# Contesting a will



## dodo (16 Nov 2012)

A friend of mine who has 5 siblings one living at home with last remaining parent up until he died.
The will was read out leaving the family home to the single son who was living with parents all his life.He lived here by choice as suited him  ie no bad health with parents,just one of these sons who are happy to live at home,
House value about 500K ,the other four children where left 10K each cash,
The question is can this be challenged as the other siblings thought house would have been sold and divided between them,
The thoery is the will was made as the other four had their own houses and this son had none even though they all have mortgages on their homes to service for next 20 years,all with children(just a point) 
So can they contest the will in relation to house been left to only one son,

NB Just an opinion here, To me it seems unfair that one son gets away without having the pressure of ever having a mortgage while the others some who have not worked for over 4 years have to struggle,


----------



## STEINER (16 Nov 2012)

It does seem unfair that parents treat one son very generously compared to the rest. However, the parents wanted the one son to inherit the house and the will reflects their wishes.  Provided that the will was properly drawn up and parents were mentally ok at time, I don't think the other siblings can contest the will.


----------



## huskerdu (16 Nov 2012)

Here is the relavant extract from www.citizensinformation.ie about the rights and children to their parents estate/ 


"Unlike a spouse/civil partner, children have no absolute right to inherit their parent's estate if the parent has made a will. However, if a child considers that he/she has not been adequately provided for, he/she may make an application to court. The child need not be a minor or be dependent in order to use this procedure. The court has to decide if the parent has "failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means". Each case is decided on its merits and the court looks at the situation from the point of view of a "prudent and just" parent. Anyone considering challenging a will on these grounds should get legal opinion before applying to the court."


----------



## danial3262 (23 May 2013)

Unfortunately there isn't much you can do in this scenario. I'd recommend hiring a reputable private equity lawyer to see if there are any loopholes. But as people have said, if your parents were mentally stable at the time the will was finalized, it doesn't look good for the other members of that family.


----------



## JoeRoberts (23 May 2013)

While it may seem unfair, parents often value greatly the company and security of a child living with them in old age. Other siblings don't often see this side of things. Often this takes a great deal of pressure off the other siblings as it reduces their time spent looking after their parents in the last few yrs which can be very difficult. So they may want to put a value on that.


----------



## Bronte (24 May 2013)

dodo said:


> He lived here by choice as suited him ie no bad health with parents,just one of these sons who are happy to live at home,
> ,


 
There is a reason the parents left the house to this son, he didn't do as well in life as the others maybe, he stayed at home and looked after them, they enjoyed the fact that he lived there and they as mature adults decided that leaving him the house was the right thing to do. 

If we were talking about a house worth 50K I'd say the question wouldn't even be asked.

Maybe sometimes children should respect their parents wishes, where there is no unfairness, malice, will coercien etc.


----------



## RichInSpirit (24 May 2013)

It sounds like your friends family are hungry money grabers.


----------



## murphaph (25 May 2013)

RichInSpirit said:


> It sounds like your friends family are hungry money grabers.


Very quick to judge there. We don't know the details. The son may have been a godsend to the parents or just a leach. The other siblings might have good moral, if not legal grounds for being upset.


----------



## declanja (25 May 2013)

I think the parent's thinking might have been that the son that lived at home was taking on the responsibility of being the child they would be most dependant on if they did become ill or more dependant.


----------



## emeralds (25 May 2013)

dodo said:


> NB Just an opinion here, To me it seems unfair that one son gets away without having the pressure of ever having a mortgage while the others some who have not worked for over 4 years have to struggle,



It might seem unfair to others that that one son may not have been able to leave the family home and make his own way in life due to feeling under pressure to stay with his parents and look after them....
Who knows what the true facts are....


----------



## Tebbit (26 May 2013)

murphaph said:


> Very quick to judge there. We don't know the details. The son may have been a godsend to the parents or just a leach. The other siblings might have good moral, if not legal grounds for being upset.




Whether he was a godsend or a leach is immaterial I think,  Parents mostly love all their children and so if he was a leach I suppose they didn't want him to be homeless and wanted him to be looked after, to have a somewhere to live for the rest of his life // if he was  a godsend they were rewarding him for his goodness to them. If this is what the parents wanted then it should be left as such even though I agree it can be hard to see someone get so much of their parents estate while some of the rest of the family are struggling with mortgages. Just get over it is what I would say.


----------



## murphaph (26 May 2013)

normahorse said:


> Just get over it is what I would say.


Easy for outsiders to say I suppose. The house is apparently a lot more than just "a roof over the son's head" as it is worth a substantial amount of money. If it's just about a roof over his head he could buy a flat or small house.

The parents may have failed in their moral obligation to their other kids if they've all got hefty mortgages and negative equity. That is now for a court to decide if they so wish. Unfortunately if they wish to go this route the only guaranteed winners are the legal eagles.


----------



## Bronte (28 May 2013)

murphaph said:


> The parents may have failed in their moral obligation to their other kids if they've all got hefty mortgages and negative equity. .


 
That's an amazing viewpoint.  Are you saying that adult children who make financial decisions that are costly place a moral obligation on parents to help them out financially?


----------



## murphaph (28 May 2013)

I think the law says it to be honest. It does not care if the child is an adult or not. I have been very careful in my choice of language here. We do not know the facts and simply are in no position to state any certainties. Hence the use of the word "may".


----------



## CharlieH (18 Jun 2013)

There could be many sides to this, the son could have actually wanted to leave but felt obligated to stay, he might have done jobs for them etc. If they split the house between the six of them, taking fees etc into account and the fact that house might not have sold for that amount, it doesn't leave them much, which would have been ok for the one who already had a house but not for the son who had lived there all his life. He would have lost his home and maybe not had enough to buy somewhere of his own. He might not want to move but his siblings would have forced him so that they could have their share of the money. The parents may well have been trying to avoid all of this. Nobody knows the real situation, the other son may have had mental health issues the rest of them didn't know about etc.
It might look as though they're ignoring their other children but none of us know how they might have helped them financially over the years. I'd be very wary of contesting something like this.


----------



## Gerry Canning (18 Jun 2013)

huskerdu said:


> Here is the relavant extract from www.citizensinformation.ie about the rights and children to their parents estate/
> 
> 
> "Unlike a spouse/civil partner, children have no absolute right to inherit their parent's estate if the parent has made a will. However, if a child considers that he/she has not been adequately provided for, he/she may make an application to court. The child need not be a minor or be dependent in order to use this procedure. The court has to decide if the parent has "failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means". Each case is decided on its merits and the court looks at the situation from the point of view of a "prudent and just" parent. Anyone considering challenging a will on these grounds should get legal opinion before applying to the court."


 ..................................................................................
Few points.
1. Looks very like will was properly done.
2. it was the option chosen by the parent.
By all means take GOOD advice but can I suggest err on the side of not going into challenge in court. Unless there is some compelling reason to adjust the will, it is best left as is.
3. Will challenges by their nature seem to get a (nasty) life of their own.
4. Court needs to decide a (failed in moral duty) . looks like a high bar in this case.


----------



## j26 (17 Jul 2013)

Children challenging their parents will is done under Section 117 of the Succession Act, 1965.

The Courts hate interfering with a persons will, and will only do so if there is a clear failure in the parents duty.  It's rarely upheld, as everything is taken into account (e.g. did the parents fund any of the children through college or provide deposits for houses, are some of the children wealthy, so the parent would likely have decided to help only the one that needed help, the childrens behaviour, etc)

A will does not need to be equal to be fair.  Anyway, the courts will not look at fairness - the test is _"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*"_
(Each bolded part is a hurdle the challenger has to get over)


----------

