Inheritance query

AMBanks

Hi- I’ve a question regarding in inheritance.

My husband is divorced about 10 years. Lately he was contacted by a solicitor to inform him he was named in the will of his ex-wife’s godmother and has been left ten % of her estate. The ex wife has contacted him to say he needs to tell the solicitor he renounces all rights to this to avoid a lengthy legal process.

Is it not true that if he is named in the will it can’t be contested?


Thanks
A

Munstermissy

Why would he renouse it? On the say so of his ex wife? I don’t think so. Get him to ring the solicitor directly and ask why?

AMBanks

Munstermissy wrote: »

Why would he renouse it? On the say so of his ex wife? I don’t think so. Get him to ring the solicitor directly and ask why?

She thinks he has no right to it- that the godmother forgot to change it and that he should do the ‘right’ thing and give it back to her estate.

I don’t think he should give it back but I’m wondering could she legally challenge it. I thought wills were pretty tight- I don’t see how she can contest it.

I even said to him that she won’t hear anything else about it from what I know- you’ll just be contacted by the solicitor when the time comes and handed your cheque/askers where you want the funds.

But I could be wrong!

GerardKeating

[QUOTE=AMBanks;109846430I don’t think he should give it back but I’m wondering could she legally challenge it. I thought wills were pretty tight- I don’t see how she can contest it. [/QUOTE]

Any will or legal document can be challanged in court, but it could be very expensive and might take a long time.

Your husband needs to decide if the inheritance is worth the potential legal cost and hassle.

I reckon the other side are also thinking the same thing, the cost of the court action might exceed the bequest, hence the preemtpive action in asking him to givwe up the claim.

Widdensushi

The godmother might have thought it was the least due to him for putting up with the goddaughter, don't renounce anything till you get more details, how old is the will ?was she of sound mind ?she could be having a right old laugh at what the consequences of the will would be.

AMBanks

Widdensushi wrote: »

The godmother might have thought it was the least due to him for putting up with the goddaughter, don't renounce anything till you get more details, how old is the will ?was she of sound mind ?she could be having a right old laugh at what the consequences of the will would be.

This is further complicated by the fact that it’s in the UK and we now live in Ireland. The will was made years ago as far as I know and she only died last year- which means she had years to change and never did.

I just think she had plenty of opportunity to change it, she didn’t, so how can the ex say he doesn’t have a right to it.

If she is during my husband in the UK what rights are there if he is living in Ireland??

lawred2

that could be challenged in court - how much is this 10% expected to be worth?

randomrb

GerardKeating wrote: »

Any will or legal document can be challanged in court, but it could be very expensive and might take a long time.

Your husband needs to decide if the inheritance is worth the potential legal cost and hassle.

I reckon the other side are also thinking the same thing, the cost of the court action might exceed the bequest, hence the preemtpive action in asking him to givwe up the claim.

If you are named in the will then you are entitled to receive what it says the only challenges against a specific term of a will would be for undue influence which it doesnt seem is the case here. You cant challenge a will because you dont like the person.

The costs of any challenge against the validity of a will are paid out of the estate so the beneficiary ie the OP's husbaqnd does not have to do anything it would be the estate itself through the executor that would defend any challenge

She could have liked your husband, regardless of the break up. It's not your husband's ex's business who her godmother liked enough to leave something to.

AMBanks

So the ex wife would be challenging the will- rather than my husband personally?

We were informed of the inheritance last August. The solicitor informed us that matters shd be finalised in coming weeks and she wld be in contact.

His ex wife contacted him back in August about it and he simply replied I will contact the solicitor and nothjng has been discussed since.

Her email stated ‘to avoid any lengthy legal issues and costs cld you pls contact the solicitor to tell them you are not entitled ‘ - quite threatening to me!

I have no idea how much it will amount to- there was a house to be sold but there could have been bills and debts etc so who knows.

blackwhite

randomrb wrote: »

If you are named in the will then you are entitled to receive what it says the only challenges against a specific term of a will would be for undue influence which it doesnt seem is the case here. You cant challenge a will because you dont like the person.

The costs of any challenge against the validity of a will are paid out of the estate so the beneficiary ie the OP's husbaqnd does not have to do anything it would be the estate itself through the executor that would defend any challenge

Is there an obligation on the executor to contest all challenges to the will?

For example, in the current example, if the executor was a sibling of the ex-wife is there a danger they could decide not to contest/defend a challenge which was brought to try and exclude the OPs husband?

marko99

lawred2 wrote:

that could be challenged in court - how much is this 10% expected to be worth?

