# Sibling unhappy with parent's will



## Red Head (13 Sep 2014)

Hello all, this is my first post ever so please allow for mistakes! Hoping someone can advise as my solicitor is not the best and unfortunately is my sisters solicitor too so feel he is just trying to keep us both happy.  My story goes, my father passed away a few months ago and I was made co-executor of his will.  The problem boils down to my sister not being happy with the outcome of the will, I was left my dads house and my 3 sisters left the savings equally.  Some months have passed and my sister and I are not speaking now as she constantly wanted to meet to discuss me giving half the house over as feels as the eldest child should have got the house.  Anyway, has dragged her heals, I have done everything and and solicitor is ready to complete things but is missing my sisters(as beneficiary and co-executors CAT form).  My sister has told OUR solicitor she will not hand it in until I meet with her to discuss the house.  It is also expected she will not anyway co-sign off on the estate unless I submit to giving half the house. 

My dads solicitor is also mine & my sisters solicitor and feel he is just trying to keep everyone happy and recommending I meet her etc, I said my wish was to sign on a different day and again my solicitor recommends not doing this probably as will rub my sister up the wrong way.  

Can anyone advise on my options, I do not want to meet her to be bullied into giving up half my inheritance.

Meanwhile the house is locked up tight, winter is coming and there are a number of break ins and worried for it's security.  I have no intension of selling as would like to move into it in the next few years and therefore let it short term.  My understanding as there are two executors I can not make any decision on the house without my sisters agreement, i.e. getting someone in short term to stay there even for free, a friend or such or even engage a private security firm to keep an eye?  

I am at the end of my rope with this, do I have to wait this Executors year to do anything legal about it?  I am not in a hurry but her share is not big enough to be in a hurry either.  I have no problem starting proceedings or even suing for costs associated in keeping the house safe, the grounds are extensive and will need to be maintained, more costs.  Again, any advise welcome as feel I am not getting any real advice from my solicitor.  Thanks


----------



## Thirsty (15 Sep 2014)

She can't change the terms of the will, nor refuse to sign documents as a means of blackmail. I'm reasonable sure it would be possible to get a court order to remove her as executor.  However that will take some time, there's a lot of steps to be gone through first.

I'd suggest trying to meet up over a coffee and see if you can get this ironed out; basically she agrees to act properly as executor or stands aside. If she continues to refuse to do either she can be removed.

In the meantime as executor, you are responsible for protecting the assets, so that means insurance, maintenance etc., right now I personally wouldn't let it out, your costs and expenses can be claimed back from the estate.


----------



## Bronte (16 Sep 2014)

Red Head said:


> My dads solicitor is also mine & my sisters solicitor and feel he is just trying to keep everyone happy and recommending I meet her etc,


 
Is there any valid reason your sister is aggrieved at her inheritence in comparision to yours?

Your solicitor sounds excellent, trying to prevent a full scale family breakdown. 

What is wrong with you meeting your sister, perhaps in a neutral setting, and you and she sorting this out once and for all.


----------



## Bronte (16 Sep 2014)

Thirsty said:


> basically she agrees to act properly as executor or stands aside. If she continues to refuse to do either she can be removed.
> 
> .


 
That kind of thinking will only add fuel to the fire.  Removing an executor is bound to cost money, and cause more acrimony.  Plus she might make a claim under S117 of the Succession act.


----------



## suarez (16 Sep 2014)

There is always the possibility that you could sell the house and share everything equally among the four of you - i.e. your father's savings and the sale price of house. Sometimes the simplest option is the fairest option. It seems that neither you nor your eldest sister are interested in sharing equally - regardless of your father's will.


----------



## Janet (16 Sep 2014)

It has always been my understanding that the duty of an executor is to carry out the wishes expressed in the will. Even if she wanted to, she cannot change the terms of the will. To do so, she would have to officially contest it and I'm not even sure how that works.

What does she expect? That after the estate is wound up you would simply gift her half the house? (And how does that happen, do you live there together, or each live there half the year, or, I assume, sell the house and split the money?). She might feel entitled to the house but if your dad had wanted her to have it, he would have expressed that wish in the will.

Meeting her might be the only way to move forward on this but, from what you have said, you are nervous that she might bully you into something you don't want to do. So I'd suggest having a good friend there, one that will support you and not allow you to be talked into something you don't want. And/or, you might consider engaging another solicitor, one who will be acting only in your intrests and who can perhaps act as something of a buffer or mediator.


