Forum menu
Whoa. This blew up.
I was a bit hesitant to post this because I thought it might make me sound bitter that nothing was coming in my (or my mum’s) direction. That’s certainly not the case, and I know for sure that’s not the case for my mum either. She doesn’t need an inheritance at all, and was certainly not expecting one. She’s a good person.
I guess my point was that if it was me who was dying and I had family ‘supporting’ me then I like to think I’d want to return that help in whatever form I could.
I’m not sure I could live with myself knowing that my family is giving up a lot of time and energy looking after me, and that I’m going to thank them by giving everything I’ve got to... a priest.
Dunno. Just trying to figure out what he might have been thinking. Hence the rhetorical question.
Maybe he did write the will years ago and just never got round to changing it. Simple as that.
Guess we’ll never know.
Maybe if you’re dying the last thing on your mind is “I wonder if my will is up to date”
The evil parasites that are the RSPCA will fight you for every penny though.
I believe Charities have a legal duty laid upon them by the Charity Commission to safeguard their income by litigating disputes of this kind. They have no choice in the matter.
Up to a point both my wife and I feel that part of our role is to make sure that after we die, our children get something from us that helps them in life. If it’s enough to pay a chunk of their mortgage or similar - so much the better. I would hope that our children as they get older, would expect an equal share of our estate from us - minus some charitable donations etc.
Obviously, although pretty comfortable - we are not hugely wealthy. If we had a likely more sizeable estate, we would probably a). Make more charitable bequests and; b). Pay inheritance tax - which hopefully might help the less well off.
Maybe him and the priest were in love?
or even just particularly long standing friends.
If I had just one niece who was a grown adult with their own children (who barely even know me, and I haven't seen for years), and that niece was in a relatively comfortable financial position [mortgage paid, pension coming in - what do they actually need more money for] I might well be thinking that a close friend who perhaps has little was "more deserving". I have no idea how close the priest was, not what your mother's financial position is - but its possible that he thought she would do nothing with it, and in turn it would just become yours. Now given the choice between the money going to a great nephew who I haven't seen in years and barely knew or going to a good friend, who probably doesn't have much in the way of assets (priests tend to live in accommodation provided by the church) I could see it being a relatively rational decision.
Had he known how much he would rely on your mother in the last six weeks of his life he might have seen it differently. But that is only about 0.1% of his whole life, so you have to balance that, against friends and charities that he's associated with for many decades. Indeed if he was actually very close to the priest for 40 yrs and had left it all to your mum, then the priest might well be posting on SingleChurchWorld saying he felt she had just popped up in the last few months to get her inheritance.
I hate the way inheritance means that the lucky keep their offspring lucky, and so on - ensuring that someones prospects in life, and even their children's are in part linked to their grandparents financial prudence, and not living too long. As life expectancy increases it seems to me that the people most likely to inherit are themselves likely getting older and less likely to have their lives radically improved by a lump sum - so why not give it to someone who would.
Perchy is right - but the limitation is only to the moveable property - given that usually the biggest part of the estate is the heritable property you can still make sure your kids know you resent them / their choice of partner! There is however nothing to stop you disinheriting your niece, even in Scotland.
Maybe if you’re dying the last thing on your mind is “I wonder if my will is up to date”
It’s been my experience with dying people that ‘putting their affairs in order’ is actually quite high on their list of priorities.
id like to see some law come into force whereby if the direct descendants of the deceased are claiming benefits (and perhaps step-children too), giving them x% trumps whatever is in the will.
Nice idea but perhaps over-simplistic. It rather assumes that everyone gets on with their family and the kids aren't wrong 'uns. Would you want hundreds of thousands of pounds automatically going to an estranged son with an extensive criminal record and a raging Class A habit who you kicked out of the house twenty years ago?
As life expectancy increases it seems to me that the people most likely to inherit are themselves likely getting older and less likely to have their lives radically improved by a lump sum
Aside from the house you're in, there are means of transferring your money other than just "death." In that situation, why not pass on some of the inheritance earlier whilst you can still watch your kids / grandchildren enjoy it? Pay for University tuition fees or a family holiday maybe.
