A Will question

whatchagonnado · 02-03-2022 11:44am #1

A family member died and left the main asset, a house, to 2 of the 4 children.

It was specifically called out in the Will that enough had been provided for for 1 of those dis-inherited, but omitted the same for the other (adult) child, who received a nominal cash amount (4x less than a number of grandchildren received in the same will). Relationship with this child was, on the face of things, good. Seemingly no reason for this to happen and came as quite a shock.

It's quite possible there was undue pressure, but of course difficult to prove.

Could a Section 117 apply here, does anyone think?

Pistachio19 · 02-03-2022 1:07pm

I may be wrong but from the advice from a solicitor to a relative a few years ago, leaving something to all your kids will make it more difficult for them to contest it than if you leave nothing. So if this adult child had been left nothing they may have had a better chance a contesting the will successfully. Is there a chance that this one relative has been perceived as being wealthier than the other 2? Perhaps the parent felt that they didn't need as much as the other 2 if they have a house already, or have a good job, for instance. It is very unfair and an old fashioned way of thinking. Or did this adult child get money for college/house deposit etc where the other 2 didn't? Its a bitter pill to swallow but contesting the will could end up very costly. Perhaps engaging a solicitor might be best to get confirmation as to whether its worth pursuing. If the parent had made their will with their own solicitor they may have discussed it in more detail with them (outside of what they wrote in their will) and they may be able to shed more light on it.

02-03-2022 1:09pm

Any child can bring a section 117

but everything that has been provided to that child in the testators lifetime will be looked at

it must be proven that the testator failed in their moral duty to provide for the child and the child has a need

so if the child got lets say private education, college paid for, gift for a house etc it would be looked at and could show that the child has no need

plus the fact that the child did receive something in the will could go against them

whatchagonnado · 02-03-2022 2:03pm

"Is there a chance that this one relative has been perceived as being wealthier than the other 2?" - Perception, possibly. Reality, absolutely not.

"Or did this adult child get money for college/house deposit etc where the other 2 didn't?" - No, never got anything. Hence the omission of being provided for and it's inclusion for the other dis-inherited child, who did.

"If the parent had made their will with their own solicitor they may have discussed it in more detail with them (outside of what they wrote in their will) and they may be able to shed more light on it." - Is this something you can ask the solicitor?

"it must be proven that the testator failed in their moral duty to provide for the child and the child has a need" - How could the latter be proved? I'm assuming the first is a given with the contents of the will - which specifically call out the other being provided for - why would you include it for one and not the other if it wasn't/was the case?

"so if the child got lets say private education, college paid for, gift for a house etc it would be looked at and could show that the child has no need" - This child never received a penny. They would have been very involved in each others lives, caring for each other etc, normal family stuff.

Already engaged a solicitor for advice, so let's see what comes of that.

02-03-2022 2:13pm

The first is not a given with the contents of the will a person can choose to leave different amounts to their children and that is not a failure of moral duty to provide.

the child has to show they have financial need …. So let’s say they don’t own any property, unemployed etc they have a need for a greater inheritance

you also cannot ask the solicitor who drafted the will the resins for leaving less to that child . The child is not the solicitors client and they have a duty of confidentially to the testator

whatchagonnado · 02-03-2022 2:21pm

The first is not a given with the contents of the will a person can choose to leave different amounts to their children and that is not a failure of moral duty to provide. - Ok, that's fair

the child has to show they have financial need …. So let’s say they don’t own any property, unemployed etc they have a need for a greater inheritance - They don't own a property and are unemployed, the other 2 who did receive the main asset (value is about 600k) own 3 houses between them.

you also cannot ask the solicitor who drafted the will the resins for leaving less to that child . The child is not the solicitors client and they have a duty of confidentially to the testator - Ok - I assumed that was the point the other poster was mentioning to pursue.

phormium · 02-03-2022 5:40pm

Male or female? An older relative left nothing to a daughter other than trivial bits as was the tradition in his family, land/property to sons as the theory being the daughter's husband would inherit from his side benefitting her. Old fashioned and weird in today's terms and I could hardly believe but that was the thinking!

