Will Contest

[arnie2001]

Hello, I wonder if anyone can advise.

My grandfather passed away (he was a widower) and write a will including his 2 sons, and 2 grandchildren. One of his sons was not really in his life, and caused a lot of problems over the years, they didn't have a very good relationship. Therefore he left the majority to the other son, then split some between his two grandsons, leaving a minimal amount to his other son that he didn't have a great relationship with. That particular son is not happy and wants to contest the will, and can't see how they're not more equal or have a higher amount, they are going to contest and say things about undue pressure, or that the witnesses weren't legal. The witnesses were brother in law and his wife to the main beneficiary (but on the other side of the family). For example, the grandfather (deceased) was not related by blood to the witnesses, the witnesses were related to the beneficiary on the other side. It feels completely wrong that someone can change a will because they feel they deserve it. Can someone tell me if they have any grounds to get things changed or take us to court? (We don't want any of these problems at this difficult time and just feel very sad this person is causing so much trouble).

[des8]

Families, wills and inheritance... a toxic mix.

It would have been better for the witnesses not to have had any connection to the family, but the connection here is quite tenuous if they were the beneficiaries' brother in law and the brother in law's wife.

If the validity of the will is being challenged, I assume a caveat has been entered to prevent a grant of probate.

It is possible that the son will lodge a claim under the Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Either or both of the above ploys are used by disgruntled family members.
The outcome of either option is uncertain, except that both come with a potentially a high price tag, and so are used to force beneficiaries into making an offer to settle

[arnie2001]

Families, wills and inheritance... a toxic mix.

It would have been better for the witnesses not to have had any connection to the family, but the connection here is quite tenuous if they were the beneficiaries' brother in law and the brother in law's wife.

If the validity of the will is being challenged, I assume a caveat has been entered to prevent a grant of probate.

It is possible that the son will lodge a claim under the Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975

Either or both of the above ploys are used by disgruntled family members.
The outcome of either option is uncertain, except that both come with a potentially a high price tag, and so are used to force beneficiaries into making an offer to settle

Thank you for your reply. Can you explain why someone has the ability to change a will just because they are disgruntled? Especially in this case where they are still in the will, and likely to receive tens of thousands of pounds.

[arnie2001]

Thank you for your reply. Can you explain why someone has the ability to change a will just because they are disgruntled? Especially in this case where they are still in the will, and likely to receive tens of thousands of pounds.

And also, why should the beneficiaries have to pay costs for solicitors when they haven't done anything wrong? It doesn't seem right to me

[des8]

To the first question: it is necessary that an invalid will can be challenged, or that a family member left out of a will through e.g. spite can make a claim against the estate.
The fact that people make unfounded challenges to the validity of wills, or make unfounded claims against an estate doesn't mean that the right to do so should be abandoned.
It is unfortunate that there will always be some people who try to take advantage.

To the second question: general rule is that the loser pays the winner's costs.
The judge may award costs against the claimant, even if he wins but acted unreasonably.
The fear is that we know the costs can be high, especially if the matter goes to court, so both sides (even if they think they are right and the others wrong) are encouraged to come to an agreement which preserves the estate funds