Maybe if you’re dying the last thing on your mind is “I wonder if my will is up to date”
Some don’t have time, they don’t have the capacity or indeed just don’t give it a thought.
Or maybe to avoid arguments of who got more then others they dump it outside the family.
Random (unpleasant) thought and it'd be hard to prove but, is it possible he was persuaded into doing what he did?
@poly - that all makes sense and sounds perfectly rational. You’ve assumed/described my mum’s financial position pretty accurately, and I hadn’t really considered the situation in this way. Thanks.
So that money going back to the Treasury would be directly fed back to those in need? There’s wishful thinking and then there’s pure fantasy.
Nope, but those governments* made sure you were born safely, educated, fed and housed if you fell on hard times, provided infrastructure for you to make money, kept you safe, paid you a pension through old age, and kept you alive as long as practicable.
Doesnt need to be hypothecated into social welfare to do more good than perpetuate a middle class.
Which would be better, a few percent more on income tax stifling everyones spending power. Or cutting a massively unequally distributed windfall?
*of varying colours and enthusiasm for raising taxes and spending money.
I believe Charities have a legal duty laid upon them by the Charity Commission to safeguard their income by litigating disputes of this kind. They have no choice in the matter.
I'm not sure its quite as clear cut as that. Trustees have a duty to safeguard the assets bit they do have a choice, because at the very least they need to balance the potential cost of the litigation well as all the other downsides of litigation (time, effort, reputation, impact on future donations etc). The commission has guidance for trustees - it could be read to be pretty much against taking litigation in all but the most extreme cases (when you'd think those advising the other side might be advising their client not to fight it).
. However if there is a seemingly valid will that leaves half of an estate including a "large house" to a large charity like the RSPCA its difficult to see why they would not expect the executor to perform their duties.
Perchy is right – but the limitation is only to the moveable property ......There is however nothing to stop you disinheriting your niece, even in Scotland.
Those are the T&C’s I mentioned
I m pretty sure I heard on r4 moneybox a similar story where all the inheritance went to a charity, the charity refunded it. I ll have a search but it would have been in the last 2 years. I assume it was due to the charity knowing it could be challenged successfully.
If it were me I would seek legal advice, the marketing by charities to clearly pensioners to remember them in their wills is clearly questionable.
Sorry I cannot remember the precise podcast but it was deffo r4 so moneybox or moneybox live. Usually pretty reliable.
OP, is it possible your Great Uncle asked your mum whether she wanted to be in the will, and she refused as she didn't need the money (and didn't want to appear to be in it for the wrong reason?)
My parents looked after my dad's Aunt and Uncle for their last few years. Dad was their executor, and they both did an awful lot for the elders. It was mentioned they were going to be in another copy of the will, and my parents declined. Don't need the money, and were doing it for family anyway. Nice position to be in and all that.
OP, is it possible your Great Uncle asked your mum whether she wanted to be in the will, and she refused as she didn’t need the money (and didn’t want to appear to be in it for the wrong reason?)
Yep, that’s absolutely possible, too. My wife actually suggested exactly this earlier this evening.
Sounds like your folks were in a similar position to mine.
Random (unpleasant) thought and it’d be hard to prove but, is it possible he was persuaded into doing what he did?
Like the first reply said. I know my dad nearly was persuaded by a wrongun.
tjagain
Member
What do I do with mine? If both me and my other half die there is hundreds of thousands to be distributed.
Cake?
My mother recently had her will rewritten to change the bit where, if I were to die before her, my share of her estate would not be split equally between 'my children', as it previously said, but now names my step-daughter and my two boys as getting a third each. Just to make it crystal clear that she expects it to be shared between all three of them, not just my natural children. Which I think is very thoughtful of her. I would hope the boys would come to that conclusion by themselves, but you never know do you...
Our elderly neighbour expired last year, he was very clear in his will that his immediate family (brothers etc) wouldn't get a penny (historic family fall out) and it went to his niece, god daughter, a few friends and then the RNLI and a Hospital Charity.
We helped with the house clearance and some of his immediate family turned up to "help", as in look around for bits and pieces they wanted and got everybody to sort the old photos out for them. As soon as they got what they wanted they buggered off and left the rest of us to finish the work so I can see why they weren't included in the will.