On what grounds exactly?

lawred2

marko99 wrote: »

On what grounds exactly?

no idea - would presume this ex wife's family wouldn't make such a threat without advice of their own that there are grounds for a challenge

unless she's simply hoping to scare him off

randomrb

Thats correct OP the will is the default position so it is the person who wants to change that that has to bring a challenge. Your husband does not have to do anything at this stage and does not need to renounce or pay anything

blackwhite wrote: »

Is there an obligation on the executor to contest all challenges to the will?

For example, in the current example, if the executor was a sibling of the ex-wife is there a danger they could decide not to contest/defend a challenge which was brought to try and exclude the OPs husband?

The executor has a legal duty to fairly administer the estate and therefore they are obliged to defend any challenges against the estate or the will.

This means in practice that some people will refuse or step down as executor if they want to challenge or there is a conflict of interests

If they decided not to they could be personally liable for the amount the beneficiary could have received

Squatter

blackwhite wrote: »

For example, in the current example, if the executor was a sibling of the ex-wife is there a danger they could decide not to contest/defend a challenge which was brought to try and exclude the OPs husband?

The fact that a solicitor has contacted the OP's husband regarding the bequest suggests to me that a solicitor is probably the executor.

Squatter

Squatter wrote: »

The fact that a solicitor has contacted the OP's husband regarding the bequest suggests to me that a solicitor is probably the executor.

Yes and the solicitor has said nothing about dropping out of the will. The ex did personally, so the solicitor will contest any challenge

AMBanks wrote: »

The ex wife has contacted him to say he needs to tell the solicitor he renounces all rights to this to avoid a lengthy legal process.

Squatter

GerardKeating wrote: »

Any will or legal document can be challanged in court, but it could be very expensive and might take a long time.

Your husband needs to decide if the inheritance is worth the potential legal cost and hassle.

I reckon the other side are also thinking the same thing, the cost of the court action might exceed the bequest, hence the preemtpive action in asking him to givwe up the claim.

But if the will is challenged, the husband wouldn't have to defend it; that would be the executor's responsibility so the costs would be funded from the estate?

Currently he has nothing, so if the will is contested, then the worst case scenario is that he will end up with nothing. He can't lose - whereas his ex-wife's family can!

If they have any brains at all, they'll either let the 10% through or will make him an offer to buy him off!

3DataModem

Challenging part of a will is difficult in Ireland, because often the result is that the entire will is set aside, which some people may not like.

I would take the bequest, then decide what to do after that.

For example if the entire estate is a family home that a disabled relative of the deceased is living in, then you could transfer your share to this relative as an act of goodwill (or put in in a trust).

Another possibility is that they decide that the rest of the inheritors are undeserving (by whatever standards they want) and decide to donate the inheritance to a charity instead, in the godmothers name.

Radio5

AMBanks wrote: »

So the ex wife would be challenging the will- rather than my husband personally?

We were informed of the inheritance last August. The solicitor informed us that matters shd be finalised in coming weeks and she wld be in contact.

His ex wife contacted him back in August about it and he simply replied I will contact the solicitor and nothjng has been discussed since.

Her email stated ‘to avoid any lengthy legal issues and costs cld you pls contact the solicitor to tell them you are not entitled ‘ - quite threatening to me!

I have no idea how much it will amount to- there was a house to be sold but there could have been bills and debts etc so who knows.

Do you or your husband have a solicitor in Ireland? If not, get one and instruct him or her to contact the solicitor in the UK. It's 8 months since UK solicitor contacted with your husband, he is well entitled to an update now i.e has the house been sold, what are the debts, liabilities, what figure he is likely to get and what are the tax implications of this? UK inheritance tax is not the same as Ireland so he needs to get tax advice on that.

Wills can be challenged but there have to be substantial grounds.

Not liking the content of the Will is not a ground for challenging it.

The fact that the Will was made years ago under different family circumstances is not a ground for challenging it. The ex-wife's view/threats are not to be mistaken for fact.

In Ireland you need to have a ground to base a challenge on, for example,

Was the person of sound mind when they made the Will ? Medical evidence would be needed to show either way.

Is the Will a forgery ? Handwriting and other expert advice needed to show that.

Was there undue influence or pressure to make the Will? Evidence about the physical making of the will is needed, was it made with a solicitor? What happened on that day, who made the appointment with the solicitor? Did someone come with the lady making the Will who might have been, even subtly, pressuring her? Was Will made with her usual solicitor? Had the lady made previous Wills that contradicted the last one so it could be seen as out of the ordinary etc etc ? These are the kind of issues that would have to be there to challenge a Will.

randomrb

Radio5 wrote: »

Do you or your husband have a solicitor in Ireland? If not, get one and instruct him or her to contact the solicitor in the UK. It's 8 months since UK solicitor contacted with your husband, he is well entitled to an update now i.e has the house been sold, what are the debts, liabilities, what figure he is likely to get and what are the tax implications of this? UK inheritance tax is not the same as Ireland so he needs to get tax advice on that.

