What can be done in this situation - issues with father's Will??

B

Brown Eyes

Registered User
Messages
5
On behalf of an acquaintance, can anyone offer any suggestions/advice/information...

An elderly man died about 7 years ago.

For unknown reasons 'everyone' thinks this man is/was extremely wealthy - he wasn't [this is a fact, he was not wealthy at all. He owned a house that he'd paid off a 30 year mortgage on is all and it's not that big/valuable of a house].

A few days after the funeral, one of his sons (who thinks his Dad was filthy rich) drags the family to the solicitors to have the will read out.

The solicitor has the will brought out and reads it out in front of the entire family, vaguely noting that one of his daughters has been named as executrix and even more vaguely asking "if this is okay with everyone?"

The will was a bog-standard "in the event of my death I leave everything to my spouse" types.

The family were informed that they could not contest, challenge, or make any claim on the man's estate.

Now those of us who know, know that the first two paragraphs are not how a will is dealt with upon the person's death, the will should have been given privately to the executor/executrix and they proceed from there, also there's the Section 117 of the Succession Act that could have been invoked by at least one of the offspring, but the solicitor didn't inform the family of this clause.

A complaint has been issued to the law firm involved and they have replied with a "nothing to do with us, we did nothing wrong, you can view the will online, and you can't use Section 117 in the circumstance" type response - here's the fun part, the solicitor has no idea what the family's circumstances are/were.

No one is sure what the hell to do now. I know in other countries you can sue the solicitor, but I've no idea what the situation in Ireland is as it seems to have a whole different set of rules and regulations about that sort of thing.

If it's of any interest/information the will was never given to the executrix (a copy was enclosed with the letter saying "nothing to do with us"), and there was a second will with a completely different set of instructions for the estate - which has never seen the light of day...according to the solicitor that will was null and void because the husband pre-deceased the wife.

hayulp plz.

t.i.a.
 
The will stated that everything be left to the wife - you say the husband predeceased his wife so she inherited all, as is common in a marriage. It would not be common for children to contest in this situation. Has the mother since died? If so did she leave a will? If not, her children would be joint beneficiaries and the husbands will doesn't come into it. Unless I have totally misread your post, I don't understand what the issue is and why anyone would make a complaint against the solicitor.
 
Which will is null and void ? If the man died and his wife was alive and the will states everything goes to her then that makes sense. If another will appeared written by his wife who died later then her will is all that matters.
 
I presume you mean that the husband had a will leaving all to his wife with a second will only to apply if his wife had already died. If so then the second will does not apply if the wife is still alive. Not sure what your question is but to answer your question on can you sue a solicitor then that answer is yes.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
But what did you actually ask?
Click to expand...

Maybe read the title of the thread?

john luc said:
I presume you mean that the husband had a will leaving all to his wife with a second will only to apply if his wife had already died. If so then the second will does not apply if the wife is still alive. Not sure what your question is but to answer your question on can you sue a solicitor then that answer is yes.
Click to expand...

No one knows what the second will says.

It was never disclosed to anyone.

It is rumoured to have divided the 'estate' between the offspring (i.e. the house was to be sold and the moneys divided between them)

Marsha25 said:
Unless I have totally misread your post, I don't understand what the issue is and why anyone would make a complaint against the solicitor.
Click to expand...

The complaint was about the solicitor mis-handling the father's will.

I rang her myself making a general enquiry about wills and she stated that when the person dies their will is given to the named executor/executrix to be dealt with, and it's only with the executor/executrix's permission that the will is read in front of the family. (i.e. it's not like in the movies where the family gather in the lounge and the will is read out in front of a roaring fire to everyone)

Re-read my first post - THE WILL WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE EXECUTRIX.

It was read out in front of everyone without the executrix's permission.

Hence the complaint/possible law suit against the solicitor/request for suggestions as to what to do in this situation (per the TITLE OF THE THREAD).

Not that it's anyone else's business but the son who thinks his dad was filthy rich has threatened to kill the sister who was named as executrix.

