Advice on inheritance disputes

[Ilovechinese]

Hi I'm just wondering if anyone on here has been to court to contest a will and if so how long did it take to get to court and what the process is. I'm going through this at the minute (well not got to court yet) but have a caveat in place to stop probate.

Is also like to add

Those capacity tests. Are extremely extremely intricate. They test and test to deem if you have capacity. It’s incredibly HARD to take away someone’s capacity. We are fighting it now. With someone who wants to take their parents capacity away. The precedent for these proceedings are unreal. Why? Because any tiny mistakes could have massive ramifications.

If the drs and social workers deemed she had capacity. Then it’s unlikely that they were wrong. It’s not just hey miss. You feel ok? It’s Tuesday today right? It’s many days and weeks of retaining information. All sorts

What’s the proof you have?

Are you willing to risk everything. Your house? Your kids future? You whole life? On this. Because if you lose and you’re 60knin debt. That won’t just go away.

If @bluegreygreen says. They took them.

I will just leave this here...

www.inheritancedisputes.co.uk/case-studies/defending-challenge-will.html

Even if she still would have been deemed to have capacity on those drugs the fact they called them and lied about the being on drugs is evidence of undue influence
No it isn't evidence, not at all and that's where your judgment is clouding your perception.

They could have provided in accurate information to the solicitor because her medication had been changed the evening before and they didn't know yet. Or they just got confused. There are a number of reasons why they would have given wrong information that has nothing to do with wanting to influence the solicitor.

That and the fact as already said a number of time, her medication regime alone doesn't change the outcome as to whether she had capacity.

And to the question as to whether I would consider treating my children differently? Absolutly I would consider it if I felt one of them had treated me badly, or acted with a sense of entilment to it, or had shown to have very poor judgement in relation to budgeting. Not saying that's your case but that these would be reasons for me. That and giving either of them anything. Saying that, they are already totally independent financially and I know won't consider inheritance as money owed to them.

There were no doctors or social workers tests. And solicitors are trained in law and whilst they are highly trained in what they do they are not doctors. I do take on board what you are all saying and I will not blindly fight if my solicitor says I dint stand a chance. But at the minute I do feel there is maybe a chance and I need to wait to find out more and yes I do feel I have been robbed because it was always supposed to be split equally. It might not have been mine yet but it was intended to be.

Example if you brought two of you children bags if sweets but before you could pass them both to your children and one grabbed both would you not consider it being and they has purposefully took what they knew was meant for their sibling out if greed?

The link that dance with the devil posted is most relevant. Please read it very carefully, OP.

Unless the solicitor point blank refuses to take the case (which they won't, because it doesn't matter how hopeless it is, they get paid either way), it's clear you won't hear a word she says, just as you haven't heard a word of the good and knowledgeable advice you've already had. It's no skin off the solicitor's nose if you bankrupt yourself on this, as long as you keep paying - and once you can no longer afford to pay, the solicitor will stop working.

People always talk about people "stealing their parking spot" when they see they are about to go there then quickly get in first. Well how is that theirs? But they still say tgarvso how am I wrong in saying he is stealing my inheritance. He was definitely the driving force behind her making that will which if there was no will in place or would have been split equally as he well knew so he is In effect stealing from my children and I.

You example about the children snatching sweets is an example of your take in the injustice.

But look at it in another way. You had bought two bags of sweets and given them away to someone else to eat or give away as they please. They then distributed them unevenly to two other people. That was their choice to do that.

Being joint tennants in the house is common and means the house passes to the other person in death. They can choose to divide that up however they want because it now belongs to them.

Lots of people on here say it is entitled to expect something from your parents which I see their point and if my parents had sold the house and spent it all enjoying themselves whilst alive I wouldn't be bothered. That is different and I fully understand it was their (well my dads) money. But if they die and there is something left then it is only fair the children are treated equally unless good reason like one was a murderer or never bothered with the parent at all.

Bags of sweets aren’t relevant either, you just look grabby when you give these examples

As has been explained, there doesn’t have to be a doctor to confirm capacity, only if the solicitor seems it necessary - he obviously didn’t in this case

Please listen to what everyone is saying

I work in this area and occasionally have to walk away due to lack of capacity. Otherwise I get the gp involved to witness or doctors to write a note as to capacity if they are in hospital. Most deathbed wills are straightforward though if someone is very unwell and cutting someone out most solicitors frankly wouldn’t want to get involved anyway. That said many clients are amazingly clear and lucid right to the end.

Debating on what one would do is pointless because we are all different and we are all capable of changing our minds. That's the point, that you can't assume that because someone said something of theirs will be yours at some point in time that it makes it legally yours when that time comes.

