Can the other beneficiaries make demands when the Will is being disputed?

[Disneycharacter]

My brother's wife of 12 years died 5 months ago. She owned the house they lived in outright, although she never worked and DB supported her financially the whole time. The two adult sons have been left the majority portion of the property and have told DB he must leave. Due to age and job he has no prospect of rehousing himself without living in poverty renting etc. Two adult sons both own their own properties with a mortgage.

DB is challenging the will under the inheritance Act 1975 for reasonable provision. He wants to live in the house with reduced shares going to the sons on death. The will was written 2 years ago and he was told this was the arrangement in the will, which wasn't true.

So its all in the hands of solicitors. The Sons are throwing a lot of mud which their solicitor is allowing rather than concentrating on the law. One area of contention is my DB wants his daughter and her family to visit in august for a family holiday. The Sons have said only the daughter may visit and not her family and the dates have to be agreed by them. This via solicitors letter.

DBs solicitor says this is unreasonable and will chat with him next week, but can the Sons do this? surely if the will is being contested they cannot assume they have what the will gives them? DB is asking for a 50% share as per the divorce fiction. They are also demanding entrance to the property, but in the past have taken his items without permission, and he feels very threatened fearing the will change the locks and evict him.

Was the house her's prior to marriage?

@StormyTeacups

Was the house her's prior to marriage?

They bought it together, but she paid for it from her divorce settlement.

There is clearly nothing to stop them making demands but that doesn't mean they are enforceable. As the will is being challenged, no distribution should take place, so the sons don't currently own any of the house. It belongs to the estate.

@prh47bridge Thank you. This is what we thought. I wondered on what grounds could they evict him/make demands for him to meet/dictate who visits? I thought none, as a judge would throw it out while its being challenged, so its nice to have it clarified and to know it belongs to the estate, until a ruling is made for all of them.

When they bought the house together, all be it with her money, was he put on the deeds at all

@Outbutnotoutout

When they bought the house together, all be it with her money, was he put on the deeds at all

No.

Who are the executors of the will?

They currently own the house on trust, as @prh47bridge said. Unless and until your brother is given formal notice to leave by the executors (which can't be done until the Inheritance Act claim is sorted out) it remains his home on the same basis as before, and he can invite whoever he wants into his home.

But hasn't your brother got a solicitor? He clearly needs one for the claim, and they are much better placed to advise than random people on the internet.

Inheritance Act claims are notoriously acrimonious and have a tendency to transfer a large chunk of the estate into the pockets of lawyers. The judge has a lot of discretion as to how to reallocate the assets, and according to the Act s/he must have regard to the following matters:

(a)the financial resources and financial needs which the applicant has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(b)the financial resources and financial needs which any other applicant is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(c)the financial resources and financial needs which any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future;
(d)any obligations and responsibilities which the deceased had towards any applicant or towards any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased;
(e)the size and nature of the net estate of the deceased;
(f)any physical or mental disability of any applicant for an order under the said section 2 or any beneficiary of the estate of the deceased;
(g)any other matter, including the conduct of the applicant or any other person, which in the circumstances of the case the court may consider relevant.

Note (g) - the mud slinging is fair game.

A warning. A colleague of mine inherited from her father. He did make provision for his second wife but left the business to my colleague which is worth millions. The court process is ongoing still 5 years on and legal fees are vast.

Prepare yourself and your dad!

@MurielSpriggs Yes he has a solicitor but they were both (solicitor and partner) on holiday last week.
Older son is the executor, but has employed a probate solicitor.

The mud slinging is horrific, and out and out lies in some cases. Luckily DB can disprove most with evidence to back up his denials. I am just sickened that their solicitor is allowing this and think they are trying to make his conduct look bad, and such a waste of time and money, when they should just be looking at the legal side.

Anyway, he has had an email via his solicitor saying they have graciously allowed his daughter to visit him, but restating they own 90% and can restrict visits if they choose. DB is going to ask his solicitor to ask their solicitor to instruct their clients on what they can and can't demand, as threats of eviction are appalling.

Fortunately DB has a rich boss who is sponsoring him as far as court (picture 3 grown men blubbing like babies when they told DB this news), which its unlikely to reach, and anyway he has a CFA agreement he can use.

good(ish) to know the mud slinging is par for the course though, as DB isn't the type to do this