Huge dispute ... walk away?

[Willadvice2021]

Ok, so some of you mar have read my post of the situation with Adam, Ben and Craig.

To try and be brief A&B are brothers, C is a cousin. B had been no contact for years before his fathers death. Previously assaulted his mother before her death. B share of the estate was decreased to accommodate C who had been very hands on with the father. Father had wanted to write B out but A&C thought he might challenge that and asked to keep him in on that basis.

Father was poorly and old, had numerous carers, nurses, friends and extended family around up until his death. GP, nurses, family, friends etc can all account to his sane state as well as the situation with B, there are at least 30 people will to state that in writing.

B is claiming his Dad wasn't of sound mind and he wants his full share of 50% of the estate. He is now claiming A is bias in his role was executor and therefore responsible got his own costs and needs removed. He had previously applied for caveat which B stopped.

Should A just step down and walk away and then what happens? A is pretty poor, they have spent thousands on legal advice thus far which B is saying he can't claim back from the estate. It's weeks between communication from As solicitor. C had pretty much kept out of it. A previously had to give up work to care for his dad and this is breaking him financially and emotionally. B is wealthy and could easily use up the small estate (total estate 120k) just for spite.

Why can’t the legal fees be paid from the estate if B is proved wrong / malicious? It doesn’t sound right that he can just contest the will when he has no grounds to do so and not pay A’s legal costs.

That's what he assumed and were advised but the letter from Bs solicitor is stating that they can't do that as they are saying he's bias. A's solicitor says he will meet him him next week to discuss but needs another £800 to carry on. A is having a bit of a breakdown over it all.

I still can't see how B can win but he can certainly make their life a living hell and drain the tiny estate.

It's sad as A was kind of hoping on that money. He had discussed with his Dad about going into care but his Dad refused and so A had to give up work early to care for his Dad, C was great too. I know no one should rely on money and I think he will cope just about, but for example his car is sworn etc, so it could have helped a little but it's clearly going to get eaten up in legal fees he needs to pay upfront.

Just wondering if anyone has walked away and what that entails. Surely the new executor still has to carry out the will as instructed anyway?

As it is A had given B everything he asked for except having half the estate although he did agree to give more than the will said if he would allow this to go through.

Put this on the legal board

@RunningFromInsanity

Put this on the legal board

Have requested,thanks. Hoped for me footfall here but you're right, it would be better suited there. Thanks

Afternoon - moving this to the Legal board for you now, OP.

Thank you so much

www.thegazette.co.uk/wills-and-probate/content/100023

www.willans.co.uk/knowledge/contesting-will/

It is up to B to prove there's an issue and bring the case.

It does not matter what he instructs the solicitor to write, until a court rules in his favour, he has no power.

Even if an 'unbiased' executor is appointed (solicitor), the executor has to abide by the will and B still can't get half.

@Gingernaut

www.thegazette.co.uk/wills-and-probate/content/100023

www.willans.co.uk/knowledge/contesting-will/

It is up to B to prove there's an issue and bring the case.

It does not matter what he instructs the solicitor to write, until a court rules in his favour, he has no power.

Even if an 'unbiased' executor is appointed (solicitor), the executor has to abide by the will and B still can't get half.

That's really helpful. Thank you. I feel feel so bad for A, he's having an awful time and the whole thing seems so grossly unfair. I guess this is what happens after a lifetime of giving into B.

The letter from B's solicitor has no legal effect. A can (and should) continue to pay the solicitor from the estate. On what you have written, I don't see that A has a personal interest in the outcome anyway. It sounds like A's share will be unaffected by B's claim. And, assuming the summary in your OP is accurate, I don't see that B has any realistic chance of success. He may well end up having to pay the estate's legal costs himself.

B has to bring the case to court, prove the case and pay all the bills.

@prh47bridge

The letter from B's solicitor has no legal effect. A can (and should) continue to pay the solicitor from the estate. On what you have written, I don't see that A has a personal interest in the outcome anyway. It sounds like A's share will be unaffected by B's claim. And, assuming the summary in your OP is accurate, I don't see that B has any realistic chance of success. He may well end up having to pay the estate's legal costs himself.

I was hoping you would come along. Thanks so much. B wants A to take a cut of his the share. I think, it's set up like A-60 B-15 C-15

B wants 50% so would leave A with 35%.

