To be sad that relative has unwittingly bequeathed money to the government in her will?

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

A close elderly relative of mine has recently died and I discovered that, in her will, she has left several thousand pounds vaguely specified as to "the x-city paramedics" (in her area). She decided to do this because she was very grateful at how skillfully and kindly they treated her husband shortly before he died almost 20 years ago. They did indeed help and treat him very well at the time, but nothing out of the ordinary for the (wonderful) job that they would normally do.

Now, I fully realise that it was her will and that she was entirely at liberty to do this - could have left them everything, if she'd so desired. However, she had mental health problems throughout her life, which made 'her world' very small indeed. She had a sharp grasp on domestic economics, but no idea how national economics works; and I really don't think she would have had a clue what would happen to the money in reality.

Obviously, the paramedics working there now are very unlikely to be the same ones who treated her husband; not that this necessarily changes the principle of wanting to show her appreciation to the service and employees in general - and, of course, she had no idea how much longer she herself would live.

It's just that the reality of what is most probably going to happen is that the executor will send the money to the city's hospital (one of the biggest in Europe), giving the reason for her wishes, they will send a brief note saying thank you and then it will disappear into their £1bn+ budget. The paramedics - neither those who treated her husband nor those working there currently - will probably never even know about the money (maybe get a one-line email telling them that a previous patient they never knew said thanks), much less benefit from it; and it will practically make no difference whatsoever to the hospital's budget.

She was always extremely careful with her money, accounted for every penny she spent in notebooks and chose to live frugally, although she was always very generous to her family. Effectively, she's handed quite a big chunk of her money to the government, where it will be added to a balance sheet and be instantly forgotten about.

If she had found a small, local, independent medical-based charity to leave it to, they could have done so much with it. The NHS is (overall) an amazing organisation, but it is not a charity - it's run like a business and is already paid for by the taxpayer to the tune of (IIRC) well over £100bn every year.

Again, it's none of my business really and 100% her money, her choice; but AIBU to think she wouldn't have made this decision if she'd understood what she was actually doing? She would have scoffed with derision if anybody had ventured to suggest that she leave an amount of her life's assets 'to the government' - but other than semantically, she's basically done just that.

I'm reminded of this case (www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23739598) where another elderly person left her entire estate to 'the government'.

It would probably have been more likely to be spent on something non-core budget if it had gone to the League of Friends of the Hospital or equivalent but it was a very kind wish. Let's face it the NHS needs every penny.

@MasterBeth
I would feel sad about the death of your relative rather than this unsolvable, relatively minor bequest which will go to the entirely deserving and needed health service.

Totally this. I find both your motivations and assumptions very worrying.
I assume you wouldn't have been making such complaints if she had left the money to you

I am confused.

The hospital has nothing whatsoever to do with the Ambulance Service. Did she leave it to the Health Trust or to the Paramedics/Ambulance Service?

If the latter, it should be fairly straight forward for the executor to ensure it reaches the correct people.

I was was the executor for my elderly friend , whilst in hospital she wanted give them a donation .
A nurse on the ward she was on advised writing that she wished the donation to be given for use on that named ward , if the donation was addressed to the hospital it would have been swallowed up without the specific use my friend wanted for it .
Is there a way you could ask the executor do do a similar thing so the ambulance service receive it ?.

Oh, nice thread! I was coming on to say YABU because there are charitable trusts in the NHS governed in a different way... but I’m really glad to see your update about the local charity that you can direct the donation too.

[quote TeenPlusTwenties]@spongedog Surprisingly, and hearing about how charities are happy to go to court on stuff really annoys me.

My DF's solicitors have let him put a clause in his will that goes to the effect of 'if any charities I've left money to start going to court they lose their money and it can go to the other charities'[/quote]
Interesting. And the solicitors believe that clause is enforceable?

As others have said OP, it is likely to go to the charity part or the fund directly in support of the ambulance crews, for stuff like updating the bases etc rather than into the general hospital pot. Sounds like a wonderful thing for her to do, and I can see why you would be upset at it getting lost in the 'pot'.

If it was left to a specific organisation that doesn't exist, the gift would fail and could not go anywhere.

If it's a charitable gifit and the charity now does not exist, it dan go to a similar charitable purpose under the cy pres doctrine.

But it very much depends on the wording as to if it is charitable gift or a gift to those specific people (which isn't charitable and could only go to them and if they can't be identified the gift fails)

I spent last term looking at trusts and gifts and failures of gifts.

spongbob No idea . They may have thought it was less trouble to put it in than argue with him about it.

What odd responses Cheeseandwin5 and MasterBeth.

Where on earth are you getting that the OP hasn't mourned/ isn't mourning and sad about her relative passing. That isn't the impression I have at all.

However, as is the way after someone dies, somebody has to deal with the estate, and the OP is trying to make sure she does that both covering the legal aspect (which can be quite daunting) and knowing the Aunt well enough to understand her thinking and what her wishes would have been.
Nowhere is there any implication that the OP wished the donation hadn't been part of the will, she is just querying if her Aunt's intent would be matched, if the wording wasn't very watertight.