He thinks "executrix" means the sister "got everything" and my everything I mean the father's supposed fortune (apparently he got a small amount of compensation following an accident many years ago, money that he used to buy a car - ergo there is no fortune for anyone to inherit, but stupid people be stupid and "compensation" = "thousands and thousands of dosh")

The brother thinks the sister has stolen the father's money (there was no money), and threatened to kill her for stealing his inheritance.

He's been told repeatedly that there was no fortune, he refused to accept this.

(I believe said man has been living on credit for decades under the delusion that when his dad died he'd get a significant sum of money.)

The solicitor was informed of this and "laughed her This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language off"

She made no effort whatsoever to explain to the brother that "executrix" =/= "inherited everything".

He's still raging and trying to take legal action/issuing death threats against the sister (yes, the Gards have been informed of this).

The house is in the wife's name.

She [the wife] is now in sheltered accommodation.

The 'crazed' son wants the house since his fat *ucking *unt sister stole all his money.

There are other siblings living in the house (they were living there before the father died and before the mother moved out).

According to a lawyer friend in England those siblings should have been allowed to challenge the will.

They didn't because the solicitor said they couldn't.

But there's Second 117 of the Succession Act.

The solicitor says that wasn't invoked "under the circumstances"

The solicitor has no idea of what the family's circumstances are (i.e. she DOES NOT KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE HOUSE AND HAVE BEEN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES)

You'd have to ask the solicitor why she doesn't know that.

I don't know enough about Irish law to know what the family are supposed to do, hence my mistake in asking for advise on here.

Like I said, "sorry I asked". or to be more precise, "sorry I posted on this board"

Happy now?
 
Sure if it wasn't your father that died I don't see why you're getting so agitated. You must be very close to the family to have all that inside information. Now, i'd imagine if your mum has passed away and left a will giving each of the children equal inheritance, then the house will have to be sold and the monies divided between the happy family, less any expenses, etc, like nursing home fair deal if applicable and all that sort of stuff.
 
Last edited:
The father left the mother everything in his will - as you said in your first post. She now owns the house. Why any offspring would challenge this fact is beyond me. They were not likely to gain anything from doing so apart from upsetting the mother.

The Executrix executes the will but does not inherit anything as the will stated the mother was to get everything. The house is now in the mother's name. She can now choose to leave it to whoever she wants in her will regardless of who is living in it.

Why does the son think the daughter (executrix) inherited everything?? He can get himself a copy of the will in order to see that his mother was the beneficiary.
 
What exactly is the issue?

The man left everything to his wife which is standard stuff. He had a second will to cover circumstances where his wife predeceased him (she didn't so this is a red herring).

We have the "you can't contest the Will" point, but as I understand it, you weren't there; I would be surprised if that was said. What's more likely is that a family solicitor made a loose comment about a challenge being unlikely to succeed.

And in any event, was the wife not still living in the house?
 
Brown Eyes said:
She made no effort whatsoever to explain to the brother that "executrix" =/= "inherited everything"
Click to expand...

How did this become her problem? Did anyone of you hire her to give you legal advice? Was she asked to advise the executrix or carry out legal work on her behalf? As far as I can see she had one client, the deceased who asked her to draft his will. She did that and the rest is none of her business. Best you might hope for is a slap on the wrist for unprofessional conduct or something.
 
Brown Eyes said:
The solicitor has no idea of what the family's circumstances are (i.e. she DOES NOT KNOW THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE HOUSE AND HAVE BEEN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES)

You'd have to ask the solicitor why she doesn't know that.
Click to expand...
Deffo grounds for suing her, the rogue. You'd think she'd know better given that solicitors know everything. I'm sorry you're sorry you asked by the way.
 
Ok, the man died and left everything to his wife. One of his sons is very upset that he did not inherit anything when his father died. That son is blaming his sister as she was the executrix, he seems to think that means residuary legatee.

What can be done in this situation ?

About the fact that father was not as rich as people thought. Nothing.