I believe Charities have a legal duty laid upon them by the Charity Commission to safeguard their income by litigating disputes of this kind. They have no choice in the matter.I’m not sure its quite as clear cut as that. Trustees have a duty to safeguard the assets bit they do have a choice, because at the very least they need to balance the potential cost of the litigation well as all the other downsides of litigation (time, effort, reputation, impact on future donations etc). The commission has guidance for trustees – it could be read to be pretty much against taking litigation in all but the most extreme cases (when you’d think those advising the other side might be advising their client not to fight it).
. However if there is a seemingly valid will that leaves half of an estate including a “large house” to a large charity like the RSPCA its difficult to see why they would not expect the executor to perform their duties.
With respect, I think you're both looking at this down the wrong end of the telescope: the fundamental duty of trustees is to the beneficiaries of the charity and their best interests. Income and assets are just vehicles for that. Crucially, this is not necessarily going to be the same as what is in the best interest of the charity. So that's the basis for trustees judging that, if someone's left them a couple of £million house in a will, they are duty bound to receive it since the aggrieved relative isn't who they are there to serve.
Other times the judgement is different and might change: a few years ago the trustees of, I think, the Royal British Legion felt similarly duty bound to accept a donation from the BNP. Until it all kicked off and they changed their minds and sent the cheque back, having reached the judgement that the reputational damage which was being incurred was more deleterious to the interests of their beneficiaries than the value of the donation. But they would have been acting improperly (arguably) if they'd rejected it because they found it distasteful personally - it wasn't their money after all, they hold assets in trust for their beneficiaries.
EDIT: Dunno what I've cocked up with the nested quotes, sorry about that.
Nope, but those governments* made sure you were born safely, educated, fed and housed if you fell on hard times, provided infrastructure for you to make money, kept you safe, paid you a pension through old age, and kept you alive as long as practicable.
Doesnt need to be hypothecated into social welfare to do more good than perpetuate a middle class.
Which would be better, a few percent more on income tax stifling everyones spending power. Or cutting a massively unequally distributed windfall?
Do you think that 100% tax back to the treasury would be measurably better than money given to the families of people that earned what they had? Money that those people will then spend (ie, like myself - I bought a house which attracted sale/purchase costs and the ongoing cost of maintaining and upgrading - I have directly paid many local tradesmen significant sums, much more than they would have got had my parents have to give their lives’ effort back to the Treasury.
My mum died last year and left some money after paying out a fair chunk of care costs. The money I got left in the will I gave to my cousin who had done lots for my mum over the last few years of her life and deserved the money much more than me.
Even the Milibands got a judge to rewrite a will to avoid inheritance tax.....
If she is miffed she can get legal advice.
RSPCA specifically target legacies so read into that what you will. They do go to court to defend their income.
Priest could be similar, just because he is a "man of God" doesn't mean he doesn't want a comfortable retirement
It's very, very unlikely to happen but there is a strong case for 100% inheritance tax.
+ You would create a massive incentive for the living to use their assets productively and not sit on piles of cash*
+ It'd do wonders for social mobility. I've never quite managed to square the circle of why the Tories love the idea of individuals striving to improve their lot with the transfer of vast amounts of unearned wealth.
+ Could be used to reduce other regressive taxes like VAT
*It would be genuinely transformative. As an example, there are 20 houses on my road. All 3 or 4 large family houses, 10 of them occupied by elderly people on their own. At the moment they're stuck - there's nowhere for them to go and no incentive to go. Introduce 100% inheritance and suddenly you'll have folk clamouring to downsize, the market you would hope would start delivering better retirement accommodation and family homes start becoming available. This would be a massive economic stimulus and have huge societal benefits. Old people no longer rattling about in unsuitable homes that they can't maintain while sitting on a pile of cash, waiting to die.
Inheritance tax is one of those things where our political system is failing us - there's a consensus among all main parties that it can't be changed but it can and it would be good. I have no idea why people with no money or wealth in family accept it really.
Agreed that the Tory ideas of individuals' responsibility for their situation and the ease of passing on wealth are so incompatible as to be a joke (and yet sucked up by their voters).
t rather assumes that everyone gets on with their family and the kids aren’t wrong ‘uns. Would you want hundreds of thousands of pounds automatically going to an estranged son with an extensive criminal record and a raging Class A habit who you kicked out of the house twenty years ago?