Thank very much, BackforGood, for your kind words and response to the two slightly odd posts upthread - very well put and mirrors my own feelings completely.

MasterBeth - I don't believe I specified how much the bequest or total estate value were. I presume you've made your own will dictating that your relatives should just get on with grieving and not to concern themselves with your material legacy, as you've left your whole estate to the NHS/HMRC/similar, naming them as executors and sole beneficiaries?

Cheeseandwin5 - That's a bit of an odd way of looking at it. My relative cared for me and the rest of the family, just like she actively wished to show her gratitude to the paramedics. She didn't, however, care for giving money away to central government, as I initially (thankfully mistakenly) believed would be the case. I'm not 'complaining' about anything, but the fact that - as I'm sure you'll have seen from reading the thread - her whole estate will indeed go to her intended beneficiaries has made me very happy indeed.

Had the paramedics not been in the mix, a little more would have gone to those of us in her family, but I'm sure you will have understood from the thread that my question was most certainly nothing like "AIBU to complain that my relative has left a small portion of her estate to a little, very worthy local charity that meant a lot to her, along with a much larger share to me, when I wanted to get the whole lot for myself".

I'm quite surprised that somebody would have read the whole thread to that point and displayed this bizarre misunderstanding.

I've heard and read of a lot of problems and upset experienced by will executors and inheritors over parts of a will left to a charity.

However small their proportion (assuming that they have been left a percentage of a house that will be sold), some charities will frequently try to dictate how quickly the sale will take place and the amount that is accepted for it.

Thus grieving relatives who need a little time to come to terms with saying goodbye to their loved one's home (which may well be their own childhood home), and to clear and find the best new home for their possessions, might find that the charity are badgering them to hurry up and get it on the market, maybe even tell them to use a house clearance company to vacate it ASAP.

Similarly, there may well be no chance of selling to a family member or close friend of their relative, another lovely person whom you know would look after, treasure and carry on the happiness that living in the house brought their loved one, or even if one of the inheritors want to buy out the others and live there themselves - certainly not if a great big developer can pay more than any of these are able to, in order to bulldoze it and build a block of identikit new flats in its place. In fact, if you were the sole heir and wanted to live there yourself, a charity could still easily demand you put it on the market anyway (incurring fees) - and then sell it if somebody will pay more than you believe it's worth and you don't have the funds to make good the difference for them.

From the pov of somebody wanting to leave some of their estate to a charity (especially the big ones), as soon as they know the details of your will, to them, you instantly become a barrier to getting their money. They will likely have it in a balance sheet prediction and quite possibly include details of your age, health and other circumstances, to calculate how long they can expect to have to wait until you die and they can have their money. Some might even deliberately send you a Christmas card every year - 'as an ongoing token of our gratitude' - with an eye on seeing if it comes back one year as 'addressee deceased' - to give them a heads-up to start pushing the relatives to get a move on.

Assuming you trust your family, I think by far the best method is to specify an amount of money rather than a percentage, don't inform the charity in advance and then trust your children/whoever to pass the money on to the charity when they are properly ready to do so. You can either write it officially into your will or just tell them clearly beforehand what your wishes are - but I would always say don't tell the charity in advance.

Assuming you trust your family, I think by far the best method is to specify an amount of money rather than a percentage, don't inform the charity in advance and then trust your children/whoever to pass the money on to the charity when they are properly ready to do so. You can either write it officially into your will or just tell them clearly beforehand what your wishes are - but I would always say don't tell the charity in advance.

Good advice, I reckon, @WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll.

You hear some right horror stories.

She didn't give the money hoping it went to the individuals, I'm sure she isn't stupid and is well aware it will go to the service she valued so much.
YABU for being sad about what she chose to do with her own money.

It doesn't matter what she hoped, it matters what was written down in the will.

If she said money for the paramedics who did xyz that sounds like a gift for those specific people. Who who need tracking down (and then may pass onto a charity but don't need to)

So will gifts need to be very clear - we are doing trust law and covering that £5000 to my friends would fail. How does one judge a friend? It had to be a specific person or class (current members of xyz slimming world club)

She didn't give the money hoping it went to the individuals, I'm sure she isn't stupid and is well aware it will go to the service she valued so much.
YABU for being sad about what she chose to do with her own money.

She was by no means stupid - she was a very intelligent lady; but, as I detailed, she did also have severe mental health problems throughout her life. She would get frustrated and believe she was being lied to when somebody many miles away claimed not to have heard what she 'clearly' told them - by shouting up in her living room at the voice she heard in her head and believed was them talking. She would also write messages for the people on TV and sellotape them, writing side-down, to the screen, expecting that they would be able to read them. She was by no means stupid, but she did suffer from very restricting MH problems, meaning that, although she wasn't intentionally lying to you, her truth was frequently not congruous with the truth.

