Will contested - AIBU

[DistinguishedSocialCommentator]

I've always stated that the Testator, Will, should always stand as long as it was lawfully written and the Testaro was not taken advantage of etc

Many on many forums inc MN disagree and feel that Testaros should have been EG "faiers to all of their kids, grandkids," etc, etc, etc. I say BS to that

It is the Testators money their choice, fact

AIBU to believe that a Testator estate is their decision if to leave to their OH, kids, GC or the donkey down the road, charities etc etc.

I too would alter my Will if I felt strongly about something, someone and if my kids, GC did not keep in contact, I'd write them out or give more and them less than the one that contacted, visited and treated me, us well

See link below that inspired me to bring this subject.
NB: My thread is a general comments thread and only inspired by the news story and no way am I relating my stance to that in the news story

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13441735/granddaughters-grandfather-500k-LOSE-court-fight-costs.html

Absolutely the choice of the person making the will.

I'd be hurt if my parent left all their money to the cat sanctuary but I wouldn't contest it!

there are too many think they are owed a share of other peoples money. Some people need to back down and show some grace when they are not included or excluded for specific reasons such as not visiting/caring/being part of the family but feel they have to have their "fair" share etc.

I know of people who have inherited over relatives or other relatives. (In fact I just realised my own DD has.)

This is because the people concerned ended up looking after the person if they are an adult or had regular friendly contact with them if they are a child. The relatives who were left out didn't bother with them.

My grandmother left almost everything to one of her children in gratitude for the care they'd given her. I knew about this as my gran had told me what she planned, and why, at the time she wrote the will. The other child (my parent) wanted to contest and tried to get me on board with gran not being of sound mind etc. I said I'd be very happy to say to a court how my nan knew exactly what she was doing. As the username suggests, we're now not on speaking terms.

My ex in laws specifically wrote in their will that one of their two sons (my ex)was excluded due to his behaviour because they wanted to ensure he could never succeed in challenging their will.
It is well deserved because he is a moral free money grabbing git.

Thanks all
Makes a change by reading sensible posts re this subject on MN
To many threads crying about the "unfairness."

They’re paying the price now for their greed and I have limited sympathy. I don’t blame the grandfather in this situation- why should he leave money to people who made no effort with him?
Whilst as a starting point I do believe in fairness and splitting things evenly, where there is estrangement or virtually no contact, why should people stand to inherit?
I’m also of the mind that no one is ever entitled to any kind of inheritance and people have every right to leave all their money to charity or leave nothing at all having spent it all during their lifetime. (Although we will want to leave everything to our children, we wouldn’t feel obliged to).

It seems appallingly disrespectful to the deceased to try and nullify their wishes and demands for their wealth distribution.

The thing in the papers about the grandkids. Well, both my grandparents were deceased for decades when I was born, and I didn't even get one pence from my dad when he passed as I was a child. But somehow I survived!

I would never expect money off anyone in life or death. My mum was worried about not leaving me enough but we're at an understanding now when she knows she should spend it on herself and enjoy life while she can. No matter if there's nothing left.

People who contest wills are greedy and selfish! Its completely up to an individual who they leave their money to and no one is owed a share!!! I would be gutted if my parents left everything my brother but i certainly would respect their wishes and not contest it!

I think the principle the OP describes is correct in general terms but I also think it can be a complex subject.

There are absolutely cases where people have been pressured into leaving bequests they may not have chosen to do so otherwise or when documentation has been fraudulently created. Is not challenging the will respecting their wishes in these cases?

However, in the main, a great deal of the issues are caused by people not being clear about their bequests (and the rationale) before they die, so that nobody is surprised and unable to ask "why" and be assured that is indeed their intention.

I also think some people underestimate the hurt "unfair" wills can cause. Do you want your last act to result in a massive family rift?

A typical example is a parent wanting to help the financially less secure child out more than the other. Whilst you should not equate money with love, it can feel a slap in the face the face to be left nothing when a sibling (who has even been financially feckless) to get a bigger share.

I have no skin in the as an only child (for which I'm thankful). My parents are clear I'm the sole beneficiary (I have a copy of the will) but what will be left who knows? I'm encouraging them to spend more on themselves whilst also being mindful of future care needs.

You're not unreasonable at all Op, I get fed up with the number of people on MN who talk about their inheritence when their DP's are still alive. People seem to think that if it's family money it must to go to everyone equally but you reap what you sow, if you neglect your family you shouldn't expect them to bankroll you

Frankly thry must have been mad to have brought the case in the first place

It seems they weren't reliant on the grandfather financially, they certainly weren't his carers or even his actual children, there doesn't appear to be any proof of their allegations he was "unduly influenced", and on top of that he left them a nominal amount, probably to avoid exactly this sort of accusation

Presumably they were advised by their legal team that the chances of success were small, and if they chose to ignore this and plough on regardless that's on them, as are the costs - and thank god their ridiculous suggestion that these should come out of the estate was thrown out

Shock horror, I agree with you on something! Unless it's clear that there has been manipulation of someone who does not have capacity to make or change a will, the will should stand.
People do some really shitty stuff though. My mum's stepfather left her and my Dsis and me absolutely nothing - although my mum did all the care for him in his last year. He left everything to his biological daughters and their kids.

Fortunately for us, my aunts were lovely people who did not agree with what their dad had done, so they pooled the funds and split them three equal ways, including giving me and Dsis the same as the other cousins had received. I'm sure this sort of thing happens more often than we think, most people are decent.

Of course there are situations where a will is unfair. If you, say, provide all care for a relative on the understanding that they will leave you their house and then they leave it all to stray cats, you'd feel like a mug. If your DH left all his possessions to his ex wife that he's divorced 40 years ago you wouldn't just shrug it off as his business, would you?

