Latest news with #will
Irish Times
a day ago
- Business
- Irish Times
My family lives abroad. Does that cause problems with my father's will?
I am an executor on my father's will. He died earlier this year and we are now trying to organise his estate. He did not have much other than his home, so it is not overly complicated. But I am having trouble getting answers to some questions which I need to sort out the tax affairs with Revenue . First, he was a pensioner receiving the State pension and the Revenue form wants a 'personal claim number'. I thought this would be his PPS number, but a quick Google search tells me it is a different number. Also, some of my siblings live abroad and they and their children are named in the will. Does that create any problems? Mr DS READ MORE Getting to grips with a loved one's estate always sounds easier than it turns out to be. Inevitably, there are legacy credit union accounts or prize bonds or tiny, long-forgotten shareholdings to be found and sorted. People think that, because they are close family, they know everything about a parent or sibling. This is rarely the case. That's why most families leave the digging and sorting to a solicitor. First, they're more familiar with what to look for and second, by the nature of their business, they are familiar with what is required in dealings with the Revenue and the Probate Office. Your issue with the personal claim number is a case in point. Everyone in receipt of a social welfare payment – a State pension or anything else – has a personal claim number. This number is required on the Statement of Affairs that must be submitted to the Revenue Commissioners as part of the probate process. It is not something I came across before but it certainly makes sense. Following your query, I did a Google search and it does, rather unhelpfully, state that this personal claim number is distinct and separate from a person's unique Personal Public Service (PPS) number. That is not the case and is just one example of why one should always be careful about the Encyclopaedia of Google. Having contacted the Department of Social Protection , they assure me that a person's PPS number acts as their personal claim number precisely because it is a unique identifier. Your second point is less black and white. As you can imagine, inheritances across borders can get complicated, not least because of the very different approaches to taxing estates and inheritances in different countries, even within the EU. Just because your siblings and their children live abroad, they could have a liability to Irish capital acquisitions tax (inheritance tax) as your dad lived here and his home is physically in the State. Whether they will actually end up having to pay tax in Ireland depends on how much they receive. I'm not going to get into what they owe in whatever country or countries they actually live in, not least because you have not identified them. Revenue will certainly require everyone receiving a benefit valued at more than €12,000 to be identified with a PPS number in the Statement of Affairs. Far anyone living or working in Ireland, this is not a problem. Similarly, if you were born in Ireland since 2000, you will automatically have been assigned a PPS. For anyone else, including children who were born abroad and never worked in Ireland, they will need to apply to the Department of Social Protection's Client Identity Services unit at cis@ They will need proof of identity (a passport), proof of address and a reason why the PPS is required. Stating that it is because of inheritance is valid. You also have to fill in a questionnaire and, if the number is to be sent to a third party, such as an executor, a consent form. Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street, Dublin 2, or by email to , with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
The Sun
6 days ago
- The Sun
Son of ‘car boot king' claims dad's dementia was so bad when he cut him out of £43m will he drove his car at 2 kids
THE son of a multimillionaire claimed his dad's dementia was so bad when he cut him out his will that it caused him to drive his car at kids. Adam Scott, 62, is embroiled in an inheritance dispute with his step-mother as he pursues the £43 million fortune he alleges he was promised by his 'car boot king' father Richard. 