My wife and I are both in our mid 60’s We have 3 adult children , our family home and an investment property.Our two properties are held jointly in both names .All our savings are held jointly .If either one of us dies first all our assets automatically go to the surviving spouse.If we both die at the same time all our assets will be divided equally among our 3 children as is our wishes and we have discussed with them.Went to a solicitor a few years back he said there was no need to make will.Wills have been around for a long time long before one”s wife was legally entitled to the husband”s assets.Surely with joint ownership of assets you cannot will your assets to somebody else if they are jointly owned ? They automatically go to the surviving spouse.
What is the cheapest way to make a simple will?
- Thread starter Cathbarr
- Start date
I don't know about the jointly held assets, but in the case of individually held assets, if one of you died today intestate then the law of succession would apply: 2/3rds to the surviving spouse and the rest split between the children. I suspect that the deceased's share of jointly held assets would be subject to the same treatment.
What happens to a deceased person's money and possessions?
How to get access to the deceased person's money and property, the rights of family members under wills and how property is distributed.
Wheelie Bin
Registered User
- Messages
- 35
So what is the situation with joint accounts ?I don't know about the jointly held assets, but in the case of individually held assets, if one of you died today intestate then the law of succession would apply: 2/3rds to the surviving spouse and the rest split between the children. I suspect that the deceased's share of jointly held assets would be subject to the same treatment.
I'm pretty sure that it's more prudent to have wills setting out your wishes rather than depending on intestacy and the law of succession to do what you want.What happens to a deceased person's money and possessions?
How to get access to the deceased person's money and property, the rights of family members under wills and how property is distributed.www.citizensinformation.ie
Taking Haille's example above , no will made , we'll presume he and his wife jointly own the family home , investment property say , €270k and joint bank account say , €60k , If Haille takes the advice of his solicitor , if he died in the morning , instead of his wife receiving everything tax free the estate is in danger of being distributed as follows :
His wife : I presume , surely keeps the home dwelling , two thirds of investment property €180k , bank account €40k of joint account.
3 children ( each) : €30k each of investment property and €10 k each joint bank account. The big loser is Haille's wife who is out of pocket by €110k from what Haille wanted.
Then when Haille's spouse is deceased , what is left at that stage is divided between the three children.
Certainly , if thats the case there's a lot to be said for making a will , no matter how straightforward things look.
Early Riser
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,643
Is there not some variation beween how joint bank accounts are treated? For example, a husband and wife account which both have operated for years is treated as belonging jointly by them both and will pass fully to the survivor? While a name added to an account to help out an elderly person (eg, son or daughter) is treated differently - belonging to the main account holder?
My late father went to solicitor( who he had a will made with 8 years previously appointing a family member executor) to sign a deed. He died a few months later unexpectedly. The Solicitor produced a codicil appointing him sole executor and containing a charging clause. The codicil was witnessed by the Solicitor & secretary.
I was flabbergasted. My father never mentioned it which was unusual for him. I was quite suspicious of the circumstances. I was very young at the time.
My "get out of jail" card was to point out to the Solicitor that he can not witness the codicil and be remunerated for acting as executor and requesting he renounce office. He obliged.
I was flabbergasted. My father never mentioned it which was unusual for him. I was quite suspicious of the circumstances. I was very young at the time.
My "get out of jail" card was to point out to the Solicitor that he can not witness the codicil and be remunerated for acting as executor and requesting he renounce office. He obliged.
Interesting. I wonder had he 'facilitated' any other clients in the same way!
I also wonder if the Incorporated Law Society would have been interested in this if you had contacted them after he had "obliged"
Based on the limited information provided, I cannot see anything about these circumstances that should have caused you to be suspicious.
If your father had decided not to have you (or "a family member") as executor, it is unlikely that he would have discussed this particular decision with you (or that member). Your reaction to this decision sort of proves that he was right not to discuss it. And you were quite young at the time.
It seems far more likely to me that you father specifically asked his solicitor to be executor and that the solicitor agreed.
Many solicitors are prepared to act as executors. Many are not. The trend, irreversibly, is for solicitors to decline this role rather than leave themselves open to accusations of this sort.
20+years ago, it may well have been the case that acting as executor was seen as a way for a solicitor to secure the work. I do not know any solicitors (at least none with half a brain) who would take that attitude today
T McGibney
Registered User
- Messages
- 6,203
In 30+ years as an accountant, I've never heard of one that does wills. If I did, I'd go so far as to count it as a possible red flag - which your experience may well corroborate.