Wills can be challenged but there have to be substantial grounds.

Not liking the content of the Will is not a ground for challenging it.

The fact that the Will was made years ago under different family circumstances is not a ground for challenging it. The ex-wife's view/threats are not to be mistaken for fact.

In Ireland you need to have a ground to base a challenge on, for example,

Was the person of sound mind when they made the Will ? Medical evidence would be needed to show either way.

Is the Will a forgery ? Handwriting and other expert advice needed to show that.

Was there undue influence or pressure to make the Will? Evidence about the physical making of the will is needed, was it made with a solicitor? What happened on that day, who made the appointment with the solicitor? Did someone come with the lady making the Will who might have been, even subtly, pressuring her? Was Will made with her usual solicitor? Had the lady made previous Wills that contradicted the last one so it could be seen as out of the ordinary etc etc ? These are the kind of issues that would have to be there to challenge a Will.

I agree with all this but you dont need to instruct a solicitor simply to get an update, as a beneficiary you are entitled to an update ring them or email them yourself

Radio5

Yes agreed as a beneficiary you are so entitled. But sometimes solicitors tend to pay more attention when another solicitor is enquiring about an Estate. I say this having worked as a legal secretary for many years. 8 months is a long time to have heard nothing from them.

I'm not advocating that you need a solicitor for everything but it does help on occasion.

Mr. Incognito

The Ex Wife has zero legal grounds for challenge.

You can leave anything you want in your will to any person at any time.

The Ex Wife's family would have to sue the estate and eat up their own inheritance to have it set aside. Not going to happen.

Ignore the ex-wife and wait for the cheque and enjoy it.

Bandana boy

Legally you are probably air tight but ethically you should renounce , it was most likely a mistake.

Bandana boy

Bandana boy wrote: »

Legally you are probably air tight but ethically you should renounce , it was most likely a mistake.

Why? How would we know?

The godmother and the OP's husband could have gotten along amazingly (so much so that she names him specifically, in her will, and not just his Ex)

Husband may have been dicked around by the Ex and the Godmother decided to keep him in etc etc etc.

It's not his Ex's estate, it is that of the deceased and that person made their wishes known and had time to amend yet chose not to.


OP, take the money and raise a glass to the Godmother.

Bandana boy

Deleted User wrote: »

Why? How would we know?

The godmother and the OP's husband could have gotten along amazingly (so much so that she names him specifically, in her will, and not just his Ex)

Husband may have been dicked around by the Ex and the Godmother decided to keep him in etc etc etc.

It's not his Ex's estate, it is that of the deceased and that person made their wishes known and had time to amend yet chose not to.


OP, take the money and raise a glass to the Godmother.

We cant know , which is why I said most likely
but we can approximate a guess ,And we all would suspect she made a tax efficient will 10 years ago and forgot to change.
ops husband will have an idea and his ex wife certainly has voiced it was a mistake , and if he feels this was an oversight be the bigger man and renounce .

Squatter

Bandana boy wrote: »

We cant know , which is why I said most likely
but we can approximate a guess ,And we all would suspect she made a tax efficient will 10 years ago and forgot to change.
ops husband will have an idea and his ex wife certainly has voiced it was a mistake , and if he feels this was an oversight be the bigger man and renounce .

I'd be strongly of the opinion that the beneficiary of the will should respect the wishes of the deceased. Then, after he gets his bequest, he should send his ex-wife a bunch of flowers and a thank you card.

OP - be sure to remind him to pay any CAT due on the bequest.

Peregrinus

Without knowing very much about the facts and the background, my gut tells me that it will be very difficult for the ex-wife successfully to challenge the will. And, if she does challenge the will, as others have said, it's not the ex-husband's job to defend it; it's the executor's.

This doesn't mean, though, that the ex-husband is home and dry. There are two other routes the wife could take,

One is to seek to reopen the financial settlement on the divorce. Courts are generally reluctant to reopen these, but the ex-wife could argue that the bequest to the husband is an unexpected windfall arising out of the marriage and out of his former connection to the ex-wife and her family, and that it justifies reopening the settlement and directing the husband to pay it, or a part of it, to her. That's an action that the ex-husband would have the trouble and expense of defending.

