To think that wills should be public documents

[GnomeDePlume]

before the testator dies.

Not a TAAT but so many times in RL and on MN I have heard about wills which do the opposite of what was intended or which make assumptions about who should/should not benefit from an estate.

If the will was public then any potentially interested person could read the will. If they dont agree with it then they can raise it with the testator.

As wills are often made many years before the testator dies clauses which seemed perfectly fair at the time can become out of date (eg leaving an estate to named grandchildren can seem like a nice thing until a late arriving grandchild is born and not being named is effectively disinherited).

The testator has to own the decisions they have made rather than leave the executor to deal with everything whe there is nothing they can do to change things.

Tavannach I dont think that parents can make that decision if the terms of the will are legal (if unintentially unfair)

Wills don't need to be fair. It's up to the person making it where they want their assets/money to go.

@Gatoatigrado in DH's GF's case he named his GCs because he wanted them all to know that they had been remembered in the will individually rather than as a group. What he hadnt factored in was that one of DH's aunts would start a family quite late in life. Fortunately DFiL was a sensible and honourable man who spotted the flaw and persuaded DH's GF to amend the clause.

Naming the GCs was done out of kindness but could have gone horribly wrong.

you can't do a deed of variation if the beneficiary is a minor

so if Johnny is the only grandchildren when will is written and the will says i leave Johnny my grandson 10% of my estate, you can't write a deed of variation so Johnny's little sister annabelle ( who was born after will written but before deceased death) gets half of the 10% ie 5% each. This is why it should say 10% shared equally between my grandchildren ( but it would still only be grandchildren alive at death not any subsequent ones)
Johnny gets 10% and if Annabel's parents want Annabel to have 10% too they will have to give it her out of their share but it is illegal to vary Johnny's share.
Because who knows after assets have been distributed another child might appear you then can't take some from them to give to Harry

Which is why you write into your will ‘and any subsequent children born of x and y...’ It’s not rocket science.

you can never cover every eventuality as even if you write subsequent grandchildren
if Person A leaves 10K to his grandchildren Arthur Beatrice Charles and Davina when will is written they would get £2500 each and Edward ( born after will but before death) gets nothing, however if they write my grandchildren and any subsequent grandchildren then they all get 2000 each so Edward doesn't miss out because he wasn't born when will was written but there is no preparing for the late arrival of Francis three years after the death as estate has been distributed and unfortunately Francis gets nothing unless his parents use their own money to set aside 2K for him

Wills and lack there of seem to cause so many issues. My GM said she was leaving their money to grandchildren (they didn't talk to two of their DCs and the one they did talk to apparently said they didn't need the money. My GM did make a comment about said child knowing their wishes... When they both passed it turned out they had left it all to the one DC. Not that there was a lot but I know that this persons children will basically get all the money and non of the rest of us. Which really they don't need as their parents have done well for themselves whereas the other GC's could have really used the money and would have set us up.

At the end of the day it was their money to give away as they see fit.

That said, I do worry my dm hasn't protected her money and her DHs children will get their hands on her money (which came from my grandparents). We can only trust that DM has done what she says she has and eventually that money will come down to us.

TeacupDrama all perfectly clear thank you. I was using that particular will to describe an example of when a well intentioned clause has the potential for an unintentioned outcome. GFiL's intervention (suggesting terms such as those you described) meant that the GF's true wish to remember all his GCs in his will was achieved.

Teacup is describing a situation where someone is born after the testator has died and their assets have been distributed though. Of course a will can’t cover the eventuality of people who don’t yet exist! That’s obvious.

However, if a person is keen to ‘skip’ a generation and leave their estate to their grandchildren, it’s an odd decision to make if it’s likely or even possible further grandchildren will be born who won’t inherit anything. By leaving the estate to one’s children, there is every likelihood the grandchildren will inherit anyway, further down the line when the parents die, so in effect they’re still beneficiaries just one step removed. I still don’t get the logic of naming individuals in a will... if you are bequeathing your estate to people then you are remembering them. You don’t need to name individuals to remember them

‘Of course a will can’t cover the eventuality of people who don’t yet exist! That’s obvious.’