Hi
Thanks
My OP makes clear about the Intesattor writing the will of their own free will and of sound mind but not in so many words

We've gifted our three adult kids close to 600k between the three of them one got a lot more than the others as the other two are in the top 5% of earners via paye and the third is only above average pay about 60k paye - they did not ever ask for the money, we did it not just because of IHT, but the possibly of care home fees. For the record we live in London and have a preorty we live in mortgage free and two others the same we rent out
We are now giving bits to our three GC all under the age of 8

My mother died when I was in my very early 20's - dad remarried as he was sub 50 and what he wanted we agreed - I now have 4 half-siblings - dad wanted to tell me about his will, I was not interested nor my siblings - then he insisted, we noted he was leaving us if possible land he own back in Asia, then valve about 100k now worth about 300k - we said thanks but no thanks as you have a new family - when he passed he had changed his Will as we requested but even if he had not we would not have accepted. My OH had fallen out with parents to a good exntent just cicl, both parent dies a few years ago had 3 properties in London all left to my siblings sibling and bits to GC - my OH had no problems

Our kids did not want the money/etc gifts but relatutnly accepted - like you they complain that we should spend more on hols etc - however, when you have worked hard been prudent with your money and seen it grow via hard work etc, you have not incline to blow it away like people win the letter - for the record we don't do the lottery, stopped when it became twice a week or soon after

It pains me no end when I see a dead person's last words/Will over-turned by a stupid judge. In this story, credit to the courts

My parents always said, world hard, look after then pennies and you will be surprised where you are in a few years and NEVER pay interest on anything other than buying your own home or business - served us well

Sorry

Another thing I must add

What also pains me seriously hard is when a Testator leaves all or some of their assets to X, or X, Y and Z- they then decide to share it with other family that may have been left out

FYI, I read on forums in recent years - if you seriously dislike someone or for whatever reason don't want someone to have any of your money/etc - write it in your Will, EG, I have not left Samsmithgreenillgrover anything, please do not share anything with that person/s unless you want to insult my final wishes or something like that

I would never contest if my parents left all their money to my brother (though I’d be very very hurt). However, if they left it all to some guy who knocked on their door one day - then I’d be asking questions, a lot of questions. I think people who are disinheriting their next of kin should include a reason/explanation.

Thank you

Yes, a reason is helpful to all to half specualation/gosspie/etc and it would be helpful to those that were left the money/etc and those that did not get anything or little

EG - I'm leaving my do the three properties, cash and shares - Mrs Smith next door is getting 31k for being a good friend for the last few years he has lived next door to me and always kind and sensible to me - I am not leaving my 5 kids anything as they rarely contacted me and made feeble excuses why they could not come over at Christmas, my birthdays or at least invite me over - The same applies to my grandkids bar, one, IE, Sally who made big effirs during the last few months when she knew my time was up - I leave her 70 quid as I know she was not being genuine but just wanted some of my cash, LOL

But in all seriousness, it would be helpful to all

Legal guidance is to leave someone who you don’t want to inherit much a nominal amount - like this man did - as it demonstrates that you didn’t ‘forget’ about them.

There are a number of reasons why you can challenge a will including ‘undue influence’ although this is difficult to prove. There is often a gendered issue in this area with mothers being persuaded to change wills in favour of sons after fathers have died.

Usually contentious probate issues (ie contesting wills) are solved through mediation between solicitors. It is relatively unusual for them to go to court although High Court judgements can make interesting reading.

"There is often a gendered issue in this area with mothers being persuaded to change wills in favour of sons after fathers have died."

Slightly different, but back in my motherland, women are often persuaded to disinherit themselves a it is still the norm for the majority. This stems from boys marriyng girls and therefore the boys get something they can share with their OH. This is and still is the culture in my motherland as you can only split up land/property so many times, especially in farming areas and it has worked well but the law does not allow it, so the tradition carrys on via the lady singing an affidavit declaring she has no interest in land/property etc.

More recently last few years younger women have refused to sign-away their share. Even people of my age on the whole carry on with this tradition in the UK but me and my of are different but not our siblings

I completely disagree and don't think the dead should dictate to the living. It makes no difference to the testator where their money goes or whether their wishes are followed - they are not around to know. Given the way wealth in this country is structured, with older generations owning far more assets owing to increases in property prices, it also risks abusive family dynamics where younger generations are beholden to older ones if they need to inherit. Much better to determine that a set percentage of the wealth should legally be inherited by children and then give testators a bit of leeway to determine how the rest is shared out, with the courts having the final say.

With those two examples you would be right to contest the will. A carer is likely to earn less due to the care they are providing someone, while a current wife/civil partner is considered a dependent of their deceased spouse.

However with your first example you would be fighting a charity like the RSPCA who are known to treat executors horrendously to get what they decide they are owed. So it would be a really expensive battle.

In the cases I know about the people who were the main beneficiaries of an estate lost out financially in the last 10-20 years due to providing care for a relative or close friend.

The estates ensured the former carers are adequately housed which they would have been if they had not provided care.

There as the relatives who didn't give the deceased the time of day didn't lose income as they didn't provide any care or even bother to keep in contact with them.

Your first sentence, with respect, it is the biggest load of BS I have read since I've registered on MN

A Will must be honoured as the person that made this was a living human often with a lot of life experience, working hard, saving money, not throwing away their money on drinking, smoking, gambling, holidays, eating out, and earning well, working hard and being prudent with their money and not being greedy but getting everything today via credit ie run before you can walk

If it was that easy to accumulate wealth for the majority in England, why had almost everyone not done that and you are fully aware of the answer.

I never understand the ‘fairness’ angle, as if wills have to be fair. They don’t. How someone’s money and assets are distributed is entirely up to the individual in question. No one else should lay claim to money that isn’t, and never has been, theirs.