Brother has found parents’ wills

[ChorltonCreamery]

My mother tripped over a few days ago. Initially all seemed fine. Friend brought her home but the next day she went to a walk in. It was felt that she might need a procedure on her wrist.

What I only found out yesterday was that Dad rang one of my brothers to go through his desk to find this policy they have, a medical insurance that kicks in if NHS waiting list is too long. In the process of doing this he found their wills and read them.

Yesterday Brother asked if I could go round to his but I couldn’t as we are away. This afternoon sister texts me to call her back, it turns our parents have divided their estate into four. Three quarters between brother, sister and me with a quarter going to other brother’s child(ren) with us three acting as trustees.

Brother 2 is not included, we think because sister in law has two children from previous marriage and there has been drama from them.

Brother wants me and sister to meet for a chat about everything.

He says that the wills were not in a marked file and he had to go through lots of stuff in order to find the insurance.

I don’t know what to think, or what I am meant to think. Sisters annoyed with brother for even telling us.

.

No one knows that, were all speculating, including OP & her siblings.

My parents, now just my Mum, had a similar (and somewhat complicated will)

1/3 to each of we 3 children but……

If my sister had pre-deceased her husband then ‘her’ 1/3 would have gone to her 2 children. This was to miss out her husband, their son in law, who would have drunk, gambled, frittered away his share. + the fact that they had a low opinion of him.

In the event he has passed away and so this clause never needs to see the light of day.

For all you know your parents may have already discussed this with Brother 2, that they will be leaving money in their will to his child.

Tbh I don’t blame your parents. If they have serious doubts about your brother’s wife then better to leave the money directly to his biological children rather than the possibility of his wife divorcing him after they’re dead and her receiving half (or more) of the inheritance they left to him.
My sister had a similar thing recently where her husband’s dad has two step children and when his dad died, him and new wife were planning to give her two adult children a lump sum from this inheritance of the same amount that my husband and his sibling would receive. The difference being this was money from the actual grandparent of my husband and his sibling whereas his step siblings had never even met the step-grandad who died!

Thanks - but then you also have Nahajec v Fowle [2017], one of the first post-Illot cases, where the succesful claimant (disenhereted, able-bodied, 31 year old estranged daughter, who successfully claimed £30,000 from the estate). She was not well-off but wanted the money to help fund future studies to become a vetinary nurse.

There are quite a few firms who report, on their website, obtaining settlements on behalf of disenhereted adults, post-Illot.

It looks like the law in England & Wales has moved away from requiring a "moral" basis for a succesful claim by a disenhereted adult, provided the claimant can establish some sort of "need" (and doesn't require them to have been dependent on the deceased).

I appreciate that it's a long way off Scotland, but I think people are wrong to entirely disregard the potential of a claim from a disinhereted adult in England & Wales.

Families and wills are complicated things and there may be good reason for your parents doing what they have OP. As long as they have left a letter explaining their decision or already discussed their decision with you brother.

I am a stepmother and in turn my DH also has a stepfather. In DH case though his stepfather has raised him for the past 36 years after his birth father died of cancer when DH was a baby. So DH will according to wills of both his mum and (step) dad inherit one third of their assets with the other two thirds going to his step siblings on the death of both my in-laws. It also states that on the death of one in-law the other inherits the whole of the others estate. The three children don’t inherit until both in-laws have died.

DH and I do not have mirror wills as his DC will be able to automatically inherit a % of moveable assets on his death (Scotland) but not on mine if I predecease DH. DH and I have no children though so my stepchildren and my nieces will inherit equally from me if DH dies first. My nieces will also inherit from DH if I die first as they are close to their uncle.

There is a rift between DH and his cousin though as one inherited from their grandmother and the other didn’t even though DGM had made it clear why only one of them was inheriting from her. As I said earlier OP hopefully your parents have at least left a letter explaining their decision but unless your brother asked for his daughter to inherit instead of him it will still hurt and could break your sibling relationship for good.

If any of you start trying to discuss it, just remember the wills can still be changed. Forget fairness and morality, my Mother left her entire estate to her favourite child, not me I hasten to add and the other 5 of us got zero. Unless someone has been coerced or doesn’t have capacity it’s no one’s business.

That sounds perfectly fair to me. In fact, it's a very sensible solution.…if 1/4 went to brother 2 then there's no guarantee that his eldest children, their grandchildren, will get anything at all.

Your other brother needs to stop meddling.

Well, it's their money and they get to decide what they do with it. They're not dead yet so it's all a bit of a moot point as wills can and are changed depending on circumstances.

I don't think you should say anything. Especially as, unless they're really rich, if they live a long time and need care, they may not that be much left over anyway!