The other would be an action arguing that the bequest was intended to benefit the wife, and that in equity a trust should be imposed on it for the benefit of the wife, or at least for the benefit of the ex-husband and ex-wife jointly.

Neither of these actions are guaranteed to succeed, by any means. But both have niusance value, and would impose delay and expense on the ex-husband, which seems to be what the ex-wife thinks is her strongest suit.

Bandana boy

Bandana boy wrote: »

We cant know , which is why I said most likely
but we can approximate a guess ,And we all would suspect she made a tax efficient will 10 years ago and forgot to change.
ops husband will have an idea and his ex wife certainly has voiced it was a mistake , and if he feels this was an oversight be the bigger man and renounce .

The Ex wife has zero say in this, her "opinion" is obviously clouded and she has no insight to what her relative actually thought privately.
You said "most likely a mistake" yet advise the OP that her husband take a definitive course of action.

Also "be the bigger man"? Again the ex has no say in this, just because she does not like it does not mean that she gets to put pressure on another person named in the will. That is being petty.


Also, OP husband could have been put through hell and deserve this, who knows.

Take the money OP, the Ex and her family do not care about anything other than maximising their own take.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

The other would be an action arguing that the bequest was intended to benefit the wife, and that in equity a trust should be imposed on it for the benefit of the wife, or at least for the benefit of the ex-husband and ex-wife jointly.

Neither of these actions are guaranteed to succeed, by any means. But both have niusance value, and would impose delay and expense on the ex-husband, which seems to be what the ex-wife thinks is her strongest suit.

This would be a nuisance route indeed. Ample time passed for the will to be changed. It, according to my reading, was not a recent divorce.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

This would be a nuisance route indeed. Ample time passed for the will to be changed. It, according to my reading, was not a recent divorce.

Sure. But "ample time passed for the will to be changed" is not a considerationw where the proceedings are not challenging the will.

Nor does it suggest that the wife should have moved sooner. But the inheritance is a recent inheritance, and the wife could hardly have applied either to reopen the financial settlement or to impose a trust on the inheritance before the inheritance arose, could she? It's quitel likely she didn't even know that this provision was in the will until after the death.

randomrb

Peregrinus wrote: »

The other would be an action arguing that the bequest was intended to benefit the wife, and that in equity a trust should be imposed on it for the benefit of the wife, or at least for the benefit of the ex-husband and ex-wife jointly.

This is an interesting line of thought, however the only reasoning behind why it would have been given to him but intended for her would be to avoid tax, would that be enough to say you aren't coming to equity with clean hands?

Peregrinus

randomrb wrote: »

This is an interesting line of thought, however the only reasoning behind why it would have been given to him but intended for her would be to avoid tax, would that be enough to say you aren't coming to equity with clean hands?

We don't know that that was the only reason, do we?

Perhaps the testatrix had old-fashioned ideas about gender roles, and whose job it was to look after the marital assets.

Even if the reason was tax avoidance, there's a sharp difference between (a) arranging your affairs in a tax-efficient manner, which is legitimate, and (b) tax evasion, which definitely isn't. I don't see that the former would provide any grounds at all for arguing that someone didn't have "clean hands" in the equitable sense.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Sure. But "ample time passed for the will to be changed" is not a considerationw where the proceedings are not challenging the will.

Nor does it suggest that the wife should have moved sooner. But the inheritance is a recent inheritance, and the wife could hardly have applied either to reopen the financial settlement or to impose a trust on the inheritance before the inheritance arose, could she? It's quitel likely she didn't even know that this provision was in the will until after the death.

As several years have past, since the divorce, with ample time to remove the OP's husband, could you not argue strongly that the inheritance was not for the benefit of the ex-wife?

10% is a lot of an estate, the godmother would hardly have forgotten that this provision was in her will. By leaving the OP husband in the will, is that not a big indication that it was intentional and for his benefit?

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

As several years have past, since the divorce, with ample time to remove the OP's husband, could you not argue strongly that the inheritance was not for the benefit of the ex-wife?

10% is a lot of an estate, the godmother would hardly have forgotten that this provision was in her will. By leaving the OP husband in the will, is that not a big indication that it was intentional and for his benefit?

Well, you can make the argument. But there are potential counter-arguments; was the relationship between the husband and the wife's godmother such that it is unsurprising that she would leave him a substantial legacy? (We don't know the answer to this question, of course, so it could work either way.) Is it possible that the testatrix mistakenly believed that, just as marriage by the testator revokes a previous will, so divorce by a beneficiary ould have the like effect on a beques to them? Was she legally advised when she made the will? Did she leave anything at all to her actual godchild, and what light might the answer to this question cast on the bequest to her godchild's husband? Etc, etc.

