Will Legacy

[Arrods]

Say X bequeathes a sum of money to sibling Y. There was no reason to think why X didn't bequeath any money to siblings A, B or C. All siblings, including Y the beneficiary, are perplexed and are happy for the money to be shared out equally.

(a) Can X prevent this from happening under the terms of his/her will? And (b), if not, can the siblings come to a legal arrangement such that when the money is paid to Y, it is then re-distributed amongst the siblings (or rather, more likely, to the descendants of the siblings if the siblings are deceased)?

Thanks.

[factor-fiction]

a) After his death he can't do much about it. I can't see what he could beforehand either since once the money goes to Y, Y can do what he likes with it.
b) I'm not sure of the need for this. It's up to Y at the time to do what he likes with it.

[factor-fiction]

Has Y asked X whether he would rather share it out equally? X may have good reasons for giving it all to X

[factor-fiction]

Oops- I meant X may have good reasons for giving it all to Y.

[Buenchico]

As a basic starting point, with regard to writing wills, the general rule is that you can leave your estate to whoever you want to. (X could, for example, leave his/her entire estate to Battersea Dogs Home. A,B, C & Y have no automatic entitlement to any part of X's estate).

After the death of a testator, certain persons have the right to apply to a court for the terms of their will to be varied if they believe that the will did not make reasonable provision for them. However siblings can only make such an application if they were being maintained, in whole or in part, by the testator immediately prior to his/her death. Otherwise they can't change the terms of the will (unless, for example, they could show that the testator wasn't 'of sound mind', when he/she signed the will):
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/63

Once Y has received their share of the estate, it is theirs to do what they want with (including giving some of it to A, B and C if they so choose). Nothing written into X's will can prevent any redistribution by Y.

While it's perfectly possible for Y to agree to such a redistribution prior to the death of X, I'd advise against it as things could get messy if the siblings fall out. However if Y wants to go along that route then all that is needed is for him/her to write three separate pledges along the following lines:
"I, X, hereby pledge that should I receive part of the estate of Y under the terms of their will, I will give one quarter thereof to [insert A, B or C] within one calendar month of such receipt or, should such a time period not be practical, as soon as reasonably possible thereafter. I further pledge that should [insert A, B or C] die before I can make such a gift, I will distribute the said gift equally between the children of [insert A, B or C] within the same time period.

Signed: Y
Dated:
Witnessed by: [Signatures and printed names of witnesses D & E]"

[Buenchico]

Corrections!
I seem to have got X and Y mixed up (and missed out the word 'any'):
"I, Y, hereby pledge that should I receive any part of the estate of X . . .

[Arrods]

Buenchico - most grateful for your help and for your suggested wording. This all stemmed from a chance remark by X, which all siblings thought distinctly odd. No one could think of a reason why X would want to leave everything to Y. However, your comments and suggestions have done much to ease concerns.

[Barmaid]

I'm not convinced that any document signed whilst X is still alive is of effect. This is because Y has absolutely no interest to give away until X has died. I know, for example, that a disclaimer done whilst X is alive is of no effect.

I would suggest that you adopt a "wait and see" approach and if the legacy is included as you say, after X's death you do a Deed of Variation to his Will.

X could try and prevent this by including an "in terrorem" clause but I am not entirely sure how this could be effective - just thinking about the wording is giving me palpatations.

[Arrods]

Oh dear Buenchico & Barmaid, I do apologise for not posing the question clearly. The reference to 'Y' in reality is to any of X's surviving siblings. In other words, when X dies, his/her legacy would go to any one of Y, A, B or C who survived him/her. The immediate family is very close and one explanation could be that X wants to ensure the legacy is kept within the immediate family (notwithstanding that this would 'disinherit' siblings own offspring I.e. X's nieces/nephews).

As I said, X's siblings feel this is a little unfair and would be happy to come to an arrangement I described above. Probably, wait and see is the best. In the meantime, the siblings could all come to an informal (written or otherwise) understanding even knowing that in time it might not be 100% watertight.

Thanks again.

[black_cat51]

doing that seems a whole lot of hassle, when x could change the terms of the will 1 day prior to death, leaving it all to distressed elephants, and they will have done all this for naught.

Of course, abc and y might all predecease x anyway

[Arrods]

Thanks Black Cats51. Chances are X will outlive Y, A, B & C - this was more about distributing X's assets to all of their offspring in an equitable manner. Of course, X can leave his/her estate to anyone; this is fully understood. Equally, X could fall under the proverbial bus tomorrow!