----------



## Janet (16 Sep 2014)

suarez said:


> There is always the possibility that you could sell the house and share everything equally among the four of you - i.e. your father's savings and the sale price of house. Sometimes the simplest option is the fairest option. It seems that neither you nor your eldest sister are interested in sharing equally - regardless of your father's will.


Why is sharing everything equally the fairest option? The only option, and therfore also the fairest option, is to follow the wishes of the father and divide the assets up the way he wanted. Sharing equally has no role to play in this, as far as I can see.


----------



## Red Head (16 Sep 2014)

Hi Thank's for your thoughts everyone.  I've been told S117 is not a real option here as we're both in our 40's and some provision has been made equally for all other siblings.  As Bronte asked, there is no valid reason, my wife as have I, had looked after my dad for the last 20 years up to his death and assume his wish to leave the house to me was for this reason.  I did have a meting once with my sister and it was all about wanting half the house as eldest child and have no wish to put myself in that position again and again, I just want this to be over.  Again, thanks for advice all.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 Sep 2014)

> Hoping someone can advise as my solicitor is not the best and  unfortunately is my sisters solicitor too so feel he is just trying to  keep us both happy.



This is a complex problem and you should not be using a solicitor who is "not the best". 

You need to take separate legal advice and you should say to your sister's solicitor that it is best that he represent the executors and that you take separate legal advice.


----------



## suarez (16 Sep 2014)

Janet said:


> Why is sharing everything equally the fairest option? The only option, and therfore also the fairest option, is to follow the wishes of the father and divide the assets up the way he wanted. Sharing equally has no role to play in this, as far as I can see.



Sharing everything is of course the fairest option - regardless of the father's intentions re. the distribution of his wealth to his adult children. The OP - in his original posting - mentioned that the savings spread between the daughters didn't amount to much, whereas the father's property had extensive grounds that required maintenance. There is nothing to stop the OP from redistributing the inheritance in a more equitable way.


----------



## mf1 (16 Sep 2014)

suarez said:


> Sharing everything is of course the fairest option - regardless of the father's intentions re. the distribution of his wealth to his adult children. The OP - in his original posting - mentioned that the savings spread between the daughters didn't amount to much, whereas the father's property had extensive grounds that required maintenance. There is nothing to stop the OP from redistributing the inheritance in a more equitable way.



So - let me get this right. People should not really be allowed to do what they want with their own property? Their own opinion is to be discounted? Really, they should divide everything equally between their offspring? Even though there is no legal obligation/requirement to favour each family member equally?

Even with this; 

"my wife as have I, had looked after my dad for the last 20 years up to his death and assume his wish to leave the house to me was for this reason."

Ah now, really. 

mf


----------



## PatMacG (16 Sep 2014)

suarez said:


> ... There is nothing to stop the OP from redistributing the inheritance in a more equitable way.


Why do wills have to be equitable from the beneficiaries perspective? The testator expressed his wishes and absent any legal obstacle, that's what must happen.

I suggest there are several things to prevent "OP from redistributing the inheritance in a more equitable way.". The obvious ones are:


their father's wishes expressed in the will
the OP's duty as executor to carry out those wishes.

If the OP wishes to gift a portion of the house to their siblings, there are significant costs associated with doing this, reducing the value of the overall estate, and the possibility of CAT on the redistribution.


----------



## Palerider (16 Sep 2014)

Redhead - you hold your ground, your fathers wishes are very clear, disregard all noise and secure what is intended in the will, meet with your sibling and remind her that your job as co-executors is to complete the wishes of the deceased party and that will be done fairly or with a battle if necessary, ask them to think over what way they would like to go over a weekend then carry on yourself regardless.

Meanwhile secure the property, keep all receipts from personal costs incurred securing the property to go against the estate, until this is cleared up the house is not yours, it belongs to the estate and both executors have responsibilities.


----------



## suarez (16 Sep 2014)

mf1 said:


> So - let me get this right. People should not really be allowed to do what they want with their own property? Their own opinion is to be discounted? Really, they should divide everything equally between their offspring? Even though there is no legal obligation/requirement to favour each family member equally?
> 
> Even with this;
> 
> ...



People have very strong feelings on wills / inheritances. I find it interesting that the OP never mentioned that he and his wife looked after the father for 20 years in his original posting. All we've been presented with here is one party's point of view. People can be unreliable narrators and can selectively alter facts to suit the narrative that most stongly supports their desired outcome - which in this case amounts to being the sole inheritor of a large and most likely valuable property. Furthermore, what is legally correct may often times diverge from what is morally correct. It's too simplistic to portray the eldest sister as being some kind of avaricious entity (bad) and to set this construct against the caring son (good) - who merely wishes to carry out the wishes of a benevolent father.