4 4 4 Richard died in 2018 at the age of 81, leaving his fortune to his second wife and former cleaner, Jennifer, 60. He amassed his £43 million fortune through running a vast Cheshire farm where ITV's Car Boot Challenge was filmed. Adam, the eldest of Richard's 19 sons, is now suing his step-mother after he claims he was promised the farm. The disinherited "golden boy" - who worked on the farm for 40 years - argued that his father was not in his right mind when he signed the two final wills. London High Court heard that Richard's dementia was so bad that he "drove his car at some children during the car boot sale" and even attacked his own wife and kids. Psychiatric expert Dr Hugh Series explained there were "objective indicators of changes in Richard's behaviour" around the time he signed the disputed wills. He told the court Richard "drove his car at some children during the car boot sale" and "hit another car with his car". Richard also displayed "poor behaviour" including "punching his wife, pushing and grabbing years into a dementia diagnosis". Dr Series explained that there had been reports of him "attacking the door with a hammer and a screwdriver and [having] to be stopped by his children". He added: "His wife was so worried about him, she slept in another room and locked the door. "This seems to me to be quite extreme." But Alex Troup KC told the judge that Richard had been on dementia drug Donepezil when he aimed his car at kids attending the car boot sale. Earl loses bid for £85m estate after being cut from family fortune with dad disappointed by son's 'lack of achievement' The barrister claimed it was the drug that caused his unusual behaviour and that his mental state had "improved" when he was taken off it after six months. Mr Troup said: "He made a valid will afterwards. "The fact that before making that will he drove a car at another car is not much evidence of lack of testamentary capacity. "Richard always had a temper and could turn on anyone without warning. "Dementia illnesses often have the effect of exaggerating peoples prior personality traits." Professor Alistair Burns also disagreed that Richard showed signs of his capacity being impaired. Professor Burns told Mr Justice Richards that Mr Scott's ability to express himself had been affected by the progressive disease rather than his ability to comprehend. Adam also argued that his dad promised him he would have the right to take over the farm after his death. He claimed that he sacrificed everything to commit to "a life of hard and unrelenting physical work" on the back of those promises. But Jennifer's lawyers allege that Richard knew exactly what he was doing when he disinherited his first born. They told the court that Adam's relationship with his dad "completely broke down" when he tried to get Richard sectioned. Adam had previously tried to prevent Richard's wedding to Jennifer, claiming his dementia had incapacitated him. It led to Richard being interviewed by four registrars and a lawyer from the local council, who confirmed he did have the capacity to marry. They also say he has no claim to his dad's estate on the basis of the alleged promises having already been handed land and property worth over £10m by Richard before his death. Through the court proceedings, Adam hopes to restore his father's 1995 will which granted him "a 40-year tenancy of his father's farm and an option to purchase the farm at its probate value". When Richard amended the will in 2016, Jennifer's two sons, Gordon and William Redgrave-Scott, and Adam's sister Rebecca Horley also became beneficiaries. 4
Telegraph
6 days ago
- Telegraph
Daughter sues over £250 inheritance after sister was left £600,000
A daughter is suing after she was left just £250 in her father's £600,000 will while her sister received almost everything else. Laxmikant Patel's will handed the £600,000 family home in Harrow, London, to eldest daughter, Anju Patel, 58, while leaving Bhavenetta Stewart-Brown, 52, and son Piyush Patel, 62, only £250 each. Anju told a court hearing that their dad explained his decision by saying he had come to 'mistrust' Mrs Stewart-Brown and that she and her brother had 'failed in their sense of duty' as his children. He then left them tiny cash gifts, saying: 'As a father, I have not forgotten them'. But Mrs Stewart-Brown is now challenging the will in court, claiming her father did not 'know and approve' its contents, pointing out that the 'odd' will was written in English, a language she claims he couldn't read properly. She is seeking to uphold an earlier will, splitting the £600,000 estate almost equally between the three siblings, but Anju is fighting back and insisting her dad had every reason to all but disinherit the others. At the High Court, it was heard that Mr Patel's son Piyush was 'hugely controlling figure' who had declined to scatter his dead mother's ashes in India. It was also also claimed that Mrs Stewart-Brown – an inspector with the Care Quality Commission – had 'a bad temper' and took 'massive advantage' of her father when he was alive. The judge, Deputy Master Jason Raeburn, heard Laxmikant Patel was a gentle and hard-working character who had carved out a new life for his family after migrating from Uganda in the early 1970s, working shifts at the Ford motor plant in Dagenham while his wife, Shardaben, ran