B can want what he likes.

If A is executor he simply carries out the wishes of the will. If B is unhappy with this then he needs to appoint a solicitor and apply to take this to court - paying for it himself.

B is a tosser btw. It was up to Father to leave his will how he liked and he was perfectly at liberty to cut B out altogether.

Thanks, A was just in a state and can't speak to solicitor until end of the week. Plus his solicitor is insisting on further payments, it's cost thousands already and only one letter has been sent from the solicitor. So it's scary. I think if B hadn't included that about paying his legal costs but any going further forward wouldn't be able to be deducted then he would have backed out and given B what he wanted for it to be over with. As I say, they have always given in, the fact B stated that A was liable for legal costs means he us more insistent on fighting it,which is good.

I'm horrified at the legal costs involved this far. If B loses I assume he is responsible for his own legal costs?

On what grounds does B think he’s entitled to more?

The will says X why does he think it’s should say Y?

No one can change the will.

Let B take them to court and let the court decide

Well he's now saying his father wasn't of sound mind. They have a GP stating he was, they have medical records mentioning him being of sound mind and able to make their own decisions, a DNR around the time of his death which states he was of sound mind, they also have at least 30 people willing to write that they believed he was of sound mind, many of which he had mentioned his will too and all can verify that B hadn't been on the scene in years. Including carers etc who were there before he left and after.

Some the father told the alleged assault to.

They are saying they want all the medical records etc as they don't believe he was of sound mind and they want and they want A to stand down as executor as he is bias and they want to employ a solicitor of their choosing to manage the estate.

I'm just so confused this is allowed to happen.

www.penningtonslaw.com/expertise/solicitors-for-individuals-private-client-and-tax/contentious-probate-and-trust-disputes/faqs-contesting-a-will

B is responsible if he loses.

He has no grounds, his solicitor would have told him that, but he can dictate a complete load of nonsense and the solicitor will send it.

A needs to knock this on the head, with a challenge to put or shut up.

Once legal proceedings are over, he can reclaim any necessary expenses from the estate, thereby depleting the final amount each beneficiary inherits.

If B wants to see any inheritance, he needs to stop.

It sounds like he's got a 'no win, no fee' ambulance chaser.

It's up to B's solicitor to request the medical records, otherwise A could be accused of doctoring anything B receives.

It sounds like B knows how stressful this all is and is hoping A will cave and give him what he wants.

A could cave, renounce receivership, hand it on to a solicitor (who will drain the estate for fees) and B would be less well off than if he had accepted the will.

You're not in Scotland are you? As this can drastically change the situation?

Yeah. That.

www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/103869

It sounds like it's a proper solicitor, but then I think it's a friend their daughter who did law, sat the bar etc but didn't get work experience to become a barrister. So they have connections.

A's solicitor prepared a long response as A said he wanted to answer all of B's points over a lot of letters etc and now B's solicitor is saying that shows bias and that they are responsible for costs.

A's solicitor felt they only thing they had any chance in was dependence but they are very clearly in a substantially better place than A so couldn't see how that could stick.

There are NOT in Scotland.

A needs to stop with the long responses as the time spent talking to the solicitor costs money as well as any research and time spent drafting and sending letters.

B's solicitor is some trainee with one hand on Google and the instruction books and no expertise in contentious probate which is what it became when she stuck her oar in.

It sounds like she's going down the list of reasons why you could contend a will.

The only winners here will be the solicitors.

B wants to bring the action, B has to pay and will be liable for all costs if he loses.

B's trying it on, the woman 'advising' him is not being helpful and needs to give her head a wobble.

A lay executor can use estate funds to pay necessary expenses.

A professional executor can use estate funds to claim hourly rates for those who worked on the estate and all expenses.

As long as A isn't taking the piss and claiming for coffee, stamps, taxis and lunches, he's within his rights to claim what he paid for legal fees from the estate.

Without seeing I wouldn't like to say for sure but preparing a long response may have been a waste of time and money.

The estate should be paying legal costs, not A personally.

I'm just so confused this is allowed to happen.

B is allowed to challenge if he wants. No-one will stop him from doing so until he loses in court. From what you have posted, it seems like his approach is to try and wear A down. This may be harassment. A should be clear with B that he will not engage further and B must take legal action against the estate if he wants to pursue this.