# Does a beneficiary to a will have any rights before the person has died.



## SlurrySlump (12 Sep 2012)

Does a beneficiary in a will have any rights before the person has died?

A situation has developed where one of the beneficiaries in a will is trying to stop the owner of a house (the house is willed to 3 people) sell his house before he dies. The owner wants to sell the house and distribute the cash before he dies. One of the beneficiaries wants to wait until the person has died before the house is sold.

He is afraid that he may be forced to use some of the money to take care of the person in the person's old age.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Sep 2012)

I think that the key question here is what is best for testator. It seems to me that he should keep the cash or the house for himself to pay for his care.

But to answer your question, the beneficiary has no rights as such. 

They may have a right or obligation to intervene if they felt that the other beneficiaries were pressurising the testator to do something not in his interest.


----------



## Bronte (12 Sep 2012)

Very sad post.  Dreadful in so many ways.


----------



## SlurrySlump (12 Sep 2012)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I think that the key question here is what is best for testator. It seems to me that he should keep the cash or the house for himself to pay for his care.
> 
> But to answer your question, the beneficiary has no rights as such.
> 
> They may have a right or obligation to intervene if they felt that the other beneficiaries were pressurising the testator to do something not in his interest.


 
Thanks. The testator has savings of about €500k and a monthly pension of c€3.5k. (state pensions). His outgoings per month are c€4k. He is a man in his 90's so there is adequate income to pay for his present care. 

The beneficiary thinks that the € will cease to exist and that the state will no longer pay him his pension when everything collapses.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Sep 2012)

From a tax point of view, it may be advisable to distribute the assets now in case the rates of CAT go up before he dies. 

From a practical point of view, he needs to be able to provide for his own care. 

If he gives an unconditional gift of cash to his 3 children, they are not under any legal obligation to pay for his care. Of course, there would be a huge moral obligation.

If I was the selfish beneficiary, I would welcome him selling the house now and giving me the cash.  As it is, the father may just use his wealth to pay his ongoing expenses.


----------



## mf1 (12 Sep 2012)

"He is afraid that he may be forced to use some of the money to take care of the person in the person's old age. "


Is it only me or is this the most callous post ever posted on AAM? 

A beneficiary has no rights until the testator dies. A will speaks only from death. The testator can change his will at any time. 

If I was the testator, I would be re-writing the will and writing somebody out of it! 

mf


----------



## Graftgirl (12 Sep 2012)

mf1 said:


> "He is afraid that he may be forced to use some of the money to take care of the person in the person's old age. "
> 
> 
> Is it only me or is this the most callous post ever posted on AAM?
> ...



Totally agree with you mf1, 
If I was to receive an inheritance from a relative of that size I would be honoured to contribute back in someway towards their care, this post has come across a bit ruthless alright!


----------



## Slim (12 Sep 2012)

Graftgirl said:


> Totally agree with you mf1,
> ....this post has come across a bit ruthless alright!


 
I don't think OP is ruthless or callous! Quite the reverse, it would seem to me, unless OP was asking the question in the third person for the very reason you have pointed out. Perhaps, OP is interested in thwarting the callous beneficiary? I think the alleged thinking of the beneficiary in question is indeed callous and ruthless, but not OP, as far as I can see.


----------



## STEINER (12 Sep 2012)

Even if the house is sold and proceeds distributed, I think the elderly gentleman has quite sufficient savings and income to fund his living and caring expenses for the rest of his life.


----------



## SlurrySlump (12 Sep 2012)

Slim said:


> I don't think OP is ruthless or callous! Quite the reverse, it would seem to me, unless OP was asking the question in the third person for the very reason you have pointed out. Perhaps, OP is interested in thwarting the callous beneficiary? I think the alleged thinking of the beneficiary in question is indeed callous and ruthless, but not OP, as far as I can see.


 
No the OP is certainly not ruthless or callous. As one of the beneficiaries I was asked to sign a legal document by the callous beneficiary wherby I would undertake not to ask the callous beneficiary for any money toward the upkeep of his father if our father ever ran out of money. He would not contribute 1p toward his upkeep.


----------



## inseventeen (12 Sep 2012)

It would be no harm to let the old Dad know what's happening in this regard, i'd imagine he would be interested and he's entitled to know as well.


----------



## Bronte (14 Sep 2012)

SlurrySlump said:


> No the OP is certainly not ruthless or callous. As one of the beneficiaries I was asked to sign a legal document by the callous beneficiary wherby I would undertake not to ask the callous beneficiary for any money toward the upkeep of his father if our father ever ran out of money. He would not contribute 1p toward his upkeep.


 
I was so shocked at your inital post that I restrained myself. As MF1 says it is probably the worst post yet in relation to wills, and we've had some atrocious ones. 

Your sibling leaves a lot to be desired as a human being. 

It is good that you posted though. Sometimes one despairs of humankind, but slurryslump you do the right thing by your poor old dad.


----------

