Mums Will, failed!

[1452kc]

Husband(H) and Wife(W) walk into a Solicitors(S) to make the W Will, both H and W are present in the same room at the Will writing. W has been unwell for a number of years and will, just a few weeks from now pass away. H and W have lived separate lives for many years, separate beds, separate rooms and if finances would have allowed, separate houses. They have no children, H has no children, W has adult children from a prior relationship. H and W bought a house together over a decade earlier, the house they live in, the bulk of the purchase was made with W money, which included inheritance from W parents and blood relatives. However they own the house 50/50. H is somewhat controlling and abusive.

W tells S she wants to leave her half share in the house to her children, S adds to the Will, i assume after informing W this is what would be needed, that 'there was to be no restriction on the sale of the property' and 'no life interest for the H'. The point of these statements was to ensure the children got the W share in the house upon her death, not decades(?) later when the H dies. The H has significant funds of his own after inheriting his own fathers house.

During this meeting about the Will, the S asks these laypeople(H and W) 'is the house held as JT or TIC', what layperson know the ramifications of that? Anyway, S states in his notes that the(who responded?) response was 'TIC'. As the house is held as TIC what W has put in her Will, ie leave her share in the house to her children, is valid. Anyone can check the Land registry for a few £'s to find out the answer to JT, TIC, why didn't the S or S secretary do so? Why even ask the question? S should confirm with the source(Land Registry). Lazy, negligent, stupid, in on it? The H and S were both male, same age, etc.

Around a week later H walks back into S office and asks 'what if the property is not held at TIC?', S states, ' you will need to discuss that with your W'. S does not contact W. H does not talk to W.

A few weeks later W passes.

Turns out property as documented at the Land Registry is held as JT. Therefore W share passes to H and Will is worthless.

There may be paper work at the property that severed the JT, but that cannot be accessed. H will not allow it.

So the issue is the TIC vs JT. Many argue a course of action can severe a JT without any formal paper work explicitly severing the JT. If you apply for divorce it's likely you don't want to leave your share to your soon to be ex partner. Equally if you make a Will in front of your partner that states you want to leave your share to your kids, not them, surely that severs the JT. It's just common sense. Another point is, both(we will never know) H and W stated the property is held as TIC during the Will writing, that's a mutual agreement right there, a bit like saying 'i do' in the church.

So why does H now own 100% of the house? What a bs legal system. Deliberately grey, it should be a flow chart.

So how do we go back and get JT changed to TIC, so the Will is effective and the children can get their inheritance.

Thanks

The sad fact is abusive ex H now holds all , and op and her siblings won't ever get any of her mums inheritance, and he can easily squander it all.

You probably regret not just moving her, but she probably wouldn't have come willingly anyway.

To be clear, the Will was prepped and written by the senior partner in a very large firm. He was just lazy/incompetent/ or there was gossip in the circle that his mind had gone.

It was discussed with the W, but with her half share she didn't feel should would have enough to get an ok property. So they just lived together, apart.

It is their job. If they are not doing the checks, why bother with a solicitor, you can put your own Will together at home, far more convenient.

it defo takes takes two mins, i've done several this week alone. its 2 mins. The solicitor could have asked his secretary to do it, print it and present it while they were sitting in the room, its that easy.

All irrelevant. You withdrew your case. He could be the most incompetent negligent solicitor ever. it makes no difference now.

OP can you answer what happened when you complained to the Legal Ombudsman? What is happening now? Have you withdrawn your claim? Why did you not have legal representation? On what basis were the law firm's insurers defending the claim?

LeO(Legal ombudsman), used to be called the LCS(Legal Complaint Service), it's the same thing, just a rebrand with some additional powers.

It was brought to the attention of the LCS promptly, they recommended that the case was not brought to them, they suggested to take it the LeO, had to wait a few months for the LeO to open, but it was brought to them the day they opened. LeO then stated, the case too old(just over 1 year) for us to look at, they can show discretion, they wouldn't.

Someone with dementia certainly can make a will as long as the solicitor involved has ensured that they have the mental capacity to do so. Dementia doesn’t mean permanent loss of capacity - the law is clear. As long as they have the capacity to demonstrate that they know what is happening, what’s being asked of them and that they capable of informed consent, it’s perfectly legal. Solicitors are one of the professionals charged with making sure that someone who is making a will or consenting an LPA has the legally required capacity to do so. How do I know this ? My mum has vascular dementia and this was spelled out for me by her diagnosing HCP. Capacity is fluid - someone with dementia can have good and bad days, and it’s up to whoever has legal say for them to make sure that they are included in the decisions taken on their behalf as as far as possible.

OP have you involved your MP in this ?

Tried several times, no response.

Also tried the Chief Ombudsman multiple times, no response.

She can’t declare that herself. Her HCP or a solicitor are among the professionals who can do this. Just because you have been diagnosed with dementia does not mean you are not of sound mind. Capacity is fluid and even those with LPA have to involve the donor of the LPA as far as possible in any decision made on their behalf, and, where appropriate, that can involve waiting to make a decision until the donor is ready and able. An LPA is not a golden ticket for the attorney to do as they like, regardless of the wishes of the donor.

