Regarding 'Wills' and who gets what or not as the case may be?

[Abigail69]

Am I one of the few on the net that feels that the Will owner has the right to give or not give etc whatever he or she wants to whomever or not?

The number of stories and threads I've read, and heard with sibling/family fall out as one or more feel they've been left out or cared the most and left out/etc/etc.

Worse still is a couple of cases in the recent year or so where a high court judge overturned a Will

As long as the owner of the will is of sound mind and has the capacity to decide, why do people that get nothing, less etc complain etc, etc?

In my culture, more often than not the son/s get everything this dates back from their motherland as it was often land that was passed on and almost everyone was married o it worked out fairly. However, many older people still practice this kind of thing as my parents did but it did not bother me as we are on our own two feet and never wanted anything from anyone. Sorry, I digress.

Back on topic. AIBU in believing that the person that owns the assets has the ultimate say and this may upset some/all but it is their money.

We've already substantially helped all of our children to reduce their mortgages and the reason we did this is that they never asked and if they had the answer would have been no. No, because they work and should learn to live within their means.

Am I in a miniorty? I don't really care what someone says EG "I looked after..." "they have a lot more money than us.." etc etc - its the Will owner's money etc their choice, would you agree with me implicitly?

In , it is not possible to disinherit certain family members
I think its the same in France.

Who may be able to claim is governed by this statute - Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

@healthadvice123

"priviliged life" not really. We've worked hard, 6/7 days a week at times and not done holidays/etc and rented out a room in our house to get ahead of the rest etc

My point is, it is our money etc we should have the final say. Why should I/we leave money to an adult child fro example if they are nasty to us and or don't see us or are possibly very welll off compared to other kids - that was just a hypothetical example.

The bottom line, its my/our money we decide.

@Abigail69

I'm gobsmacked!
Why have people not demanded a change in the law, IW the Will owner's money/etc their choice?

Honestly I've never heard anyone be bothered by it.

Routinely disinheriting women because of their sex is wrong. And the Will writer is wrong to do it. It might be their money but that doesn't remove all morality from decisions. It's my money but would I:

Burn a fifty in front of a homeless person?
Buy a conflict diamond?
Give money to a far right organisation?

Of course not. The decisions I make have consequences and it's almost worse when I'm dead because the people concerned can't even have the conversation with me.

In our family we have routinely made Deeds of Variation when similarly unfair, sexist or just plain weird decisions were made. And I agree with the jurisdictions where you can't entirely disinherit children. Put it in a trust if they have addictions or some other issue. But disinheriting is unkind.

There's a line in 'Fight Club' where she says 'I consider it asshole tax.' Sometimes if you've had a shit parent, people consider their inheritance the tax for dealing with an asshole. I mean... I can see the logic.

I get this- people will react differently given their circumstances.

I don't and won't have kids; my sibling has one and may have more. My personal feelings are that my parents have done enough for me and my sibling; so if they want to leave it all to my siblings child- fair enough. Some might see that as favouring my sibling or me being disadvantaged because I havent had children but I don't.

I suppose where I feel strongly is the sense of entitlement that some people demonstrate on here (not saying this about your comment!)

OP, I think you’re failing to recognise how exceptionally manipulative some people are. Generally people would accept wills where they received less if they believed that it were the genuine intention of the testator - as in the culture/society you mentioned in your OP. Unfortunately, it’s usually the case that it’s where there’s been a dispute that there a division that’s “unfair”. One person will feel they did more work or were closer or that the person who’s died was misled. There will be different perspectives on what took place and on how much knowledge the person had. Even the simplest incorrect information could change everything, despite being of sound mind. For example, if one DC is disinherited because the parent thought that they were better off than the others financially but it turned out that they weren’t then that wouldn’t actually meet the wishes of the parent despite it being written in the will and them being of sound mind. Often there are conversations that are peripheral too, that aren’t written into the will (and couldn’t be enforced if they were). For example, a parent may have said they don’t want to risk the estate going to in-laws and so informed DCs to get pre-nups to protect the estate or they’d be removed from the will (ignoring the whole pre-nup enforcement issue). If one DC didn’t get a pre-nup but told the parent that they did, is it abiding by their wish to give the DC without the pre-nup their share?

It’s immensely more complex than just respecting someone’s wishes - people’s wishes are usually very complex

@Abigail69 i did say if cut iff from a child etc then would expect not to leave to said child etc and yes your money but it can cause upset
I have no family members ever who have been able to leave anything significent but if i was only grandchild my nan never left a silly trinket to , I would of been upset not because of value but because i had beeb forgotten ? So its not clear cut
Dh mum we expect her to leave us nothing and it to go to siblings as thats how she behaves now

"inconsistent"? You want me to lie? I won't lie
The facts remain simple. My parents decided not to give me a penny, I was happy with that. We decided to give money and the only reason we did that is the kids all work, all have property, some earn a lot more than the other, no one asked for a penny and we decided what amounts they got. If they had asked for money, the answer would have been most likely no.

When two of them went to uni and one wanted a plusher rental to live in, they had to pay for it via savings and work.

Our children have been brought up like I was, expect nothing and work hard and be wise with your money and do not throw away your money by paying interest.
The only interest on moeny I and they have paid is on a mortgage and our moto is pay these off ASAP

Nothing "inconsistent" re my post, its just that you are not happy with my response.