About the fact that the son does not seem to understand what happened. Well someone could perhaps sit down and explain to him that:
1. His father had nothing except the house.
2. His mother got the house.
3. The daughter named as executrix got nothing from this, except the responsibility of transferring the house to the mothers name.

About the fact that he was told he could not challenge the will. Well again someone could explain that
1. If he wanted to challenge the will he could have done so, and if he didn't because of something his father's solicitor, not his solicitor, said that was his decision.
2. If he had challenged the will he would have had zero chance of success. Man leaves house to wife, is not exactly the kind of will any court is going to overturn.


Brown Eyes said:
I don't know enough about Irish law to know what the family are supposed to do, hence my ... asking for advise on here.
Click to expand...

I am still not clear on what the family want to do. Do they want to take the house off the mother? Do they want to punish the solicitor? Neither of these things can or should happen.

Or maybe like the rest of us do they just want more money?
 
Does the fact that this man passed 7 years ago mean anything, like build a bridge and get over it !!
 
@Brown Eyes
To be fair, I think this situation is not so clear cut and there are a large number of moving parts. You are clearly aware of them but reading through your posts, it is difficult to follow them. I am sure this is not your intention, but as a neutral not understanding the inside story, it is not easy to understand what you are asking.

I do have a few questions though:
1. You talk about a second will. Is there one, or is it just someone thinks their might be? Has anyway asked the deceased persons solicitor (or any other solicitors locally) if this second will exists? If not, there is no second will. The deceased person may have been considering writing a second will or whatever, but unless someone can provide evidence of this second will, then it simply does not exist. Unless of course you believe the solicitor is hiding it from you, which is a different matter (and very difficult to prove - obviously)

2. The wife inherited the house, although she does not live there any more. Some of the children live in the house now - are they paying rent? What is the 'aggravated child' looking for? Is he looking to have the will overruled and deemed invalid? If the will is deemed invalid, the spouse is still entitled to 2/3rds of the estate - which you are saying is small in any event and would need to be split a number of ways. What exactly is the person looking for - a new will to magically appear writing his mother from it and equal share to the kids (likely to be contested by the spouse) or the existing will to be deemed invalid ?

3. The gripe with the solicitor seems to be two fold
(a) - the solicitor read the will out in front of the entire family rather than handing it to the executrix
(b) - the solicitor allegedly said that the will cannot be contested
Regarding point (b), I seriously doubt any solicitor said those words explicitly. It can be hard enough to get a solid legal position out of a solicitor when you are paying them, never mind when you are not. The solicitor is not the children's solicitor, so there is no legal contract there and therefore what they allegedly said carries no more weight than if the taxi driver said it. If someone wanted to challenge the will, then they should have received their own legal advice around it. The solicitor may have said there would be little point in challenging it as it would be unlikely to succeed as it is a valid will and the courts would be unlikely to overturn someone leaving their entire estate to their spouse, without any 'special' circumstances. This is very different to saying you cannot challenge it

Regarding point (a), in this particular case I would actually see this as a 'lucky break' for the executrix. The will was read to all the family at the same time, and everyone heard the spouse was left everything. The executrix did not know until everyone else did, and therefore could not have been in a position to hide things. Everyone now knows the executrix was not entitled to anything either.


What is clear is the 'aggravated child' is looking for money from the estate.... money which is not due to him under any circumstance. The sole benefactor is the spouse, and even if the executrix did take all the money, the only person who can claim is the spouse.

Regarding the 'aggravated child's behaviour, I would consider taking out a barring order against them and reporting their behaviour to the gardai. Surely a visit from them would ease that off. It this is not the case, maybe the family need to cease contact with the person and move on.

Without doubt, money is the root of all evil :)
 
You keep referring to a second will. Is there actually a second will, or is it one will with two parts? E.g.

In the case of predeceasing my spouse, I leave everything to my spouse.
In the case of dying after my spouse, I leave everything to my children in equal shares.

There is a huge difference between two wills and one will covering multiple scenarios.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top