Sibling unhappy with parent's will

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.
 
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.
 
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.

.
Click to expand...

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.
 
"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
 
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'.
 
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?
 
suarez said:
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'.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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?
Click to expand...

Excellent advice.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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. ...
Click to expand...
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).
 
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...


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. :)
 
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.
 
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 ....?
 
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.."

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I think, unless otherwise provided for in legislation, a child is a child of any age.
 
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?
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top