While padraigb is correct, the problem is that the children may take a case under s117 of the Succession Act 1965, at the expense of the estate to determine adequate provisions. If the kids felt hard done by and took a case, Messrs. Sue, Grabitt & Runne (Solicitors) might benefit most and there would be nothing left for Battersea Cats and Dogs Home (Prop B Burgesss)
Unless all your adult children are either total plonkers or they have no issues with recesion - why would you not leave it to them? On the other hand sell it all now
and spend it. You could favour disadvantaged children more.
117.—(1) Where, on application by or on behalf of a child of a testator, the court is of opinion that the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means, whether by his will or otherwise, the court may order that such provision shall be made for the child out of the estate as the court thinks just. (2) The court shall consider the application from the point of view of a prudent and just parent, taking into account the position of each of the children of the testator and any other circumstances which the court may consider of assistance in arriving at a decision that will be as fair as possible to the child to whom the application relates and to the other children. (3) An order under this section shall not affect the legal right of a surviving spouse or, if the surviving spouse is the mother or father of the child, any devise or bequest to the spouse or any share to which the spouse is entitled on intestacy. (4) Rules of court shall provide for the conduct of proceedings under this section in a summary manner. (5) The costs in the proceedings shall be at the discretion of the court. (6) An order under this section shall not be made except on an application made within twelve months from the first taking out of representation of the deceased's estate.