a newsagent's. He died at the age of 85 in October 2021. In his previous will of October 2019 he had split his estate equally, except for an extra £50,000 bequest to Anju to balance out similar amounts he had previously handed to his other two children. But Mrs Stewart-Brown's barrister, Timothy Sherwin, highlighted the allegedly 'odd' circumstances in which Laxmikant made his last August 2021 will, soon after he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He said Anju claimed that her dad gave instructions for his will to Vijaykant Patel, an associate of hers from their Hare Krishna temple who claimed to have also been a friend of her father's and came to visit him in his bed in London's Northwick Hospital. Vijaykant was not a qualified lawyer, said Mr Sherwin, also commenting: 'But there is much more to excite the court's suspicion – the purported execution of the 2021 will took place shortly after the deceased was admitted to hospital for lethargy, dizziness and coughing up blood. 'That will was in English, a language he could not properly read,' he said. Given that the earlier will had planned for a mainly equal split of his estate, the shift to cutting out Bhavenetta and her brother two years later was inexplicable, argued the barrister. But Anju's representative James Kane claimed that by 2019 their father was deeply disgruntled with Mrs Stewart-Brown and his son, citing his comments to the will writer at the time when Mr Patel said Bhavenetta had 'taken massive advantage' of him. 'Although he did not act on this view immediately, after his diagnosis with cancer in August 2021, he decided to act,' he said. As executor of the estate Vijaykant Patel is defending the claim alongside Anju, while the two sisters' older brother, Piyush, who lives in Texas, is taking a neutral stance.
Mail & Guardian
6 days ago
- Business
- Mail & Guardian
Sorting out estates and wills in different countries is a tricky business
It is possibly best to execute a separate will in each jurisdiction where one's estate may have to be administered. (Flickr) In an increasingly globalised world, it is not uncommon for people to own assets in more than one country. Countries have different laws of succession and the requirements for a valid Will may vary from country to country. This may create problems if one's estate affairs are not in order. The issue of various wills across multiple jurisdictions came into play in the recent judgment of . In 2001, Harold John Anderson and Karin Renate Anderson executed a joint will (the 2001 will) in Kassel, Germany. Karin died in 2002. In 2003 the district court of Kassel found the 2001 will to be the effective joint will of Harold and Karin. Harold was the sole heir in the Karin's estate. Although the full details of where all the assets pertaining to the 2001 will were situated is not clear, in the later legal proceedings in South Africa there were references to assets in Germany, Italy and South Africa. Harold then married again. In 2018, he executed a new will (2018 will) in terms of which his new wife was the sole beneficiary. He then executed another will in 2021 (2021 will) wherein he dealt with assets in the United Kingdom and Channel Islands. In terms of the 2021 will, his new wife and the two children from his marriage to Karin were named as beneficiaries. The 2021 will did not form part of the dispute before the court. Harold died in 2023. Harold and Karin's children instituted legal proceedings in the high court. They argued that, in terms of the 2001 will, massing had occurred due to their late parents' consolidation of their property into a single unit. They also argued that adiation had occurred when their father had accepted the benefits under the 2001 will. They requested the court to order the Master of the High Court to accept the 2001 will as the last will of their father in respect of his South African assets in so far as it related to assets which had formed part of the massed estate under the 2001 will. The respondents, which included Harold's later spouse, fluctuated in their grounds for opposing the application. They mainly argued that even though they accepted the validity of the 2001 will under German law, they disputed that the 2001 will could be enforced under South African law. They did not dispute that after Karin's death massing and adiation had occurred and that Harold had inherited the massed estate. The court dealt with some procedural aspects and then referred to section 3bis(1)(a) of the Wills Act, which stipulates that a will shall: '(a) not be invalid merely by reason of the form thereof, if such form complies with the internal law of the state or territory (i) in which the will was executed; (ii) in which the testator was, at the time of the execution of the will or at the time of his death, domiciled or