----------



## mf1 (16 Sep 2014)

suarez said:


> People have very strong feelings on wills / inheritances. I find it interesting that the OP never mentioned that he and his wife looked after the father for 20 years in his original posting. All we've been presented with here is one party's point of view. People can be unreliable narrators and can selectively alter facts to suit the narrative that most stongly supports their desired outcome - which in this case amounts to being the sole inheritor of a large and most likely valuable property. Furthermore, what is legally correct may often times diverge from what is morally correct. It's too simplistic to portray the eldest sister as being some kind of avaricious entity (bad) and to set this construct against the caring son (good) - who merely wishes to carry out the wishes of a benevolent father.



For the life of me, I cannot see where you are coming from. OP says sibling wants half the house.

This is what OP says: 

"as she constantly wanted to meet to discuss me giving half the house over as feels as the eldest child should have got the house."

No duress, no undue influence. Plus there is no legal requirement (save in limited circumstances) for parents to benefit adult offspring (a) at all and (b) equally. 

Can you explain on what basis there should be any divergence from the fathers wishes? Why should the will be re-written? Other than to stop the fighting ( never a good enough reason to give in to unreasonable people).

mf


----------



## AlbacoreA (16 Sep 2014)

If you give into one sister. Wouldn't the others feel aggrieved.


----------



## shweeney (16 Sep 2014)

Would there be tax implications if you deviate from the letter of the will? - if the OP accedes to his sister's request he would be gifting her half the house.


----------



## AlbacoreA (16 Sep 2014)

Can't you refuse the inheritance. 

But only if the house AND savings is split equally. TBH I can't see any reason to do this, on the information given. Unless to avoid an row that could continue the rest of your lives. Depends on the family relationship.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (16 Sep 2014)

Keep your inheritance. Sibling not entitled to it. Follow solicitor's advice re. sorting it.


----------



## Red Head (16 Sep 2014)

Thank you again everyone.  It truly is a difficult time and horrible situation to be in.  I think what I have derived from the above advice is proceed as co-executor and do all I can, this way I can not be held accountable for continued costs.


----------



## AlbacoreA (16 Sep 2014)

The final piece of the puzzle is knowing your sister and how this will pan out over the years. Only you know the answer to that part.


----------



## suarez (16 Sep 2014)

Can you explain on what basis there should be any divergence from the fathers wishes? Why should the will be re-written? Other than to stop the fighting ( never a good enough reason to give in to unreasonable people).

I'm not saying that the eldest sister's behaviour is in any way reasonable. I suggested splitting the inheritance equally amongst the 4 of them. I'm of the opinion that the needs of the living should take precedence over those of the dead - i.e. I wouldn't be too worried about the father's wishes or the motivations underlying his decisions re. the will.

The OP is going to do whatever he wants to do anyway. The questions he could ask include:
Is the differential in wealth he accrues from being the sole inheritor of the land as opposed to splitting everything equally, worth the possible long term family turmoil?
'is it possible that the eldest sister will turn all of his family of origin against him - and if so, can he and his wife live with that potential scenario?'
'is there any merit in his sister's claims'? 
'Can he understand why the sister feels aggrieved?
Is there any merit in asking his other sisters for their opinion re. the will? 
Is his present approach of seeing his sister as being a bully and himself as being a potential victim obscuring the truth?

Yes the law is undoubtedly on his side - but the future of his relationship with his family of origin should also be an important consideration.


----------



## PaddyBloggit (16 Sep 2014)

suarez said:


> I'm of the opinion that the needs of the living should take precedence over those of the dead - i.e. I wouldn't be too worried about the father's wishes or the motivations underlying his decisions re. the will.
> 
> .



I totally disagree with this sentiment suarez. What's the point of a will if a person's will isn't adhered to after they pass away?

I would expect, when I am loosed from my mortals coils, that my will be strictly followed. 

The OP's father set out his wishes in his will. I hope the OP will keep his inheritance and tell his sibling to go jump. Nobody is entitled to an inheritance. If the OP's father wanted to leave half or all of the family home to the eldest sibling he would have. Fact is he didn't.

OP cared for his father over the years. Father appreciated this and left him his home. I see nothing wrong with this.

OP ... hold fast and don't give your legacy away to anyone.

Best of luck with it.