Sorry, should have clarified: people who don’t exist until after the Will has been actioned.

I think a lot of you are giving OP an unreasonably hard time, jumping to conclusions and just being plain nasty.

I think there are pros and cons and it is not straightforward . I think it is quite likely that public wills would reduce the amount of manipulation that goes on. Manipulation is far more likely when the results are secret. If everyone can see that X has pressured Y into making changes that favour X then it is less likely to happen.

In some countries tax returns are public information.

If everyone can see that X has pressured Y into making changes that favour X then it is less likely to happen

How does a public will make the pressure evident? It is all supposition and inference.

I had the situation described by Teacup.

DC1 benefited from GF's will, but DC2, born after death of GF, did not. We sorted something out for DC2, so that they didn't lose out. But we could not touch DC1's inheritance.

Multicolour - if you don’t mind me asking, was that because you were also a beneficiary? If you weren’t, and the grandparent skipped a generation entirely, then it’s odd to make provision for only the grandchildren, knowing that some may well be conceived after your own death. You can know that you won’t have any more children yourself but you can’t possibly know whether your own children will have more children.

It is possible to obtain a copy of any will for a fee of £5 (last time I did it) However a will is a will and most of the time is a 'fait accompli' and nothing can change.

£10 now.

I get what you mean about the grandchildren. This is something that concerns me after my parents told me what their wills say. I have all my children already. However my dbro only recently married and I imagine it could be a few years until we know he has all his children. My parents answer is that they aren’t going to die soon anyway, so it doesn’t matter. Me and my family will be fine and my dc treated equally, but dbro’s children might not be.

But, I do think your proposed idea is a bad idea and open to complete abuse from greedy families. If you want to share the content of your will that’s fine, but I think if you wish to keep it private that is fine and probably the best way in some families.

Gatoatigrado paternal GF so ex benefited there.

We did have a situation where GM left estate to GCs, however, it was guaranteed there would be no further GCs (long story).

multicolour but if the GF’s Will had been made public forcibly (as the OP believes ought to happen) what difference would it have made? Would you have been comfortable to lean on the GF to change his will?

It wasn't my money so being the person I am I wouldn't have done anything to try and change it, either in secret or publically. I was actually told about the GM's will by her. And I've always felt that Ex was miffed he (and his siblings) had been skipped by his DM. Her reasoning was that the GF's will had left the DCs comfortable, so she passed her money along to the GCs.

The real thing is that whether the will is public or not, people can put pressure on others to do things in plain sight, without even appearing to have had anything to do with it. If someone is determined to manipulate, it'll happen whether the will is public or not.

And if, for example, I keep my money private, no-one will ever know how much I have. I am not exactly frugal, but I don't spend very obviously. So I reduce the option there for someone to even think it's worth trying something on.

irregularegular I agree that it is not straightforward.

They are available after probate.

There is no ought about it. Other people's wills are not your business, whether you hope to benefit from them or not. You don't have an opinion.

Sunonthepatio but what if I am going to have to be the executor of a will which contains terms which are likely to cause problems and be tricky to unpick?

Should I not be able to say to a testator that because of XYZ terms in your will I do not wish to be an executor for it?

I do know of a will where a term in it put the executor in a truly horrible position. The will had stood for 20+ years and had been written at the time of a major health crisis so possibly the rammifications of the particular term had been overlooked.

Not seeing the will until the testator died, the executor couldnt ask the testator whether they really wanted the particular clause to stand or what they wanted to achieve by that clause.

but what if I am going to have to be the executor of a will which contains terms which are likely to cause problems and be tricky to unpick?

And that's why I think that executors should have to agree to be executors and sign the will as well as the witnesses.
Otherwise the will could well be a bit of a timebomb...

I haven't read the whole thread but the OP ....!!!

what a horrendous idea!

there no benefits to this at all.

as for bullying - so how does it make it less stressful for anyone if the bullying is known?

My flabber is gasted by this one.