Not a justification but perhaps an explanation!

Claw Hammer · 03-03-2022 4:58pm

there is a 6 month time limit on making a Section 117 running from the date of the grant of probate.

coylemj · 03-03-2022 5:37pm

the child has to show they have financial need …. So let’s say they don’t own any property, unemployed etc they have a need for a greater inheritance - They don't own a property and are unemployed, the other 2 who did receive the main asset (value is about 600k) own 3 houses between them.

Where does it say that the child has to show a financial need? The child could have been adequately provided for by the parents but for various reasons, they ended up in a economic situation inferior to their siblings.

Having 'a need for a greater inheritance' because of your current economic situation is not a case for an application under S.117

03-03-2022 5:44pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118727232#Comment_118727232

It’s from case law

https://www.erinresearch.ie/2020/09/30/succession-rights-in-ireland-challenging-a-will-applications-under-s-117-succession-act-1965/

Hontou · 03-03-2022 5:49pm

This happened to me- in a way. My father past away leaving everything to my mother and then to his 3 offspring. I organised everything - bank accounts, probate and property being transferred into her name. I also arranged for her house to be upgraded to make it more secure as she was nervous living alone and for a downstairs bathroom to future proof her getting older. She moved in with me for a year after my Dad passed away and was very difficult towards me and complained about the way I ran my house and said my children were spoiled etc. She also told me I was selfish for working when she needed my help. When she moved back into her own house, she complained about the upgrades I had made and said I should not have made them. She agreed with everything at the time. Our relationship broke down and she subsequently changed her will leaving everything to my brothers. 2 houses, land and money that belonged to my father (who wanted it split between his offspring equally). She is still alive but I don't speak to her or my brothers anymore. I won't contest it, I have just walked away. I never received one penny from my wealthy parents since I left home at 18. The year she lived with me cost me a fortune - she said she would pay her way but didn't. Good riddance.

whatchagonnado · 04-03-2022 9:28am

"This happened to me- in a way." - Desperate stuff, you are better off walking away. Can't understand that mindset towards your children. But, unfortunately, it seems prevalent.

"She also told me I was selfish for working when she needed my help" - This bit sums it up, you'd have to question who the selfish person in that scenario is...

whatchagonnado · 04-03-2022 2:23pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118721487#Comment_118721487

Mother to daughter. Other dis-inherited party was female. The two who acquired the estate are male, and not the type to share, unless a legal route would encourage/compel.

Could be an explanation, yes. If I was a betting type, having discussed and reflected, would err on the side of a narcissist who disliked/jealous etc of her daughters. Again, can't quite understand the mindset, find it disgusting, abhorrent, etc.

Also, the father, died three years ago, had all equally shared in the will.

TooTired123 · 05-03-2022 8:16pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118731717#Comment_118731717

If you’re elderly and you’ve got an adult child nagging you about a will “honestly Mam, all she’s interested in is what you’re going to leave her. She told my husband at Christmas when she’d had a few drinks that you’ll need a nursing home this time next year. Change your will and don’t leave anything to her or Paddy. Sure he never rings either…you know it’s the right thing to do….” then in the end you’ll do anything for peace. If there’s any more then 4 kids then there’s always one of them has their eye on the big prize.

The lockdown brought a lot of long gone children home from abroad to “look after mammy and daddy”. A lot of them are still here and won’t be going anywhere soon. There’s going to be some shocks down the line for the siblings.

Flinty997 · 05-03-2022 9:34pm

I've yet to see a inheritance go fairly.

ohnonotgmail · 07-03-2022 9:23am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118727267#Comment_118727267

you need to read the post you replied to in its entirety. your own link says

The extent to which past provision was made to the child

So if the parent has provided for the child during their lifetime but the child has pissed it all against a wall their current financial situation will not result in a successful application under the act.

A Will question

Comments