Nice view you have of people on benefits there Cougar.
I've seen legal claims for contested wills in a professional capacity and they always turn very nasty and usually do not have the outcome the claimant wants.
I think in this position your parents have no chance as they were not and never were financially dependent on your uncle so they don't have (as far as I am aware) any legal grounds to contest unless they feel your uncle was coerced into changing his will. If he hadn't changed it reasonably close to his death there wouldn't be much chance of this.
As to the money side - I've lost out on two significant inheritances - one my gran's and one my dad's but I've not contested either. In fact on my dad's - as it was under French law - I specifically signed the lot over to his wife as to otherwise would have truly left her in the shit.
I had no 'right' to the money and whilst it would have really helped me out at the time there's bigger battles to fight in life.
Do you think that 100% tax back to the treasury would be measurably better than money given to the families of people that earned what they had? Money that those people will then spend (ie, like myself – I bought a house which attracted sale/purchase costs and the ongoing cost of maintaining and upgrading – I have directly paid many local tradesmen significant sums, much more than they would have got had my parents have to give their lives’ effort back to the Treasury.
I think you illustrated the point perfectly by pointing out that your family earnt it. You didnt, you just won the conception lottery.
This is not a personal attack on you. Its an argument against a system that keeps rich families rich.
And yes I absolutely do think it would be better. The treasury has a book to balance, in this case were arguing whether a minority of the well off should be taxed on an unearned windfall Vs the majority being taxed on their income.
Finger in the air, back ofna fag packet calculation, making no allowances for care costs etc. On average everyone has half a house, some people dont, some people have several buy to lets, so on average 1 house per dying couple. About £270k, or £1.5k per year per person (average life expectancy somewhere in the 80s, so divide the house price by 160). The equivelent of putting about 3p on the basic rate of income tax. Thats a huge difference.
My aunt appointed my mum (her SIL) as executer of the estate, it came as a surprise to my mum as my aunt had a brother but no children but she often looked after my brother and I when we were little. However my mum had a good friendship with her and had helped her out and visited regularly as she had always been in poor health, the brother didn't and they hadn't seen each other for over a year.
We didn't know she had any assets and wouldn't have expected anything anyway. It came as a surprise to find out that she had a sizeable estate and that she wasn't leaving it to her brother. She had donated the lot to Cancer Research! We all thought that was brilliant and hadn't expected such benevolence which would benefit millions. The brother wasn't so impressed and wanted to contest it, we were told that there was no chance as charities do persue aggressively. I'm so proud of my aunt
I think in this position your parents have no chance
There’s no question of whether anyone’s going to contest it. No-one’s miffed, or expecting any kind of payout. I just found the situation as described in my OP a bit weird - but then I’ve had very little experience of family bereavements... all my grandparents lived into their late 90’s.
I think this kind of things are quite common and thats why there has been a radio and TV campaign about it.
Lets talk about money i think it was called.My guess is it is the typical British reserve thing , talking about money , income , savings and ultimatly wills and the bequeths (sp) therein.
It is a difficult subject because you have to say you are going to die and leave behind some things , and possibly money. No one really wants those life expectancy defining conversations as they are going to mostly be with your own parents , who raised you and have been there , then won'tbe around anymore.
Yes , it is strange that the OP relative left money to his priest , but if he has been there for years and they became friends then maybe not so strange
This should serve as a reminder to all of us over 40s to get a will sorted out. November is the best time as it's WillAid month.
It's also important to check/update your will every 5 years due to changing circumstances, attitudes etc.
Additionally, power of attorney should be considered too. I don't want to depress you but if you had a nasty crash with a significant head injury, who would make the decisions for you that meet your wishes?
Stay safe kids!
This should serve as a reminder to all of us over 40s to get a will sorted out. November is the best time as it’s WillAid month.
For anyone who has any form of assets or relationships and in particular kids should have a will. It's not just the over 40's who die sometimes...
t rather assumes that everyone gets on with their family and the kids aren’t wrong ‘uns. Would you want hundreds of thousands of pounds automatically going to an estranged son with an extensive criminal record and a raging Class A habit who you kicked out of the house twenty years ago?
