disputed will

[carmalee]

apologies if this is also posted elsewhere - brain glich! My late brother was seperated from his wife for many years prior to his death. On excellent terms, they retained a joint bank account etc and did not want to get divorced. For about nine years my brother had a partner who moved in with him bringing absolutely nothing with her.He left her a good pension policy but was emphatic he didn't want her to inherit his estate when he died. This was to be for his family as s-i-law had given up a promising career in the forces when they married.(Married couples not allowed.) My brother remained in the RAF all his working life.This woman is now claiming the estate and refuses to vacate property-(been going on for 18months now with s-i-law footing all the bills. We have never had any sort of dissention in our family and would have happily given her extra to help her out if she needed it but she has already got �50k from the policy plus a year and a half of free living.- My sis-in-law is executrix of the estate. Have been told that the Government doesn't want middle aged women to support and have passed a law permitting cases like this to ignore the express wishes outlined in a Will. Surely this can't be right? We are so distressed my brother's wishes seem to be being ignored - he worked so hard throughout his life to ensure the well being of his family and now they seem to be of no importance. As they were living as man and wife and she wasn't merely a housekeeper, he felt he had adequately catered for her especially as she is quite able to work but is reluctant to do so. She had constantly urged him to sell the property so they could retire to a moblie home and live on the capital.My brother would never do that as he was adamant he wanted to honour his agreement with s-i-law and his children.Any help gratefully received.

[themas]

1. You don't say whether he made a will, but I assume he did & the dispute is over carrying out its provisions. If so, your sis-in-law, as executrix needs to take legal advice. Ultimately, such disputes may have to go to Court to be settled, but this can be ruinously expensive & is to be avoided if at all possible.

2. I suspect that whoever told you there was a law permitting cases like this to ignore the terms of the will was talking through the back of their neck. Ask them to quote you the actual piece of legislation involved. In any case, your description of this woman (able bodied & middle aged) does not fit with someone who the State would have a duty to house - she could claim some benefits, but would have to look for a job. In that respect, she's no different from many thousands of other people.

[carmalee]

many thank themas - sis in law has consulted solicitor and there seems to be huge confusion, hence my question - 'the woman's' Barrister is infering she has certain extensive rights and sis in laws solicitor is obviously trying to refute the claims. All very distressing and horrendously expensive, anyway really kind of you to take the trouble to answer - go well

[carmalee]

In case I haven't made it clear there is a very explicit Will drawn up by a solicitor.

[dzug]

Well a relation who is financially dependent can make a claim for 'reasonable provision'.

But the person involved isn't a relation, and in any case the time limit to make such a claim (6 months I think) has passed. And it would be reasonable provision - not the whole estate.

Methinks an eviction order may be the way round it.

[carmalee]

thanks for that dzug - there is a new provision for co-habitating couples - found about it yesterday so will spend next free day researching the whys and wherefores. So frustrating when we have always just sat down and worked things out to suit everyone until she came on the scene.Ah well, such is life.

[Barmaid]

There is no new provision about co-habiting couples. There was a provision inserted into the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act for co habitees to claim on an estate for reasonable financial provision for maintenance if they had lived as husband and wife of the deceased for the period of two years. (This was inserted in 1995). I suspect this is what she is claiming under.

I can't really say much more without a LOT more detail, but it sounds to me as if this woman has an arguable claim, but your sister in law has an equally arguable one - particularly in view of the "agreement", the children and particularly if they are infants (ie under 18).

[carmalee]

thank you barmaid - comments very much appreciated - this has been going on for 18months now and we seem to have been given so much conflicting advice from solicitors - or in 'her' case a Barrister. One big issue is that my s-i-l's mother died just before my brother and this inheritence seems to be an issue too? Maybe we should cghange solicitor? thank you

[Barmaid]

Has your solicitor instructed counsel yet (ie a barrister)? Sounds to me as if this is long overdue. Get your sister in law to instruct the solicitor to instruct SPECLIALIST counsel. You need advice. Fast.

[carmalee]

please explain to me exactly what that means so that I can pass on the info to her - sorry to be thick

[Barmaid]

Well it sounds to me like you need the advice of a barrister who specialises in wills and probate disputes - particularly Inheritance Act claims.

Look at it like this - most solicitors are like GPs (although some have specialist interests). If they have a really acute problem, they refer it to a specialist consultant (the legal version of this is a barrister). There are barristers that specialise in just trust and estate disputes. Sounds to me like you need a barrister to advise your s-i-l on a) her defences and b) potential settlement negotiations to prevent costs running out of all proportion.

If your s-i-l instructs a solicitor to seek the advice of counsel, he should do so. It will cost her (at least �500, more than likely nearly �1500), but good counsel instructed early enough will bring more focus to the dispute and in the long run save costs.

[carmalee]

Thank you for that barmaid -will get on it.