General Chat

I may be a beneficiary of a will which states that a percentage of the estate was left to a,b,c,d,and e " it then goes on to say " provided that if any of the beneficiaries referred to above is already dead or predeceases me the share of my estate to which such beneficiary would be entitled if he or she survived me share be held in trust for such of his or her children(if any) as are living at my death and attain the age of 21 in equal shares per stirpes and so that no issue shall take whose parents are living at my death and capable of taking" b person had predeceased him and had three children two of which had died before her leaving one living child there is now issues as to the wording of the will i.e. "Living at my death " does that mean that the only living child inherits the mothers full share ?
Thanks Pam

This matter has continued on for the last few months with nothing having been done until last week when my aunt whose with her son my cousin are executors of the will although they have passed it too a solicitor to deal with spoke to me telling me that , seems the solicitor has decided that the will is ambiguous and is called a contentious will so will probably have to go before a court to decide what happens , that is until today when my cousin phoned me to say the solicitor wants to speak to me and want to know if I will accept an offer of a percentage of the inheritance and the balance then shared between the others , I have to think about it and let them know, I have never heard of this sort of thing happening has anyone else or is this normal

Pam :-)

I'm no legal eagle but I would read it as meaning that only the living child of "b" would inherit the mother's full share when/if that child reaches the age of 21.

Kath. x

Are those "issues" between lawyers or between non-lawyers, ie possible beneficiaries?

It reads as a very legalese phrasing .............. which means that any lawyer should read it as it was meant.

Thanks for replying, I am the only surviving child of B and originally I was informed by the solicitor that I would inherit my mothers full share, she has now 6 months later said that the wording is ambiguous and that it will go to my late sisters children, so I am very confused , this is a life changing amount of money involved and I have only been told that it has been sent to a barrister for him to decide

Pam

Go to a solicitor straight away. You need a person who knows what they are doing.

I agree with Pat.
This needs resolving as quickly as possible hopefully before barrister's fees use up a lot of the money.

As a non legal person, I too would read that a sole child of b. would inherit their parent's share, as the will states ' children of ' and not descendants of.

I think a solicitor specialising in family law is needed. However, there was something similar in a will of one of my mother's brother's. My Mum's sister died before him and when the will was divided between beneficiaries the share of the estate that should have gone to the sister was then divided between that sister's two living children. That happened twice in Mum's family and in one case it even meant tracing the living grandchildren of the deceased, even though those 'grandchildren' had been adopted out of the family at birth.

I agree that you need proper advice on this.

The usual way is as Ann says. Each deceased beneficaries share is divided amongst their own children. So my cousins have each received more than my siblings and I as there are fewer of them.

I was surprised at the adopted out children receiving something from the will as when you watch 'Heir Hunters' the adopted out children get nothing but the asopted in get a share.

Why does the solicitor think it's ambiguous? I'd imagine they meant the living children of deceased B but not the grandchildren of any named person.

If the Barrister interprets it in favour of the other 'children', do you think they'd be willing to make a Deed of Variation? Unless there is a massive Estate involved, it would probably cost too much to challenge it in Court especially as you could still lose.
...

We're going to have 'interesting times' when OHs parents eventually die. We came across a copy of their sealed Wills when looking for something else. They did offer to let us read them, which we refused. Rather than mirror wills then the last person's estate to be divided between their 2 children in its entirety, they've left bequests to 'the boys' (their daughter's children) rather than 'the children' which would include ours. However 'unfair' it may seem, we'll have to respect their wishes when the time comes & encourage our children to do the same.

Yes, if B is deceased then their share is divided among any of their children who were still alive at the time of the death AND who reach the age of 21.

If any of B's children were already deceased the their line is not entitled.

However, it would be necessary to see the entire Will in case there is something else that isn't clear from the above.

Thanks everyone for replying and for the advise given, I agree with all of you that everything left to B should go to her surviving child that's what the will states and how the solicitor can find it ambiguous amazes me. I think I should speak to a solicitor about this as it is a life changing amount of money involved in this at one time about 10 years ago the sum of £100.000 was talked about. As to the others making a deed of variation I think the words of snowball in hell come to mind. Hubby and I made arrangements to make new wills and I am going to make sure they are very simple and nothing that can cause any problems for those left behind.
Again thanks very much advise really appreciated
Pam

Hope all goes well for you :-)

I've been in a similar situation, why they think it's not clear is weird. The one person was to inherit but they died. Therefore it goes to their children. If any of them have died before the will is read then hard luck so to speak and it goes to the living child unless the will had said and if they too have died it goes to their children eg grandchildren.
The only problem area would be if one of the named people had died before the will was read and they had no children or it said their children were not to inherit then their share goes back into the pot so to speak.

Get good legal advice now as this person dealing with the will doesn't know what they're on about or is being pushed by somene else.

Have you had any luck sorting the meaning of the wording yet?

This matter has continued on for the last few months with nothing having been done until last week when my aunt whose with her son my cousin are executors of the will although they have passed it too a solicitor to deal with spoke to me telling me that , seems the solicitor has decided that the will is ambiguous and is called a contentious will so will probably have to go before a court to decide what happens , that is until today when my cousin phoned me to say the solicitor wants to speak to me and want to know if I will accept an offer of a percentage of the inheritance and the balance then shared between the others , I have to think about it and let them know, I have never heard of this sort of thing happening has anyone else or is this normal

Seems like we are back to advising you to get your own legal advise.

These links to commercial sites may help you understand what a contentious will is all about :

http://www.lelaw.co.uk/cms/document/Guide_to_contentious_probate.pdf

http://www.convenient-wills.co.uk/what_is_contentious.html

Personally, I would want the offer in writing not via a relative.

I have spoken to a solicitor who has said that they are interpreting the will incorrectly but the next step could be to take my aunt and cousin to court as the executors so that's an ouch!!!!

I think you really ought to get legal advice.

However, I think the testator means that a, b, c, d and e are entitled to equal amounts. If they are the only beneficiaries that would mean 20% each.

If b (your mother) was dead at the time of the testator's death, her share would pass to her children living at the time of the testator's death.

You mention your late sister. As I understand what you wrote, if your sister was alive at the testator's death, she would be entitled to a share of your mother's inheritance and her children would therefore inherit that share upon her death.

Edit: If your sister was already dead at the time of the testator's death (had predeceased the testator) then her children would not inherit.

For anyone under 21, their inheritance would be held in trust until they attain the age of 21.

That is how I read your post re the will. I'd be interested to know what happens.

You need legal advice NOW !
You wouldn't have to take them to court, they can't discharge the will as it stands now. Don't accept anything not even verbally.
If it needs to go to court they will cover the costs from the estate.
Sounds very strange their lawyer asking you to take a % very strange indeed.

BE CAREFUL

I wonder what their reaction was when you told them your own solicitor didn't agree with their own one?

Presumably under your own reading of it they would not be getting as much as they would with this offer. Do they know they can claim expenses from the estate and that they are personally liable if it is later found that they distributed the inheritance wrongly?