It was their money, not just your dad’s, he chose to make it so

@costacoffeplease they didnt seem it necessary because they was lied to and told my mother wasn't on drugs when in fact she was on very strong drugs! If they had been fully informed of the facts they may have requested capacity tests and yes it may have said she did still have capacity I fully accept all these things but still WHY DID THEY LIE ABOUT HER BEING ON DRUGS?! That is the part everyone keeps ignoring!!

Seem=deem

@msTswift thank you for your input I appreciate it. So are you ma wills and probst solicitor yourself? So from what you say it sounds like you wouldn't have took will instructions from my mother an I right? So you think his solicitors acted questionable then?

OP, you just can't see it can you? It doesn't matter what you think about how the estate should have been shared out. Not one jot.
Someone phoning the solicitor on your mother's behalf is not something a court would be concerned about. You don't know whether your dm asked them to phone for one do you?
The solicitor would have spoken to your dm away from anytone else, especially if they were named in the will. They would have assured themselves that all was above board. Including whether she appeared to be under the influence of drugs or not.
You've unsurprisingly managed to avoid answering everyone who's asked you about the amounts involved, and how much you've been offered already. I'm not sure why.
Have you read the link posted by @didyoueverdancewiththedevil ?
Did you consult a solicitor who specialises in contesting wills, or just a paralegal that gives you half an hour free advice?

Sorry for all the typos

How do you know they LIED ABOUT HER BEING ON DRUGS.?
Possibly the solicitor who drew up the will didn't act questionably, because there was no reason to do so.

OP Legal professionals on this site have repeatly told you that the painkillers are not relevant.

It was up to the solicitor to assess whether your mother had capacity. Many people take medicines and still have capacity.
The solicitor who visited your mother in her medicated state considered - on the base of their legal training and experience - that your mother had capacity, and so whether she was taking drugs is no more relevant, legally speaking, than what she had for breakfast.

If the solicitor - a trained professional- considered that your mother had capacity, there was no need for her to involve doctors, nurses or anyone else. As earlier posters have said, usually a solicitor only asks for a medical opinion if they have doubts about capacity.

The fact that the solictor asked your brother , his partner etc whether your mother was taking drugs means that they (the solicitor) was very properly on the lookout for any possible lack of capacity that medication might cause. Since they made the will for your mother, they presumably saw no side-effects of the drugs that reduced capacity in any legally-significant way.

@Soontobe60 obviously I haven't gave specific amounts for reasons of privacy, I fear I've already said too much but had to give as much info as possible to get answers.

I think one of the most important facts here has been missed a little.

She did in fact leave you something in the will. It just wasn't the equal amount you expected.

Obviously, I can totally sympathise with the fact that this feels unfair and I do get where you're coming from, but unfortunately the fact that you've been allocated something means that you've still been considered and "provided for", even if it's not to an extent that you consider fair.

If it was a punitively low amount, such as "I leave 1 pound to X" then you might have grounds, but without you letting people know the rough either amounts or percentages, no one can say for sure.

I'm sorry, OP, the situation seems awful.

I think most people (not the 'entitled' critics) seem to be worried you will disadvantage yourself in seeking fairness. At very best, the law is an imprecise and expensive tool. Your posts clearly show your focus on fairness and the law will usually leave a challenger to a will worse off. I don't know the circumstances but equally you might be fighting the solicitor who took the will who will have more resources and the executor/beneficiaries too. It's unlikely your solicitor will tell you that you have 'no chance' so if that is the question you ask, you are likely to end up down an expensive route. Further to my previous post when I suggested you ask your solicitor what their strategy would be, including negotiating to reinstate you and your DSis through an agreed deed of variation, you might want to ask your solicitor for an illustrative decision tree or similar, showing the broadest outcomes, the estimate of probability and the likely costs to you. So you can see their estimate of the chance of:

negotiating a settlement:
going to court and winning; and
losing, and how much these options (and any others) are likely to cost.

Your solicitor might not want to do this but it would give you a sense check and something to check with other people. The solicitor is running a hsuiness but also has some professional obligations.

I can see you seem focused on fairness rather than the money but I think this might show you the eye watering costs and likelihood of losing.

One final point, it might be an idea to explore whether your DParents' wills were a particular kind of mirror wills that, in some circumstances, might have been 'set in stone' and should have been unchangeable after the passing of the first DParent - there is some case law if you are in England and Wales. If that was the case, it might be easier to argue the new will should be set aside and negotiate the deed of variation that would be the cheapest way of resolving this.

Good luck.

@Soontobe60 as I have already said my solicitor requested a larke v nugus report which states that the partner said she wasn't on any drugs and I have the medical records proving she was on drugs and I know she lied because she would have been fully aware she was on drugs because my mother was living with her under her care and she would have been administering some of those drugs!