No you're completely wrong and with all due respect you did not know my father. I was not the original executor it was his nephew who he got on well with. He discussed everything with me and therefore it was a complete shock to see the codicil. My father would definitely have mentioned the Codicil. Furthermore there would have been no rational reason for suddenly deciding to replace the existing lay executor with the Solicitor apart from an opportunistic attempt to line the Solicitor's pocket of his small practice in what he wrongly perceived to be a large estate and pull a fast one on a trusting elderly client who would sign any document placed in front of him without reading. You must be quite naive if you think this has never happened. Incidentally the purported codicil was a barely legible handwritten scrawl and my father being a diabetic had poor eyesight.
Thankfully I outsmarted the Solicitor. He probably thought I was a walkover. Luckily I was educated and all my mother's side were academics so I wasn't afraid of him.
I have had occasion to outsmart another Probate solicitor in a large firm who erroneously miscalculated my share of another estate by misunderstanding the law applicable in a cross-border estate. Few would have noticed this error unless they had experience in dealing with such issues or researched the matter beforehand. Therefore I could have been out of pocket by a substantial sum. This was a genuine error by the Solicitor who had been practising for over 20 years( This is the correct spelling using an "s" for the verb) I was very lucky to have spotted it.
I think Banks used to act as executors in the past. I would never accept the office of executor. They used to be secondarily liable for taxes in the estate, specifically CAT, but this may have changed.
Last edited:
jasdpace@gmail.
Registered User
- Messages
- 191
My understanding is that solicitors are not allowed to have the office secretary witness the will/codicil which permits the solicitor to charge for performing the task of Executor.
I am aware of a case where the solicitor has written to beneficiaries admitting this oversight (i.e. that's exactly what happened). The letter from the solicitor then goes on to say that he has received "Counsel opinion" that if he writes out to all the beneficiaries and that if the beneficiaries don't object by a certain date, then he, the solicitor, will proceed and charge for his services as if it had been witnessed correctly.
This seems like nonsense to me. What to do? Thoughts?
I am aware of a case where the solicitor has written to beneficiaries admitting this oversight (i.e. that's exactly what happened). The letter from the solicitor then goes on to say that he has received "Counsel opinion" that if he writes out to all the beneficiaries and that if the beneficiaries don't object by a certain date, then he, the solicitor, will proceed and charge for his services as if it had been witnessed correctly.
This seems like nonsense to me. What to do? Thoughts?
NoRegretsCoyote
Registered User
- Messages
- 5,766
A will is essential for anyone who has assets. It's also worth planning to make sure your estate is as simple as possible to distribute.
As a general rule cash is easiest to distribute, financial assets next, property is harder, and land is probably hardest of all. It's uncommon today but 30 years ago people held shares in individual banks in certificate form. It's probably worth liquidating these as you get older as it can be costly and time-consuming to resolve as part of an estate.
A simple estate is less likely to cost more in legal fees and to cause friction with the next generation.
As a general rule cash is easiest to distribute, financial assets next, property is harder, and land is probably hardest of all. It's uncommon today but 30 years ago people held shares in individual banks in certificate form. It's probably worth liquidating these as you get older as it can be costly and time-consuming to resolve as part of an estate.
A simple estate is less likely to cost more in legal fees and to cause friction with the next generation.
Forgive my ignorance, but what's the complexity around distribution of shares held in certificate form? Is it an issue if you don't have the original share certificate, or a more general issue?
That is why I prefaced my response with the words "based on the limited information provided".
You have now provided more information- including that your father's solicitor was, in essence, incompetent (the alternative being that your father deliberately misled the solicitor that his small estate was substantial; this seems more unlikely-- but any response on a forum like this is always based on incomplete data).
You seem to have been very unfortunate in your dealings with the legal profession.
My very limited dealing with the legal profession is that some of them, like some other so called professionals, are to be avoided at all costs as some of them will overcharge given the chance, especiallyif they think you are wealthy. I dont think my experience is rare or unique.. As a doctor friend said to me which frightened me but it's human nature to take advantage of vulnerable people as I was at my given my age and an orphan. Sad but true. Some Solicitors just love complicated estates so they can charge extra.
My advice is always keep a photocopy of your will and ensure it's as straightforward and fair to those with children as possible to avoid disputes later. It is worth paying a competent solicitor to draft the will. I drew up my own will but I know it's properly drafted and witnessed.
Last edited:
Gordon Gekko
Registered User
- Messages
- 7,370
I have never in my life heard of an accountant doing a Will.
I’d run a mile from one who tried.
Does he/she also do weddings and funerals?
No regrets you say land is the hardest of all. I’m interested to know why. Is it because of agricultural relief ? What is the best way to distribute a working farm of worth over € 1.5 million between 4 children in the knowledge that none of them work as or have any interest in becoming farmers. I have a relative in this situation and wondered if they would be better selling the lot post retirement. Where would they best get advice?