habitually resident; or (iii) of which the testator was, at the time of the execution of the will or at the time of his death, a citizen' The court stated that the effect of section 3 bis is that a will would be valid under South African law if the will complies with the formalities of the country in which the will was made , in this case Germany, irrespective of whether the will complies with the formalities for validity of the country where the assets are situated , in this case relating to assets situated in South Africa. The court therefore found that the 2001 will was valid and binding in South Africa because of the district court of Kassel's decision that resulted in the requirements of section 3bis of the Act being met. It is common for married couples to execute joint wills. It is also possible for two people who are not married to execute a joint will. Most joint wills are also mutual wills. A mutual will is a joint will wherein the parties thereto make bequests to each other. Any party to a joint or mutual will may at any time, even without the other party's knowledge or consent, execute a new will and revoke the previous joint or mutual will. There are however consequences for the surviving party to a mutual will in the case of massing. Massing occurs when two or more persons in their mutual will consolidate their separate estate assets into a consolidated unit, which is then bequeathed as a consolidated unit in terms of the mutual will. A couple who is married in community of property and who wishes to effect massing may include the following clause in their mutual will: 'We hereby mass our joint community estate and bequeath the whole of our massed joint estate in equal shares to our children, namely xxxx and xxxx, subject to a life-long usufruct in favour of the survivor of us until the survivor's death.' In this case, upon the death of the first-dying spouse, the surviving spouse will have a choice of either adiating (accepting the benefits) under the will or repudiating (rejecting the benefits of) the will. Should the surviving spouse adiate, he or she will become entitled to a usufruct over the whole of the property in the joint estate. Should the surviving spouse repudiate, he or she will become entitled to his or half share in the joint estate and the children will forthwith become entitled to the first-dying spouse's half share in the joint estate. In the event of the surviving spouse adiating under the will, he or she will not be allowed to later vary or revoke the terms thereof. The surviving spouse would therefore be restricted in his or her manner of dealing with the assets in existence at the time of death of the first-dying spouse. In this case the court found that Harold and Karin had consolidated their separate estates into a single unit in their 2001 will, thereby massing their estates. The court further found that Harold had then elected to receive benefits in terms of the 2001 will after Karin's death, thereby adiating under the 2001 will. Harold was accordingly not allowed to deal with his portion of the massed estate in a manner contrary to the provisions of the 2001 will. The court ordered that the 2001 will was to be accepted by the Master. It further ordered that the assets in Harold's estate, in so far as it related to South African assets which had formed part of or had been derived from the massed estate under the 2001 will at the time of Karin's death, are to be distributed in terms of the 2001 will. As far as Harold had acquired South African assets which had not formed part of or had not been derived from the massed estate in terms of the 2001 will, the court ordered that such assets were to be distributed in terms of the 2018 will. As can be seen from the above discussion, having one will that applies to multiple jurisdictions may be problematic. Countries have different laws relating to the validity of wills, the recognition of foreign wills, how the applicable matrimonial property regime influences succession, forced heirship, testamentary freedom and succession rules. The estate administration procedure will differ from country to country. A practical way to go about planning one's estate across various jurisdictions would be to obtain advice on the applicable laws of succession and to execute a separate will in each respective jurisdiction where one's estate may have to be administered. Specific care must be taken that each jurisdiction's will complies with that jurisdiction's formalities for validity, deals only with the assets in that particular jurisdiction and only revokes previous wills relating to assets situated in that specific jurisdiction. It is imperative that a professional or professionals be consulted when dealing with estate planning across jurisdictions. Karel Kogler is a senior associate at Herold Gie Attorneys.
