Not A Dry Eye In The House......
News14 mins ago
Probate....intestate ??
My father passed suddenly in January and he had not made a will. He has a few personal effects and these have been shared among family.
He had bought the house that he and my step mother lived in , first it was a rented property and then with the right to buy, he did just that. I have a sister and step sister. Now in the immediate future my step mother ( who does not have a will ) is going to make a will that leaves the entire estate to our step sister . It is not vast swathes of cash or property, more a modest ISA £30 K and an end of terrace house in the country. We can't find out from any records who invested what to buy the house. It seems jolly unfair that this is what is allowed to happen. Am I right ??
He had bought the house that he and my step mother lived in , first it was a rented property and then with the right to buy, he did just that. I have a sister and step sister. Now in the immediate future my step mother ( who does not have a will ) is going to make a will that leaves the entire estate to our step sister . It is not vast swathes of cash or property, more a modest ISA £30 K and an end of terrace house in the country. We can't find out from any records who invested what to buy the house. It seems jolly unfair that this is what is allowed to happen. Am I right ??
Answers
1 to 12 of 12
The BASIC rules that apply are as follows (but see below): If the value of your father's estate was greater than £270,000, then your father's children (including you, obviously) get to share half of the excess above that figure. (e.g. if the estate was worth £350,000, it exceeds £270,000 by £80,000. Your step mother gets £40,000 from that, plus the £270,000,...
02:16 Wed 15th Feb 2023
The BASIC rules that apply are as follows (but see below):
If the value of your father's estate was greater than £270,000, then your father's children (including you, obviously) get to share half of the excess above that figure. (e.g. if the estate was worth £350,000, it exceeds £270,000 by £80,000. Your step mother gets £40,000 from that, plus the £270,000, with your father's children (but not stepchildren) sharing the remaining £40,000.
If the value of your father's estate doesn't exceed £270,000, your stepmother gets everything.
(See here: https:/
HOWEVER the full value of the house will only form part of his estate if his name was the only one on the title deed.
IF your father and your stepmother owned the house as 'tenants in common', then your stepmother will retain her share in the property but the other half will form part of your father's estate. (She might still end up with all of it though, depending upon whether or not the total value of his estate then exceeded £270,000 or not).
HOWEVER if your father and your stepmother owned the house as 'joint tenants', then (as the surviving tenant) your stepmother now AUTOMATICALLY owns the whole property. (Intestacy law becomes totally irrelevant under such circumstances).
What all of that lot actually means to you is as follows:
IF the property was owned by your father and stepmother as joint tenants, then it now belongs entirely to your stepmother and she's free to leave it to whomever she likes in her will. There's no way that you can challenge it.
OTHERWISE it's possible (but not necessarily advisable) for you to apply to a court to vary the normal intestacy rules on the grounds that they result in you failing to receive 'reasonable financial provision' from the distribution of the estate:
https:/
However such an application is a big (and potentially very costly) step. You'd definitely need to seek the advice of a solicitor who specialises in such matters before doing so. (I suspect that his/her advice might well be that, given the relatively small size of the estate, it might not be worth proceeding with such an application, even if he/she thinks that there might be some merit to your case).
You can download a copy of the title register for the house for £3 from the Land Registry website. (I'm assuming that it hasn't yet been amended after your father's passing):
https:/
If the title register only shows your father's name, then (obviously) he was the sole owner. If both names are shown though, you need to look under 'Proprietorship Register' to see whether there's a statement along these lines shown there: “No disposition by a sole proprietor of the land (not being a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered except under an order of the Registrar or the Court”. If it's present, then your father and your stepmother were almost certainly 'tenants in common'. If not, then they were almost certainly 'joint tenants'.
If the value of your father's estate was greater than £270,000, then your father's children (including you, obviously) get to share half of the excess above that figure. (e.g. if the estate was worth £350,000, it exceeds £270,000 by £80,000. Your step mother gets £40,000 from that, plus the £270,000, with your father's children (but not stepchildren) sharing the remaining £40,000.
If the value of your father's estate doesn't exceed £270,000, your stepmother gets everything.
(See here: https:/
HOWEVER the full value of the house will only form part of his estate if his name was the only one on the title deed.
IF your father and your stepmother owned the house as 'tenants in common', then your stepmother will retain her share in the property but the other half will form part of your father's estate. (She might still end up with all of it though, depending upon whether or not the total value of his estate then exceeded £270,000 or not).