Nice view you have of people on benefits there Cougar.
WHAT? I don't think Cougar even mentioned people on benefits. That was you that made that connection wasn't it?
I don't think that the OP's Mother should have cleared the house as that should be dealt with by the Executors of the estate. It is the Executors responsibility to ensure that all assets are distributed as stated in the will and the OP's Mother has been put into a position where she had the opportunity to take a few "mementos" that make up what is in effect the property of the RSPCA and The Priest once probate has been granted.
With the info that the OP has provided in mind, I think that many people would feel his Mum was not the worst person ever if she did help herself to a trinket or twelve.
With that said I would definitely take some advice regarding the RSPCA and the Priests possible involvement in the drafting of the will. Especially if it was left directly to the Priest rather than the church.
It’s been my experience with dying people that ‘putting their affairs in order’ is actually quite high on their list of priorities
...and therefore you have been fortunate.
We’re in this odd state where our mother has been in a care home with dementia for almost five years.
My 83yr old dad moved in to private sheltered accommodation and we can see they tried to encourage their residents to ensure they had a Will in place.
When he passed away a couple of years ago we found the documents, all blank, in his bed-side drawers. So the fairly tangible assets have transferred over to mum and the local authority are and will continue to hoover it up until there is a de-minimus level of £s remaining.
I’m sure that’s not what either of them would have wished for with children and grandchildren but lack of action has meant the council have access to cover care costs.
OP I would consider a chat with a friendly legal expert, the executor or even the Citizens Advice Board. Just to reassure yourself that it was all in order, and the Will was relevant in terms of date and also could not have been manipulated in any way (perhaps when vulnerable). It has happened before sadly.
In English law you have no right to be looked after as a dependent in a will. There are exceptions where the state would otherwise have to provide care for you that was set as case law. An exception for hardship can also be accommodated. But if you are already comfortably off, then there is no reason to expect anything.
My sister has acted in this area for charities, and yes they will defend their position.
Make a will whilst you are still competent. Make certain it is witnessed appropriately by two non-benefactors. Be fair. My mother left her estate to me, my sister, my two step sisters and the children of my dead sister. Equally. I bought a trike and a great 50th birthday party!
My grandad's estate went to his 'new' wife of just a few years. Nothing went to his 3 children, and she was never seen again - she upped and offed with the cash.
The problem is that many charities (the RSPCA included) spend a dis-proportionate amount of money on paying salaries, paying for nice offices etc and very little of it goes back into helping those in need.
Utter tosh, charity finances are very publicly available, go read some and see how much gets put back into the charitable side of the charity.
Wwf has a very nice £5 000 000 sustainable office where they grow bamboo indoors
Bet those hungry pandas in China see the benefits on a daily basis
Yep, as above. If you drew the venn diagram of "people who believe charities are wasteful, self serving bureaucracies " and "people who contribute their time and/or resources to helping others" there would very little overlap. See also "People who believe we should help those in need at home before sending any overseas aid" and "People who actively try and help people at home".
Even the % spend of a charity on admin can be misleading. A horribly under resourced charity that can achieve a low % admin spend might be horribly wasteful because they're not properly managing the money they do spend to get the best result.
This is not a personal attack on you. Its an argument against a system that keeps rich families rich.
I am not rich. I just managed to get a slightly bigger house with a garden. I still have a large mortgage. My parents had nothing at all - my dad had to get an apprenticeship at 16 because he was the oldest male in the family when my granddad died so he could support the rest of his family. The modest sum I received was their effort at having a bit more than nothing.
Great aunt was looked after for years by my mum, mainly, with my dad helping out. None of my aunts / uncles saw or helped her much. She never married, had no kids. We used to see her at our house regularly, quite a lot during her latter years. Owned her own house, had a fair amount of savings. She left everything, the lot, in a last minute will change to the RSPCA.
My uncle died a few years back. Children of the first marriage got squat, nada, not a thing. New wife (of about 18 months, married whilst quite ill) had the lot. She was never seen since.
C'est la vie.
I will leave most all I have to my boys, with a small amount to my niece/nephew. I honestly believe the next generation will need all the help they can get.