I think you may have quite misunderstood what I've been saying - I'm not at all sad at what she chose to do with her money - I am (now) very glad and feel reassured that her choice will be reflected in what actually happens.

It doesn't matter what she hoped, it matters what was written down in the will.

If she said money for the paramedics who did xyz that sounds like a gift for those specific people. Who who need tracking down (and then may pass onto a charity but don't need to)

So will gifts need to be very clear - we are doing trust law and covering that £5000 to my friends would fail. How does one judge a friend? It had to be a specific person or class (current members of xyz slimming world club)

You're right, it can be an absolute minefield ascertaining and interpreting somebody's true intentions. It's always better if you can err on the side of extreme caution and spell it out unequivocally, almost as if the people dealing with it are stupid (which, if they are qualified solicitors, they are extremely unlikely to be!). Purely because you aren't there for them to confirm or verify anything with. Much better to patronise people with clear instructions three times than to tell them potentially ambiguously once!

I think it's probably just as much for the purpose of evidentially keeping CFs out as helping the executors to carry out the deceased's wishes. Unless it's a specifically delineated organisation, I think you should always name people individually, to avoid people coming out of the woodwork and insisting that they were included in 'my close friends' because they played cards together once a year in their twenties and should thus get a share.

However, that said, I remember a thread from a few years ago which may or may not have reflected the wishes of the deceased relative - we've no way of knowing. The person making the will had two daughters - one of whom had married and had children at a relatively young age and the other who was adamant that marriage and children were unequivocally not for her.

Later in her life, after the grandparents had already died, the confirmed-single sister had a big change of mind and did in fact marry and go on to have children. The GPs had left money in their will 'to pay for private education for our grandchildren Adam and Beatrice'. When Caroline and Daniel were subsequently born, their mother naturally assumed that the education money fund was to be shared between all of the GC - although there was plenty to fund private school and likely also help with uni costs for two, but not enough to stretch to four for all of their school years.

The big moral question was whether the GPs would have wanted ALL of their eventual GC to benefit from the fund equally - simply because they were their GC; or whether they would have only wanted to give to Adam and Beatrice, because they were their beloved family members whom they had known and with whom they'd had a close relationship in their lives. Morals didn't come into it, though, as the law had to take their express wishes literally and give nothing to Caroline and Daniel. As children, Adam and Beatrice weren't even in a position where they could legally have signed a deed of variation if they'd wanted to, to voluntarily share the money with their younger cousins. Even if they could have done, it wasn't a lump sum 'free gift' to them as such, but a fund to benefit them in a very specific way.

Thankfully, in my relative's case, she specified '£XK to be given to XX city Paramedics'. I don't have the will in front of me, but she may also have added 'for equipment' - I can't remember immediately. She saw the service as a whole and wanted to show her gratitude to the service (so that they as a group/organisation would benefit) rather than any specific individuals per se, so there's no ambiguity there now - the city's ambulance service has a small charity of their own, so there is no question that they will get the money. The only thing to be established is whether it funds an agreed specific item/project for them or whether they are left to decide themselves - either way would be completely in keeping with my loved one's wishes, so it's a happy thing to discuss and ponder regardless and doesn't overly matter.

A friend of mine left all his money to his son-in-law, a widower with disabilities caring for his severely handicapped adult son. Net effect - sil no longer entitled to state benefits that he was receiving but was otherwise no better off financically. That was leaving money to the government.

Although not written specifically into his will, my DF asked my DM to donate x amount to a local charity, one which he believed he could count on for help/support. They let him down big time but he wasn't in a fit state of mind to realise. My DM wanted to honour his wishes but we agreed that the donation would go elsewhere and comforted ourselves that the man we knew in better times would have approved 100%.
I believe that due to the age of her will and you being executor, you have a say in directing the money to where it should go. I'm sure if you did a bit of research, you could make sure that the Ambulance Service crew get it rather than the NHS service in general.

Sorry, just seen your update - all sorted.

Glad that it's worked out better than you thought OP
Question for lawyers. From a professional ethics perspective, what do you do when someone a client demands that you include wording of gifts in their will which you know will be ambiguous and open to dispute?

MereDintofPandiculation

Heartbreaking, isn't it? If only he could have bought something (maybe a house or expensive equipment or supplies) on their behalf instead of giving money; but things are seldom straightforward like that and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I always think it's so sad when you hear of elderly people who choose to live very frugally and are proud to amass a huge amount to leave as a surprise large windfall to their children after they've gone - but they end up needing to go into care and most of it gets swallowed up that way, when if they'd lived a little more indulgently and treated their family more along the way, their care costs would all have been covered. I know that the costs of adult care need to be met by society as a whole, but there are a lot of very unfair and arbitrary means of determining who should gain and who should lose out.

Thanks, Crying - sorry to hear that, it sounds really emotionally challenging to have been put in that position.