HOWEVER if your father and your stepmother owned the house as 'joint tenants', then (as the surviving tenant) your stepmother now AUTOMATICALLY owns the whole property. (Intestacy law becomes totally irrelevant under such circumstances).
What all of that lot actually means to you is as follows:
IF the property was owned by your father and stepmother as joint tenants, then it now belongs entirely to your stepmother and she's free to leave it to whomever she likes in her will. There's no way that you can challenge it.
OTHERWISE it's possible (but not necessarily advisable) for you to apply to a court to vary the normal intestacy rules on the grounds that they result in you failing to receive 'reasonable financial provision' from the distribution of the estate:
https:/
However such an application is a big (and potentially very costly) step. You'd definitely need to seek the advice of a solicitor who specialises in such matters before doing so. (I suspect that his/her advice might well be that, given the relatively small size of the estate, it might not be worth proceeding with such an application, even if he/she thinks that there might be some merit to your case).
You can download a copy of the title register for the house for £3 from the Land Registry website. (I'm assuming that it hasn't yet been amended after your father's passing):
https:/
If the title register only shows your father's name, then (obviously) he was the sole owner. If both names are shown though, you need to look under 'Proprietorship Register' to see whether there's a statement along these lines shown there: “No disposition by a sole proprietor of the land (not being a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered except under an order of the Registrar or the Court”. If it's present, then your father and your stepmother were almost certainly 'tenants in common'. If not, then they were almost certainly 'joint tenants'.
Sorry for your loss.
Unfair in what way. It maybe different if your in Scotland though....are you??? If its not Scotland the house is hers under the intestate laws (unless you can prove your dependant financially ) to do what she wants with now. Things might of been different if he done a will but will never know.
Unfair in what way. It maybe different if your in Scotland though....are you??? If its not Scotland the house is hers under the intestate laws (unless you can prove your dependant financially ) to do what she wants with now. Things might of been different if he done a will but will never know.
Your situation is very similar to this one reported in today's Daily Mail https:/
Even if your step-mother made no financial contribution to the purchase of the property, nor the upkeep and was entirely financially dependent on your father throughout the marriage the property is legally hers to do whatever she sees fit. It makes no difference if she is a millionaire in her own right and made no financial contribution during the marriage.
It is jolly unfair but your father should have made a Will.
It is jolly unfair but your father should have made a Will.
Thank you all for the replies. Something for me to think about.
Maydup, our step-mother has always had a nasty streak and was ridiculously jealous of the fact my father had been married and had children before she met him. My sister and I have bent over backwards in years gone by to keep the peace and now we are struggling. We have a step sister in the USA who will inherit when Mum dies. Seems unfair to us.
Maydup, our step-mother has always had a nasty streak and was ridiculously jealous of the fact my father had been married and had children before she met him. My sister and I have bent over backwards in years gone by to keep the peace and now we are struggling. We have a step sister in the USA who will inherit when Mum dies. Seems unfair to us.
i dont get people who are saying it's unfair. People are entitled to give their stuff to whomever they please, and if your dad had wanted you to have something he could have made a will. This seems the very epitome of fairness to me, compared to for example countries where certain relatives HAVE to inherit something regardless of whether you liked them or not. The laws in scotland seem unfair to me, or the laws we used to have that only men could inherit etc
The law is meant to work like this.
If you want different make a will
actually the DM case implies that one made a will in the expectation that the other would...... - in which case there may be a case. It then becomes obvious the son 'thinks' he made a mirror will in the expectation - - - which is not quite good enough
I mean it is obvious really - make a will
67% of the country still dont - and I have long suspected that this was intended by the deceased
well some say 'odd' things like: "ooo I wd like to be alive to see the quarrelling my death will cause !"
and then you find they havent made a will ( and the quarrelling kicks off)
If you want different make a will
actually the DM case implies that one made a will in the expectation that the other would...... - in which case there may be a case. It then becomes obvious the son 'thinks' he made a mirror will in the expectation - - - which is not quite good enough
I mean it is obvious really - make a will
67% of the country still dont - and I have long suspected that this was intended by the deceased
well some say 'odd' things like: "ooo I wd like to be alive to see the quarrelling my death will cause !"
and then you find they havent made a will ( and the quarrelling kicks off)
1 to 12 of 12
Latest Posts
New Syrian Government Changes To School...
News28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Body & Soul31 mins ago
Offers & Competitions34 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles35 mins ago
