Have you made your Will?

[nero44]

When you bought your current house did you own it 50/50 Joint tenants (or some other split) or are you tenants in common (both owning 100%)

I don't think this is correct. I've gone through this process with a solicitor a few years ago. Joint tenants is typically what married couples do, so all split equally. If you are tenants in common, you can specify ownership percentages for a purchase. So if one party significantly contributed more, it can be 60/40 or 80/20 or anything you like. In your will you can then separately specify, how your share gets treated independently of the other party.

It gets a little muddy if then the owners marry or form a civil partnership, as a marriage CAN override this percentages depending on circumstances. Proving that over the years both equally enjoyed living in the house etc. Solicitor can add language to take this into account. Whether it will stand up in court.. no clue.

In either case, having one done is better than nothing. Nothing = Intestacy Rules. It can lead to weird situations where if there is a a fatal accident of a family and one person dies a few seconds after another, all gets move to one side, rather than equally split... Best to be in control (as much as one can) for these scenarios...

And one other thing to add, a will can be amended at any time. So if you feel your life situation changed, you can make changes to make sure this gets reflected. e.g. relationship breaking down or new children being brought in.

 

[Highway Man]

It sounds like his solicitors didn't do a very good job of arranging things.

sounds like his new wife acted like a snake more like, I will never speak to her again

 

[MNW67]

nope

Can you explain a bit more. Lots of people are changing to tenants in common for that reason.

 

[motorbiking]

I don't think this is correct. I've gone through this process with a solicitor a few years ago. Joint tenants is typically what married couples do, so all split equally. If you are tenants in common, you can specify ownership percentages for a purchase. So if one party significantly contributed more, it can be 60/40 or 80/20 or anything you like. In your will you can then separately specify, how your share gets treated independently of the other party.

It gets a little muddy if then the owners marry or form a civil partnership, as a marriage CAN override this percentages depending on circumstances. Proving that over the years both equally enjoyed living in the house etc. Solicitor can add language to take this into account. Whether it will stand up in court.. no clue.

In either case, having one done is better than nothing. Nothing = Intestacy Rules. It can lead to weird situations where if there is a a fatal accident of a family and one person dies a few seconds after another, all gets move to one side, rather than equally split... Best to be in control (as much as one can) for these scenarios...

And one other thing to add, a will can be amended at any time. So if you feel your life situation changed, you can make changes to make sure this gets reflected. e.g. relationship breaking down or new children being brought in.

you are correct - I've typed it the wrong way around.

Joint tenants​

As joint tenants (sometimes called ‘beneficial joint tenants’):

• you have equal rights to the whole property
• the property automatically goes to the other owners if you die
• you cannot pass on your ownership of the property in your will

Tenants in common​

As tenants in common:

• you can own different shares of the property
• your share of the property does not automatically go to the other owners if you die
• you can pass on your share of the property in your will

 

[Highway Man]

My mate was different, she didnt have anything to do with his house other than she moved into it when they got married

 

[MNW67]

sounds like his new wife acted like a snake more like, I will never speak to her again

Do you know how she managed it. Did she claim undue influence from the children or that your friend lacked mental capacity. Or did she claim that she hadn't been provided for sufficiently. Do you believe she had been fairly provided for under the original intended arrangements. It sounds like she was to be allowed to live in the house for the rest of her life. Was any other provision made for her.

 

[pete01]

sounds like his new wife acted like a snake more like, I will never speak to her again

Probably contributed to the bills and upkeep or thats what she said?

 

[Highway Man]

Probably contributed to the bills and upkeep or thats what she said?

He bought her car, he loaned her the money, she was paing him back monthly for it as an interest free loan. She took that too.

 

[motorbiking]

I am desperately trying to find a way to be married for inheritance tax purposes, but not for divorce purposes. I just don't like the idea of having a pre-nup.

 

[Highway Man]

Do you know how she managed it. Did she claim undue influence from the children or that your friend lacked mental capacity. Or did she claim that she hadn't been provided for sufficiently. Do you believe she had been fairly provided for under the original intended arrangements. It sounds like she was to be allowed to live in the house for the rest of her life. Was any other provision made for her.

Here was the deal, she can live in his house as long as she liked, however she will not own it, she cannot sell it in other words. Because it was a very large house she had to pay the upkeep and all of the bills and keep it maintained to the standard it was. If she wanted a smaller house then his children can sell the house and buy her a smaller one but they keep ownership. She had his pension which was a very large one. She would never need to work again. So yes it was fair in my opinion. However once she learnt just how rich he was she wanted more.

 

[MNW67]

He bought her car, he loaned her the money, she was paing him back monthly for it as an interest free loan. She took that too.

That doesn't sound like much of a marriage. How long had they been wed.

 

[motorbiking]

That doesn't sound like much of a marriage. How long had they been wed.

He would have needed explicit language in his Will disinterring her.

I had to do this while I was divorcing.


But on the general comment - I have a friend who splits bills according to their income. He thinks it's fair. Of course the person with 4 x the income gets 4x the disposable at the end. So not so fair.

I've told him marriage means all money is shared.

 

[MNW67]

Here was the deal, she can live in his house as long as she liked, however she will not own it, she cannot sell it in other words. Because it was a very large house she had to pay the upkeep and all of the bills and keep it maintained to the standard it was. If she wanted a smaller house then his children can sell the house and buy her a smaller one but they keep ownership. She had his pension which was a very large one. She would never need to work again. So yes it was fair in my opinion. However once she learnt just how rich he was she wanted more.

I have to admit that it's not something I have thought much about before. But it seems that the legal starting point is to give the widow the same amount that she would have received on divorce.

 

[MNW67]

He would have needed explicit language in his Will disinterring her.

I had to do this while I was divorcing.


But on the general comment - I have a friend who splits bills according to their income. He thinks it's fair. Of course the person with 4 x the income gets 4x the disposable at the end. So not so fair.

I've told him marriage means all money is shared.

I hope you mean disinheriting!

 

[motorbiking]

I do.

Yes you need to acknowledge the spouse in the will and make a specific statement excluding them and intending to do so.

I have to admit that it's not something I have thought much about before. But it seems that the legal starting point is to give the widow the same amount that she would have received on divorce.

That wouldn't be the case for a short marriage, unless she can claim needs. Generally everything owned prior can be ring fenced. It's only the passage of time that makes this harder. But the starting position is 50/50 and he isn't here to argue.