That's a very good point. Equally, he could have specifically asked for his share to be done this way and just didn't want his siblings to know.

I wouldn't. It's so grabby! To discuss stuff like this is like playing around with your parents' lives; it's sick.

I've noticed my DH get really tiresomely boring about investments and money in middle age, so perhaps the brother is of the same ilk, but please don't speak for me and all the others for whom this would be anathema.

I don't think this is terrible.

In general, we expect adult children to inherit and their DC will in due course benefit via their parents. OP's parents have skipped a generation for reasons she's explained. Brother 4's family will sill receive a quarter share.

Might be a bit embarrassing, but it isn't unfair. It's up to the other three whether to tell him in advance. If the news is likely to send his wife on a mission against the parents, it might be best to wait until after they've both died but before the will announcement.

Nothing to do with anyone else.Just the people whose will it is.

I think you’re being weird about this. Firstly it’s a hugely sensitive issue to post about online for randoms to dissect…

Secondly, your parents could change their will - you might be concerned over something that may not remain in place. There is nothing to indicate that both of your parents may imminently pass away.

Finally, you being away doesn’t stop you from having a 3 way conversation with siblings - the technology has existed for decades. You don’t need to meet face to face to discuss this urgently, as there is nothing really to discuss. Ultimately all you can do is respect the decision made. Unless your brother wants some clandestine agreement to sell the house as soon as they die and give the other brother some money so he’s not excluded? But even then, it’s a premature conversation to have!

The brother who will not inherit may be hurt or they may be expecting it - you explain there has been drama there after all.

In your situation though, it doesn’t seem like you would personally share your inheritance with your step family. Therefore your inheritance is protected, but that doesn’t automatically mean the logic isn’t flawed if you attempt to extrapolate it to other families.

In OP’s situation, the grandchild who would inherit is the biological child of the women who they want to exclude! There’s nothing stopping that person from sharing their inheritance with their mother or other siblings. In fact, I imagine that they will be placed in a difficult position if they do inherit and are the only one in their family unit who does inherit. Especially if the left out brother dies before they are 18.

That isn't how wills work.

The person leaving the money can leave it all to their cats if they so choose.

Nonsense. A will omitting children is not illegal. The will is perfectly legal.

The Scottish position is that if (greedy) children want to make a claim they can make a legal rights claim on either a third or a half of the moveable estate. A claim on 1/3rd if there is a spouse, a 1/2 if there isn't.

A spouse also can't be fully disinherited as they have certain "prior rights"- which include a house , up to a certain value, and cash which take precedence over the legal rights claim.

This means that if the will leaves everything to a spouse and if there are moveable assets above the level of the prior rights claim a (greedy) child could claim legal rights (1/3rd of moveable estate divided amongst all children).

Many, many wills would be "illegal" applying your analysis- they are not.

I read it as that child's grandkids inherit directly instead so SIL's previous marriage kids don't get it.

I wouldn't exactly be devastated about a nice trust for my kids. Annoyed maybe that it didn't go directly to me.

I think you're wrongly assuming they're protecting against the possibility that the brother would want to give it to his wife. There is clearly no such willingness and any loss to his stepchildren(?) would be against his will. OP references drama/disputes from the unrelated children, which suggests the brother's wishes conflicted with the wife's/children's. Otherwise there would be no conflict, just the brother giving them stuff. So the brother may well appreciate his family's portion of the inheritance being ringfenced and legally protected. He may even have asked for it. You have no idea.

Leaving aside the morality of leaving out a child, (and reading a will)of course it’s only going to mention the existing gc at the time of writing, they aren’t psychic.

But they have made provision, by stating future GC. Although ones after the will had been implemented cannot be included obviously.

I’m going to be honest, if one of my DC “found” my will and with the great big head saying “This is the last will and testament of xxxx” proceeded to read it.

Then the DC all got together and decided that me of sound mind, should not have made that Will and urged me to change it…….

I would, and Great Ormond Street would benefit greatly out of it.

Which is fine, they’re protecting the money from the step children.

I am not sure what your AIBU is but as none of you have zero control over what your parents do with their money I suggest the wills go back where brother found them and he forgets he saw them. What others think about your parents wishes is irrelevant. One will die before the other anyway and may change their mind.

Presuming they are thinking their money may go to SIL and her other children (not brothers biological children)and intends to throw a grenade into their family by skipping a generation and just giving money to biological grandchildren ignoring their son, his wife and step kids. Nice 🙄. You can look into deed of variation after death if you all feel it is unfair but if the grandchildren are adults it might be open to dispute. I would not do it to one of my DC.