Look, I agree, the ex-wife would almost certainly be fighting an uphill battle in any proceedings she might bring here. I'm speculating about what proceedings she might bring, and what facts might exist to provide arguments in support of those proceedings. The facts, if known, might suggest that her proceedings were near-hopeless. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have signficant niusance value.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, you can make the argument. But there are potential counter-arguments; was the relationship between the husband and the wife's godmother such that it is unsurprising that she would leave him a substantial legacy? (We don't know the answer to this question, of course, so it could work either way.) Is it possible that the testatrix mistakenly believed that, just as marriage by the testator revokes a previous will, so divorce by a beneficiary ould have the like effect on a beques to them? Was she legally advised when she made the will? Did she leave anything at all to her actual godchild, and what light might the answer to this question cast on the bequest to her godchild's husband? Etc, etc.

Look, I agree, the ex-wife would almost certainly be fighting an uphill battle in any proceedings she might bring here. I'm speculating about what proceedings she might bring, and what facts might exist to provide arguments in support of those proceedings. The facts, if known, might suggest that her proceedings were near-hopeless. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't have signficant niusance value.

I am/was totally agreeing with you. My original comment was doubling down on your assertion of nuisance path. It would be for pure spite

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

I am/was totally agreeing with you. My original comment was doubling down on your assertion of nuisance path. It would be for pure spite

No, no, it could be just a calculated attempt to get more herself. I don't know, but I assume, that if the ex-husband disclaims his legacy the ex-wife will in some way be the beneficiary. It's possible that what the will actually provides is a bequest of 20% of the estate to the husband and wife jointly in equal shares.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, no, it could be just a calculated attempt to get more herself. I don't know, but I assume, that if the ex-husband disclaims his legacy the ex-wife will in some way be the beneficiary. It's possible that what the will actually provides is a bequest of 20% of the estate to the husband and wife jointly in equal shares.

By spite I also include her grasping at more inheritance, at the expense of her ex.

Either way: politely tell her bugger off and don't spoil the legacy/memories/fun times that the OP's husband had with the bereaved, during their really close friendship so painfully truncated by the divorce. Obviously the godmother never forgot

The executor will handle this, hence the ex trying to make him do it through personal correspondence and not officially. OP should not give up a claim, he owes her nothing (until a judge rules otherwise, should she decide to go all out)

NUTLEY BOY

Whether the will is subject to Irish law or English law - not clear on this point - there is a common conventional principle which is that a will speaks from the grave.
Therefore, interested parties do not have the sometimes assumed entitlement to try to effectively rewrite a will post mortem in accordance with their view.

Unless there is any invalidity or defect inherent in the will a presumption of valid entitlement to inherit lies in favour of the beneficiary ex-husband.

I get the distinct smell of a disgruntled beneficiary in the form of the ex-wife.
It is not her place to request the ex-husband to alienate his inheritance.
Neither is it her place to contact the solicitor on behalf of the ex-husband with any instructions or directions.

OP must maintain direct contact with the solicitor handling the estate and not through or with anyone else.

By any chance is the ex-wife named or related to Hilda Rumpole ? i.e. "She who must be obeyed".....

qwerty13

I’d absolutely maintain contact with the legal party administering the estate. And ignore any ‘advice’ from the ex.

However, on a personal level, I would be inclined to think about why the bequest was made. Did your husband always get on with this woman in his own capacity (ie outside of his relationship with his ex). Did he keep in touch with her since the divorce. Would him taking his rightly inheritance mean that someone who had been dependent on her / who she was dependent on getting less from her will.

If it genuinely seemed that she probably made the will in the manner she did due to his marriage at the time, and there was no personal reason/relationship otherwise, then I’d personally consider what his ex says.

I wouldn’t be considering that due to the ex tho!

Ghekko

Don't do anything. It's most likely a case that the ex has since been told that she has no grounds to contest it, hence the reason she hasn't been in contact since August. Keep in contact with the solicitor dealing with the estate and nobody else.

twowheelsonly

Bandana boy wrote: »

Legally you are probably air tight but ethically you should renounce , it was most likely a mistake.

Highly unlikely that it was a mistake. As others have said it may have been done for Tax reasons or may have been 20% between husband and ex but I'd be 100% certain that it wasn't a mistake in the first instance. Having 10 years to correct it and not doing so is also unlikely to be a mistake IMO.

It strikes me more of greed or a sense of entitlement from the ex-wife than any mistake.

One other point is that who's to say that the ex hasn't also tried to pull this stunt with other beneficiaries ?