the subject and he will get the blame.
Weird way of trying to manage your reputation after death.
Why. By not mentioning the step kids, it could mean he never wanted them to get any money, or it might mean he never considered for a moment they would be treated any differently to bio kids. Mrs C and the step kids will have no idea which one is true. Weird way of trying to manage your reputation after death.
Edited by C4ME on Friday 29th November 03:52
Writing the will as '50% to the children of Mrs C' (your words) excludes the step children, that much should be beyond dispute. A will written that way will be interpreted as deliberately excluding the step children by Mrs C and her family.
Edited by C4ME on Friday 29th November 19:25
TwigtheWonderkid said:
He is going to say "the children of". If that means step kids are excluded, he's not bothered. But the point is, Mrs C and the step kids won't know he knew that at the time he made the will.
Anyone spending 5 minutes researching the subject will learn about what the law says about inheritance and the professional obligations of solicitors and know that he will have been told at the time of drawing up the will what it will mean. There's no artful ambiguity here and the lawyer will have told him that unless they're negligent.TwigtheWonderkid said:
It may be the easiest way, but it totally negates what he is trying to achieve.
These are his requirements.
1. He cannot leave the money to his siblings. There are reasons for this that aren't relevant to this discussion.
2. He wants to leave it to his nephews and nieces
3. There are step nephews and nieces. He doesn't want to be seen to include them to the annoyance of Mrs Mrs B and the bio kids. He doesn't want to be seen to exclude them to the annoyance of the step kids and Mrs C.
He wants to leave it open, just by leaving it to the kids of the 2 sisters. That means the stepkids may or may not be included, and he doesn't care either way. But after his death, he doesn't want anyone to think he deliberately made the decision to include or exclude them. Deliberately being the key word. Obviously, they will either inherit or not, but so long as no one can say he included/excluded them.
I think I've had the answer back on P1. He can be as ambiguous as he likes. You don't have to name specific people, and you can say "the children of x".
he knows exactlyThese are his requirements.
1. He cannot leave the money to his siblings. There are reasons for this that aren't relevant to this discussion.
2. He wants to leave it to his nephews and nieces
3. There are step nephews and nieces. He doesn't want to be seen to include them to the annoyance of Mrs Mrs B and the bio kids. He doesn't want to be seen to exclude them to the annoyance of the step kids and Mrs C.
He wants to leave it open, just by leaving it to the kids of the 2 sisters. That means the stepkids may or may not be included, and he doesn't care either way. But after his death, he doesn't want anyone to think he deliberately made the decision to include or exclude them. Deliberately being the key word. Obviously, they will either inherit or not, but so long as no one can say he included/excluded them.
I think I've had the answer back on P1. He can be as ambiguous as he likes. You don't have to name specific people, and you can say "the children of x".
1) The position of all the children
2) The issues
3) He is not making a decisiion
4) He is leaving it to someone else to effectively wash his hands of it.
The position is - it will be executors that make the decision, and after much hair pullig and copiious legal fees there will probably be a scheme of family arrangement.
the only winnners are the laweyers
Frankly he is being a prize
in not making a decisionRichard-D said:
I can see how someone might look for a way to make sure his blood descendants got everything but wanted to do it in such a way as he didn't upset people or make them remember him in a bad light.
But that's not his intention. He doesn't care if the step kids inherit or not. He just cares that he can make the will in such a way that it looks like he never even gave the matter a moment's thought. TwigtheWonderkid said:
But that's not his intention. He doesn't care if the step kids inherit or not. He just cares that he can make the will in such a way that it looks like he never even gave the matter a moment's thought.
Will we be getting the Jeremy Kyle update or will it remain a mystery ?TwigtheWonderkid said:
It may be the easiest way, but it totally negates what he is trying to achieve.
These are his requirements.
1. He cannot leave the money to his siblings. There are reasons for this that aren't relevant to this discussion.
2. He wants to leave it to his nephews and nieces
3. There are step nephews and nieces. He doesn't want to be seen to include them to the annoyance of Mrs Mrs B and the bio kids. He doesn't want to be seen to exclude them to the annoyance of the step kids and Mrs C.
He wants to leave it open, just by leaving it to the kids of the 2 sisters. That means the stepkids may or may not be included, and he doesn't care either way. But after his death, he doesn't want anyone to think he deliberately made the decision to include or exclude them. Deliberately being the key word. Obviously, they will either inherit or not, but so long as no one can say he included/excluded them.
I think I've had the answer back on P1. He can be as ambiguous as he likes. You don't have to name specific people, and you can say "the children of x".
In this tiny corner of weirdness that we're all shouting at the clouds on the matter, this one stands out to me: Why should Mrs B be annoyed how the other half of the inheritance is split? I get he wants to skip past the sisters, but without that it is a 50:50 split, so Mrs B's share gets split across her kids and Mrs C's the same (whether just to the 'bio kids' or more widely - I can see it kicking off there, particularly if the step kids have expectations!). So should have no impact on Mrs B or her kids. These are his requirements.
1. He cannot leave the money to his siblings. There are reasons for this that aren't relevant to this discussion.
2. He wants to leave it to his nephews and nieces
3. There are step nephews and nieces. He doesn't want to be seen to include them to the annoyance of Mrs Mrs B and the bio kids. He doesn't want to be seen to exclude them to the annoyance of the step kids and Mrs C.
He wants to leave it open, just by leaving it to the kids of the 2 sisters. That means the stepkids may or may not be included, and he doesn't care either way. But after his death, he doesn't want anyone to think he deliberately made the decision to include or exclude them. Deliberately being the key word. Obviously, they will either inherit or not, but so long as no one can say he included/excluded them.
I think I've had the answer back on P1. He can be as ambiguous as he likes. You don't have to name specific people, and you can say "the children of x".
Or is the hidden question: which of his sisters is he more scared of?!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff