DH left me NOTHING in his will – devastated and fuming

To be honest, before we get round to stipulating who must have a will and what must be left to who, we need a massive overhaul of the whole will and probate system.

currently it is entirely possible for an unscrupulous executor to keep the whole lot. You can’t see the accounts or where the money is or has gone, because only the executor has access to that information. Yes you can take the legal route to force them, but that costs anywhere between 20-50k plus. The police can’t do anything because you can’t show they have stolen the money or committed a crime without the estate accounting.

most people let it go because there’s a very real chance they’ll spend more on legal fees than they will inherit. And most can’t afford to challenge an executor on principle.

Sorry, I didn't mean to say you thought it should be changed and I agree it doesn't. It would just be more money for the solicitors.

I really can't see how you could monitor it and where it would end - regular reviews (more money)? My Mum's will dated back to when I was a baby - I was referred to as the infant child and it discussed who would look after me if both parents died! The solicitors were no longer practicing, one of the executors was dead and the other no longer wanted to do it so I had to be administrator. By the time all this was found out both parents had died. They still had valid wills though.

I'm not saying that i agree it should be changed. I don't think it needs changing. Like i said, this is why we have instestacy laws.
But in order for what the poster is proposing to happen the whole lot would need an overhaul.
My mum didn't need a will. Small estate way below the threshold and everything in joint names with my dad. There are thousands of people in that situation. The only winners will be the solicitors

Yes really. People who don’t own property or have savings would have a very quick and clear cut will, wouldn’t they?

Also, some of the people who need wills most are those who live together and become financially dependent on each other but aren't married. It's hard to see how they could be identified and forced to make a will when the whole point of their relationship is that it's unknown to the authorities.

Really? What about people who have almost nothing to leave, which is probably the majority of the population? It seems a ridiculous over-reaction to insist that everyone makes a will, just because some people who really do need one don't get round to it. Your proposal would result in a lot of money for solicitors and will writers to write wills that would replicate what the intestacy laws would have done anyway in many cases.

If the family structure is not simple and there is a lot of money to leave, an individual needs a will that reflects their individual circumstances.

We could do with more public awareness about the legal consequences of getting married or not getting married, making a will or not bothering, when a will needs updating, and so on, but surely personal responsibility comes into this.

Would that mean that DIY wills would no longer be permitted? Surely this is going to mean that people won't be able to afford wills.

I know there’s no legal requirement. That’s my whole point. There should be.

So you’re wilfully misrepresenting what I’ve written.

Righty ho

At the minute there's no legal requirement to log a will anywhere while you're alive. Mine is in a box in my house. My family know where it is. So this would need to be changed as well

i’m not confused about the law. Your responses seem to be more your moral opinion.

It’s so incredibly complicated when second marriages have existing children involved from previous relationships.

People should have everything clearly explained so they can make informed decisions as your husband did.

Yes. In spite of the fact that my husband wrote a will after he married me, he was unaware of the law in Scotland regarding "legal rights" which come into play no matter what is in the will.

For example, this meant that any car in his name would have counted as part of his moveable estate, necessitating that I pay his adult children one third of the value of the car. Once he realised, our last car was put in my name.

It should be a legal requirement that you have a will written within x amount of time of marrying.
People who do not comply would be fined.

I agree but given that a will only comes into play when someone dies in not sure how this would be enforced so i assume this is why we have the laws of intestacy and the chain that goes with it.

You’re either wilfully misrepresenting what I’ve written or you are genuinely confused.

Right. From the person who is arguing that his will should stand up even though he’s got remarried again and didn’t write a new will 🙄

I've just re read all her posts and i don't actually think that's what she's proposed. She's just finding out what the law says. She's in shock and she's looking at her own children but i can't see anything anywhere that actually says that she'd leave them without a penny

“Since then he remarried so presumably he either didn’t know the law (unlikely given he got divorced and wrote a will)”

This is a really ridiculous statement when you have the evidence of this thread to see how few people understand the full complexities of second marriages, exiting children, wills and inheritance.

Most people write a new will while they get divorced, so that there ex doesn’t inherit from them so yes at the time he probably did write it for that reason and being newly single. I wrote one as soon as I got divorced.

Since then he remarried so presumably he either didn’t know the law (unlikely given he got divorced and wrote a will) or didn’t think he had too due to remarrying.

Are you actually divorced? Have you actually been through this with a solicitor?

I didn't mean it was a guarantee i just meant that if kids are to inherit it's more likely after the second parent dies.
In the case of divorce and remarriage it would be more usual for a new will and them to be named and I'm a case similar to the OP a lifetime interest in the house is usually set up.

We have nothing from their mother so that's will never be an issue (why on earth would we want anything of hers?). We don't have children together, hence me mentioning my godchildren - they are included as it's unfair that his children get everything.

In our case we have a one bedroom flat and selling it to release the money to any of the children would effectively leave the surviving partner homeless as there wouldn't be enough money to buy another home.

I have no intention of leaving his kids out of my will, I wouldn't dream of doing that but I don't think it's unreasonable to want to keep my home while I'm still alive!

It depends. My dad died when I was young, everything went to my mum. There was a lot of money.

mum’s never worked so 30 years later she’s in her 80’s and there’s none left 🤷‍♀️ she’s lived a good life with plenty of luxuries and holidays. The million pound house has been sold, the money gone.

when she dies I may get a few thousand, that’s it.

dh’s parents left all their money to his sister. He got nothing.

my brother remarried. His first wife got everything in the divorce, he walked away with a rucksack after she had an affair. He and his second wife started from scratch, with her providing deposits etc, and facilitating him supporting his kids. Why should she have to give everything to his kids?

nobody is guaranteed money from parents. They can leave their money to whoever the want.

if wives are to be disinherited in favour of kids then that should apply to all marriages.

You can’t guarantee a first wife won’t remarry and leave the house to her new husband either. If she doesn’t make a will that is what happens.

why are we only applying this rule to second wives? Anyone with kids can disinherit them.

True, except she is proposing that only her children get the house when she passes on, and that the children from the first marriage get Zero from their fathers estate - which may also include their mothers estate.

I’m pretty sure I stated that I think there should be legal obligations on people to do this rather than guidance.