revoked will

[Busby15]

Due to marriage my brother's will has been revoked, meaning his wife gets the lot. He has no children but my Mother is still alive, is she not entitled to something?

[Buenchico]

Unless they are legally dependent upon the finances of the deceased (e.g. young children), nobody ever has any automatic right to any part of that person'sestate. (My own will names 5 beneficiaries. None of them are related to me. I'm absolutely determined that no members of my family will get anywhere near my assets).

[NB: The previous paragraph applies to England and Wales (and probably Northern Ireland as well). It's not true in Scotland].

If somebody dies without a valid will, the laws relating to intestacy apply. These are incredibly complicated but, in your brother's situation, it means that everything goes to his wife.

As stated, the rules are complicated but, generally, nothing ever goes 'up' to a parent, grandparent (or descendants of those people) if if can go 'sideways' (to a spouse) or 'down' (to children) first.

Chris

[terambulan]

Chris..... I'm absolutely determined that no members of my family will get anywhere near my assets). didn't have you down for being vindictive.

Am sure you have your reasons but harsh word, especially if you have children. As aside, I certainly didn't respect the Chelsea Pensioner who gave �700k winnings to charity, to the loss of his daughters and g.children! I can assure you some charities are very wasteful of their assets.

[Buenchico]

(With apologies to Busby15 for 'stealing the thread'):

Terambulam:
My post, above, referred to my biological family. If you refer to my post on another thread (from just a short while ago), you'll see that I make reference to someone who means a great deal to me, even though he's not biologically related to me. He's the principal beneficiary of my will:
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/ChatterBank/Que stion657962.html

(I have no surving parents. I'm an only child. I have no biological children. I get on with my aunts and cousins on one side of my family but I only see them once every few years, at weddings. (Not at funerals, because I refuse to attend them, simply because I think that they're a waste of time). I can't stand any of my relatives on the other side of my family, and I know that they feel even more strongly about me. I see no reason why people I either hardly know, or actively despise, should get anywhere near my estate).

Chris

[terambulan]

Sorry Chris....I understand you have your reasons and are clearer now. For me, I have children and g.children and would not do as Chelsea Pensioner did.

[terambulan]

Busby15....Your brother must have revoked his Will by some signed document in his own hand, with witnesses.

To contest the will would be very expensive and time consuming and only advised if your brother had a large estate.

Are you saying your mother feels she has more rights to her son's estate than his wife? The mother would also be liable to inheritance tax (depending on estate size) whereas the spouse would not.

[jno]

terambulan, from my dim recollection of the law, marriage automatically revokes the parties' earlier wills. They've (notionally) promised to forsake all others.

[fredpuli47]

jno is correct. Marriage automatically revokes any existing will of a party to it unless the will was made 'in contemplation of the marriage', that is, expressly or by interpretation was made in anticipation of the marriage, because the marriage would take place, and to take effect on that happening.
Otherwise the result is that ,after the marriage, the parties are intestate, without a will, as discussed above, until the making of new will(s).

[Ethel]

Yes, the will is revoked by fact of the marriage taking place after the will was written.

Your mother is not entitled to anything

[bednobs]

look at it this way - if your brother had wanted to leave anything to his mother, he could have done so by the simple expedient of making a new will. But he didn't, so as above, the laws of intestacy will apply = all to wife!

[bednobs]

and Grrrrr at Teram. What has it got to do with you who leave what in their will? I'm sure the chelsea pensioner you mention couldn't give two hoots whether you respect them or not!

[Barmaid]

In these circumstances, the intestacy rules state that the spouse is entitled to personal chattels, the "statutory legacy" - currently �200,000 and one half of the residue. Thus if the estate is worth more than �200,000, your mother is entitled to one half of the residue.

[jno]

are you sure, Barmaid? My understanding was that nobody but a named beneficiary would be 'entitled' to anything? The law may well have changed since my day, of course.

[fredpuli47]

Barmaid is right. However, if the brother has a child at some time, the writer's mother will lose out. Those are the intestacy rules.[Administration of Estates Act 1925 ] The sums involved get revised from time to time and there laws since 1925 to deal with questions of one spouse briefly surviving the other, and related matters, and with claims by dependants, but the old principles still apply.

[Ethel]

Jno

Barmaid is referring to a person who dies intestate - without a will very strict laws are in place that Barmaid has explained very well.

There is no named beneficiary in such a case, and as marriage has revoked this person's will, intestacy rules apply

[jno]

thanks, Ethel