DH has an ex wife to whom he has paid maintenance for over 15 years. If he dies before me I'm sure she will contest the will even though we have been married far longer than they ever were and she would likely win.

Out it this way. If I had to give up work, holidays and time with my husband and children to care for my parents and then found i had been cut out of the will in favour of my brothers, I would be very upset.

If parents are going to make very unequal arrangements, they should have the courage to explain them upfront and ensure that the child who will receive less is able to maximise their own earnings instead of reducing work to manage care responsibilities. If this reduces the amount which can be inherited, that is a natural consequence of their choice.

I will be leaving my dc each an equal amount and that won't ever change.
MIL has always used her will as a weapon to make sure her dc trip over themselves trying to please her.
We quit the game and went no contact leaving her other minions to compete.

My parents decided not to give me a penny, I was happy with that.

And my mother and father would have thought that horribly sexist and unfair. As do I. You can feel any way that helps you sleep at night. I think disinheriting women is dreadful.

It’s up to will owners to make whatever will they want. It is not up to them to control the emotional reactions at all. Those reactions can be justified or not for completely different reasons.

fortunately for us our emotions and relationships are not fully regulated by law.

"Routinely disinheriting women because of their sex is wrong."

If you read my post, there was a balance, ie man married to a woman, woman married to a man. The man gets the money/land/etc as most were farmers and no good dividing an acre or three 10 times etc - it worked there and even there there is a law that you cannot leave the ladies out. However, most have a mutual understanding and sign something to say they are not interested in getting the land etc but times are changing

The bottom line remains the same for me, ie, Will owners right to leave money as per will/choice other than the dependents.

No way I/we would leave money to someone that had no respect for us or did not speak to us or were of a jealous type IMO EG, wanted more than the other or did not appreciate why the other was left more.

The way things are going, its only a matter of time before the government takes everthing, almost good as with much higher rates of IHT - so like our kids say, spend, spend, spend

I think you are not appreciating how easy it is to pressure and guilt an elderly vulnerable person who is dependent on you

There's some real black on white thinking on this thread.

One situation that crops up of an English court overturning a will is in the case of a family farm, where one son spends his entire life working like a dog, effectively maintaining/creating an asset of considerable value, getting told by the parents enjoying the fruits of his labour that when they're gone it'll be his, and then as a final "fuck you" when the last parent dies, the family farm is willed to someone else, often a favoured sibling who had done no work on the family farm at all.

I've seen a few cases now where there's been a successful challenge by the son.

Nobody has a right to anything in another person's will - of course it should be the choice of the person making the will. If they want to leave it all to a cat charity, that's absolutely fine (and I don't even like cats ).

The man gets the money/land/etc as most were farmers and no good dividing an acre or three 10 times etc

Why not routinely leave it to the women then?

There have been studies showing that giving women things (money, education, property etc.) results in children being better off. Plus you can be very sure in matrilineal societies that the biological children are just that, you can't in patrilineal ones.

It's just sexism.

A close friend of mine has written her child out of her will because of a family fall out.
Child is grown up and working and not financially dependent on my friend.

The solicitor advised my friend to add a note in her will listing the reasons why her child has been written out of her will. This is in England.

@Abigail69 many of us also work 6 days a week and have not had holidays but can't afford our own homes let aline giver our dc or siblings ( ??) money go buy one or a BTL property so yes I do still see that as priviledged
And this is not a black and white situation in each case
Plus also as another poster has said people can leave what they like to who but they cannot tell someone else how they should feel about that
I just know that my parents would treat us all fairly as thats what they have done all their lifes and we will all work together to card for them when time is needed
Dh mum has treated him poorly his whole life so we won't be running around after her and sadly the children she treats well , I suspect only one will be there in a time of need
We are all free to make our own choices but with this comes consequences
I expect nothing from my parents as who knows if they may need care and house may need to be sold etc and it will be whatever they need ,

you are right that the person writing the will has the ultimate say.

ethical, non-horrible people will automatically want to start from an assumption of treating all children aa equal regardless of sex because this is the 21st century not and it doesn't matter that it was "traditional" to treat girls like shit, we don't do that any more. It was just as "traditional" in the uk as it was in India etc so nationality/culture is irrelevant to this. of course someone can ignore this if thet want to confirm to their family that they are sexist. "traditional" doesn't absolve you from this.

it's acceptable but not obligatory to moderate the broad principle of equality to take into account significant inequalities of wealth between different offspring, giving the poorer ones more, and to take into account differences in how much additional care and domestic work one or more might have done for you by some and not others. Doing that makes sense in some families and not others, so there's no hard rule.

of course someone would be legally free to choose to leave all their wealth to their wealthy son and not to their daughter who has barely any assets and has been acting as unpaid carer for years - but everyone who knows they have done this will know that the legator who did this in their will is a nasty piece of work, and it's a shame to be remembered as a nasty piece of work by those you leave behind.

There are loads of jurisdictions with forced heirship rules.

The rules in England & Wales are very accommodating and in general terms allow someone to leave their money as they wish. You don't even have to leave anything to your spouse, although any objection the spouse made would very likely be fully heard in court at least. Other complainants may not even get as far as court. The cases where wills are successfully overturned are rare (hence also high-profile), but there are also many cases where wills are not overturned despite the best efforts of the disappointed.