----------



## mf1 (16 Sep 2014)

"I'm of the opinion that the needs of the living should take precedence over those of the dead - i.e. I wouldn't be too worried about the father's wishes or the motivations underlying his decisions re. the will."

Well on that basis, we can get rid of the Succession Act so and just divide everything equally!

Repeat after me: testator  has freedom of disposition. End of. 

mf


----------



## suarez (16 Sep 2014)

MF

'Repeat after me: testator has freedom of disposition. End of.'

Your language reminds me of a particularly frustrated and disputatious primary school teacher I had in the 1970s.  He was the type of person that inspired people to cross  the road if they saw him coming.
Your certainty in the efficacy of your argument reminds me of something I read recently '....Modern Stupidy means not ignorance but the nonthought of received ideas'.


----------



## paddi22 (16 Sep 2014)

Surely the father's will should be respected? I notice the sister isn't screaming for the house to be split between all four? I'd have some element of respect for her is she was doing that, but she isn't. If the father wanted her to have half the house he would have said so in his well. It sounds like he appreciated the OP caring for him for over 2 decades and wanted to reward it, as is his right. It's his house, he can do what he wants with it.

OP I am in a similar situation with difficult siblings and the only thing i found to work was to stuck to the facts, ignore drama, refuse to engage in drama and do what i feel is right. If i was you i'd meet with the sister along with a mediator. 

I'd stick to my guns and bring receipts for costs run up on the house since. I'd explain the longer she drags it out, the less money the estate has and she will have.  I wouldn't entertain any talk of getting half the house, she has no right to it and your father didn't want her to have it. 

I'm genuinely baffled why suarez feels the will should be split evenly?? If the father wanted it split that way he would have said. People use money for all kinds of power tricks at times and to control, which is true. But at the end of the day it's his money, and his choice to do what he wants with it, and surely that should be respected.  I can't fathom how anyone would think otherwise. I can only figure you got done out of money on a will at some stage?


----------



## mf1 (16 Sep 2014)

suarez said:


> MF
> 
> 'Repeat after me: testator has freedom of disposition. End of.'
> 
> ...



Practising solicitor. 30 years experience. In the real world. With real people - real situations. Make of that what you will.

Perhaps you're the one with "Modern Stupidy (sic) means not ignorance but the nonthought of received ideas'

PS. Read the Succession Act.

mf


----------



## Bronte (17 Sep 2014)

suarez said:


> . I'm of the opinion that the needs of the living should take precedence over those of the dead - i.e. I wouldn't be too worried about the father's wishes or the motivations underlying his decisions re. the will.


 
Suarez, why make a will at all so, sure why don't we do away with wills altogether? 

In this case it's clear the father's wishes and motivations were to recompensate the son and his wife for looking after him for 20 years. I'm off the firm opinion that children who look after their parents are entitled to get and expect to get more than the other siblings. It doesn't always happen, but looking after parents is in most cases a very kind act and other siblings who do not do this job should accept that their share will be sometimes less.   

The fact that only one sister is seeking more, as the eldest ! speaks volumes.


----------



## Bronte (17 Sep 2014)

paddi22 said:


> Surely the father's will should be respected? I notice the sister isn't screaming for the house to be split between all four? I'd have some element of respect for her is she was doing that, but she isn't. If the father wanted her to have half the house he would have said so in his well. It sounds like he appreciated the OP caring for him for over 2 decades and wanted to reward it, as is his right. It's his house, he can do what he wants with it.
> 
> OP I am in a similar situation with difficult siblings and the only thing i found to work was to stuck to the facts, ignore drama, refuse to engage in drama and do what i feel is right. If i was you i'd meet with the sister along with a mediator.
> 
> ...


 
Excellent advice.


----------



## SlugBreath (17 Sep 2014)

What about your other two sisters have they voiced an opinion or is it just the sister with the elevated sense of self entitlement that is doing all the talking?


----------



## 110quests (17 Sep 2014)

It is difficult to understand why the Solicitor (Who represents both you and your sister) isn't leaning a little heavier on your sister re her obligations as co- executor. Sounds like he was the family solr and doesn't want to cause a family split.

Could OP persuade other sisters to talk to eldest to fulfil her obligations as they are beneficiaries, and that placing obstacles re her demands for half the house is delaying their entitlement. Whose "side" are they on?  

In what appears to be a clear cut will, it is amazing how stubborn thinking is attempting to discredit it.

Suarez seems to advocate dismissing wishes of father. Agree with mfi comment on this. Otherwise inheritances and wills aren't worth the paper written on.