Daily Mail
6 days ago
- Daily Mail
Daughter who was 'light of her father's life' is in bitter court battle with siblings over £600,000 fortune - while they only got £250 each
A woman allegedly labelled 'bad-tempered' by her late father is suing her elder sister after she and her brother were left just £250 in his £600,000 will whilst her other sibling was handed almost everything else. Laxmikant Patel handed the £600,000 family home in Harrow, north-west London, to eldest daughter, Anju Patel, 58, labelled the 'light of her father's life'. Younger daughter Bhavenetta Stewart-Brown, 52, and son Piyush Patel, 62, were given the meagre sum because, Anju claimed, their father felt they had 'failed in their sense of duty' as his children. He gave them the token sum because 'as a father, I have not forgotten them', she claimed - sparking a fierce legal challenge from Mrs Stewart-Brown. She claims that her father did not 'know and approve' of his will's contents, finding it 'odd' that it was written in English, which he allegedly could not read properly. She is seeking to uphold an earlier will splitting the £600,000 estate almost equally between the three, but Anju insists her father had every reason to cut out her siblings. The High Court was told that Piyush Patel had been, in his father's eyes, a 'hugely controlling figure' who had declined to scatter his dead mum's ashes in India. Laxmikant also claimed Mrs Stewart-Brown - an inspector with the Care Quality Commission - 'apparently has a bad temper' and 'has taken massive advantage of her father'. Judge Deputy Master Jason Raeburn heard Laxmikant Patel was a gentle and hard-working character who had carved out a new life for his family after migrating from Uganda in the early 1970s. He worked shifts at the Ford motor plant in Dagenham while his wife, Shardaben, ran a newsagent's. A devoutly religious man, Laxmikant attended the Swaminarayan temple in Neasden, north London, every day and he and his wife donated around £180,000 to the temple throughout their lives before his death at the age of 85 in October 2021. In his previous will of October 2019 he had split his estate equally save for an extra £50,000 bequest to Anju to balance out similar amounts he had previously handed to his other two children. But Mrs Stewart-Brown's barrister, Timothy Sherwin, highlighted the allegedly 'odd' circumstances in which Laxmikant made his last August 2021 will, soon after he was diagnosed with lung cancer. He said Anju claimed that her dad gave instructions for his will to Vijaykant Patel, an associate of hers from their Hare Krishna temple. Vijaykant claimed to have also been a friend of her father's - a claim disputed in court - and came to visit him in his bed in London's Northwick Hospital. Mr Sherwin said that Vijaykant told Laxmikant he could draw up a will - despite not being a qualified lawyer. He said Vijaykant claims to have taken notes of the meeting, in which Laxmikant expressed 'revulsion' towards Mrs Stewart-Brown and Piyush, who he said were only 'after his property,' before declaring: 'everything goes to Anju.' Mr Sherwin added that Vijaykant was not a qualified lawyer, and that the execution of the will allegedly took place shortly after Mr Patel was admitted to hospital for lethargy and dizziness, coughing up blood. Mrs Stewart-Brown claims her older sister drifted apart from the family after the age of 15 when she moved to India, later embracing the Hare Krishna creed over her family's Swaminarayan Hindu beliefs before 'rejoining' the family in 2018. The cutting out of Mrs Stewart-Brown and her brother was 'inexplicable', Mr Sherwin concluded. 'From 2019 onwards, however, Anju and (her husband) began to take much more involvement in the deceased's finances and personal affairs,' he added. 'They procured the 2019 will. They controlled access to the deceased, especially during the key period of August 2021. 'Further, they are Hare Krishna devotees, and they isolated the deceased from his previous dedication to the Swaminarayan faith, which he shared with his previous friends, and the other members of his family.' But Anju, who returned to live in the UK in 1983, has denied being distanced from her parents, with her barrister, James Kane, claiming she always 'shared a close and loving relationship' with them. From the witness box, Anju herself also insisted that she had only ever been distanced from Mrs Stewart-Brown and that there was no conflict between her and her parents. 'I wasn't estranged from my family, I was with my sister. She chose to disconnect from me,' she told the judge. Further, she claimed her father had become disillusioned with Mrs Stewart-Brown after she allegedly removed 'important documents' such as title deeds, insurance papers and bank statements from a locker or safe deposit box that was his. Her barrister Mr Kane added: 'The documentary evidence makes plain that by - at the latest - October 2019, Laxmikant had formed a sharply negative view of both Piyush and Bhavenetta. 'He asked his friend Vijaykant to draw up a will for him in favour of Anju, the child he felt had done most for him. 'Vijaykant did so and Laxmikant executed the will. The evidence of Vijaykant and the attesting witnesses is clear that Laxmikant knew perfectly well what the effect of executing the will would be and approved of it.' As executor of the estate, Vijaykant Patel is defending the claim alongside Anju, while the two sisters' older brother, Piyush, who lives in Texas, is taking a neutral stance.