I’d be camping on the doorstep of your MP’s surgery. Or making a formal complaint.

About what exactly? If the testator gave the will writer incorrect information thats down to the testator, NOT the willwriter!

You need to ignore the dementia thing, it was an example.

She was of sound mind, but dying.

My point was if you can answer a question without doubt, just answer it, ie check the LR. Why bring doubt into something?

Look back through these posts you will find example where couples found out years later there property was not held as they expected, this can be an admin error, an error by the and registry, by the solicitor etc. Also over the years someone might have commited fraud and changed the TIC/JT without you knowing. Hence you just check it at the time when the Will is drafted to remove that doubt. This is the largest asset most people will ever own. JUST CHECK THE LR. Its so simple. You cant solve a problem unless you know the problem, in this case the solicitor tried to solve a problem when he didnt know what the problem was. Dumb as a stick.

We had this conversation before, last time im gona respond to you Soontobe60, you dont read! There is no evidence the testator gave the will writer incorrect information. You cant count a solicitors word after the Will had failed and your trying to sue them, they will say anything. There are no notes to indicate the testator was asked or answered the question of TIC/JT. And once again, you DON'T ASK. You simply check, this is called being a professional, and doing the bare minimum job you were paid to do, because the bare minimum has to at least have a working Will at the time it was written, in this case not even that was achieved.

Everything you have just said leads to the question - why did your DM not know how the house which she bought and paid for was held between her and her DH? Why did none of her children say - hey mum, check how the house is owned or else it could all go to your DH if you die before him’
Theres a whole raft of ‘what if’s’, but the nub of the issue is that the solicitor has not acted negligently therefore the will stands.

You said that the notes on the will appointment said TIC. She gave him incorrect info if it wasn’t TIC.
I read very well thank you very much. Maybe you need to listen to all the legal advice you've sought from various places. But that doesn’t suit your grievance.

You have been reported for trolling, do not post on this thread again, unless you can read and understand what's been written, you have failed time and again to do so.

gemini say this...

--################
When discussing property law, particularly in the context of co-ownership, the phrase "severance by an act of a joint tenant 'operating upon his own share'" refers to a specific method of ending a joint tenancy. Here's a breakdown:

• Joint Tenancy:
• In a joint tenancy, multiple owners hold an equal, undivided interest in a property.
• A key feature is the "right of survivorship," meaning that when one joint tenant dies, their interest automatically passes to the remaining joint tenants.
• Severance:
• Severance is the process of converting a joint tenancy into a tenancy in common.
• This eliminates the right of survivorship, allowing each owner to hold a distinct share that they can dispose of as they wish.
• "Operating Upon His Own Share":
• This phrase describes actions taken by a joint tenant that demonstrate an intention to treat their share as separate.
• Examples of such actions can include:
• Selling or mortgaging their own share of the property.
• Entering into a contract to sell their share.
• Bankruptcy, where their share may be transferred to a trustee.
• Essentially, it involves a joint tenant acting in a way that is inconsistent with the continuation of the joint tenancy.

Key Points:

• This method of severance is one of several ways a joint tenancy can be terminated.
• It focuses on the unilateral actions of an individual joint tenant.
• The result of such an action is that the joint tenancy is converted to a tenancy in common.

In essence, when a joint tenant performs an act that demonstrates they are treating their portion of the property as their own distinct share, they have "operated upon their own share" and thus severed the joint tenancy.
--################

Therefore writing a Will that leaves your share to someone other than the other share owner, will sever the Tenancy, ie flip it from JT to TIC.

Your mother didn't do any of that, though. She didn't do anything with her share of the property while she was ALIVE. She wanted to pass ownership to her children after her death. You can not sever a JT after death.

If you ask Gemini if you can leave your share of a house to someone else in your Will, this is the answer -

When it comes to jointly owned property and wills, the key distinction lies between "joint tenancy" and "tenancy in common." Here's a breakdown:
Joint Tenancy:

• In a joint tenancy, all owners have an equal, undivided interest in the entire property.
• The "right of survivorship" applies. This means that if one joint tenant dies, their share automatically passes to the surviving joint tenant(s), regardless of what their will states.
• Therefore, if you own your house as a joint tenant, you generally cannot leave your share to someone else in your will.

You need to come at this from another angle because this is not going to work.

Sadly it doesn't work that way, it didn't with my dads will, fortunately it made no material difference.

The will does not form severance.

That's the law, you can't argue that into your favour, as pp said you need a different angle.

There is almost nothing clearer than the W Will.

If it's really the case that that doesn't sever the JT, then that's a hole and any judge that upholds that hole needs stringing up from the nearest tree.

There must be some case law, that this exact scenario has played out, in favour of the Will severing the JT?

I'd like to see the law written that states that 'Entering into a contract to sell their share' severs a JT ,but 'writing a Will to leave your share to your kids' DOESN'T sever a JT?

Where is it written?

This is a public forum - please do not try to silence posters just because you disagree with what they say.
I have read all our posts, understand them all despite them being somewhat confused and then added my perspective. I’m sorry that you don’t want to hear different opinions to what you believe should be the case. I’m wasting my breath responding to you so will stop.