OP needs an alternative solr to help sort this as from what he says the eldest is of a mindset that familial love or regard will not penetrate....unless other sisters can influence.

In the meantime the house in question is costing to maintain (which will be charged to estate) but will deteriorate with time. Is this what eldest sister wants?


----------



## PatMacG (17 Sep 2014)

110quests said:


> It is difficult to understand why the Solicitor (Who represents both you and your sister) isn't leaning a little heavier on your sister re her obligations as co- executor. ...


It's simply not the solicitor's job to instruct clients. The solicitor can only act on instructions *from* clients (the executors in this case).


----------



## 110quests (17 Sep 2014)

PatMacG : Yes indeed. I guess that in these circumstances where the solr is taking instructions from two people with divergent views on the one situation, that it would not be outside the remit of the solicitor to indicate the validity of the will and the necessity to execute it, where one is trying to unravel it?


----------



## SparkRite (17 Sep 2014)

110quests said:


> PatMacG : Yes indeed. I guess that in these circumstances where the solr is taking instructions from two people with divergent views on the one situation, that it would not be outside the remit of the solicitor to indicate the validity of the will and the necessity to execute it, where one is trying to unravel it?




Extremely well put.

Indeed solicitors are not behind in coming forward where it involves their own remuneration.

As regards  idea of ditching the will and doing what "is fair", I don't think that even warrants an answer.
However there is nothing stopping the OP doing what he wishes with the house/property after the event.
Give it all to the sister....knock it down.....sell it......turn it into a harem......or, and wait for this, even live in it.


----------



## WizardDr (17 Sep 2014)

Couple of points:

The Succession Act 1965 has a provision under s117 "....—(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.."

This is a public policy element to the law and is quite simple - a parent must make or have made proper provision for their children. Its not just the future but also what was or was not done. 

Seems reasonable to correct defects in the public interest. Whilst most parents do actually think their children are white swans - but never say it - there are the few that are absolutely insane, vindictive, spiteful or merely delusional about providing for Battersea Dogs Home. Once there is adequate - and this is not a percentage - then gift away to whatever you want - but you brought your children into the world and they should rank in priority.


----------



## 110quests (17 Sep 2014)

Is 'the child' referred to in this paragraph a dependent child or offspring generally. 

Of course the dependent child should be provided for but the adult child ....?


----------



## dereko1969 (18 Sep 2014)

WizardDr said:


> Couple of points:
> 
> The Succession Act 1965 has a provision under s117 "....—(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.."
> 
> ...



Yes but the intent of the legislation is to protect children not adults! Once they've reached majority then it's less of an issue, and in the OPs case they "children" are all in their 40s.


----------



## PMU (18 Sep 2014)

dereko1969 said:


> Yes but the intent of the legislation is to protect children not adults! Once they've reached majority then it's less of an issue, and in the OPs case they "children" are all in their 40s.


  I think, unless otherwise provided for in legislation, a child is a child of any age.


----------



## paddi22 (18 Sep 2014)

hypothetically what would happen if one sibling had been physically or mentally abusive towards the father? Would they still be able to demand a larger share than was left to them in will?


----------



## mf1 (18 Sep 2014)

A child has no automatic entitlement to any share of their parent's estate. A parent has full disposing power over their own assets. Section 117 refers to a moral duty - it is not an absolute. 

If a parent wants to leave all of their money to the Cats and Dogs home, they can. That won't be easily set aside if the offspring are grown, healthy and comfortably off.

mf


----------



## elcato (18 Sep 2014)

Guys - while there's nice nuggets here, let's stick to the original question and advise accordingly.


----------



## Buddyboy (18 Sep 2014)

mf1 said:


> A child has no automatic entitlement to any share of their parent's estate. A parent has full disposing power over their own assets. Section 117 refers to a moral duty - it is not an absolute.
> 
> If a parent wants to leave all of their money to the Cats and Dogs home, they can. That won't be easily set aside if the offspring are grown, healthy and comfortably off.
> 
> mf


 
MF, do you ever get tired of (having to keep) saying the same thing? (retorical)

Keep up the good work.


----------



## WizardDr (19 Sep 2014)

Child is any age.


----------



## SlugBreath (20 Sep 2014)

Red Head said:


> As Bronte asked, there is no valid reason, my wife as have I, had looked after my dad for the last 20 years up to his death and assume his wish to leave the house to me was for this reason.



Were you living with your father during that time? Was he ill?

Maybe your elder sister thinks there was a bit of undue influence over the 20 years?

As joint executors would you both have been aware as to the contents of the will before your Dad died?


----------

