Copy
WillPack Monthly Newsletter. What's going on in the Will Writing world?
View this email in your browser
Share
Tweet
Share
Forward

September Newsletter #1

Welcome to the September edition of WillPack News

This month we're looking to roll out something new. With our Social Media growing steadily over the past few weeks, more noticeably on Twitter, with our reach and impressions going up by around 1000%, we want to start advertising our introducers more often and getting your names out there to businesses/clients that might be interested. Our plan is to tweet your social media and/or website links with something along the lines of:

"Looking for a #Will in *#Lincoln*? contact *@JoeBloggsWills* or visit *joeswills.co.uk* for more information and get your #Legacy planned now!"

If this is something that interests you and you want to be a part of the trial then email us on news@willpack.co.uk and we can get things started.

Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
Twitter
Website
Website
Email
Email
LinkedIn
LinkedIn

Complex Families

We all want our respective families to benefit from our deaths especially if we have no children to which to leave our estate.

Take Rosie and Jim, a typical couple, living together not married, no children, want each other to benefit. Jim dies, in his Will he states that his estate is to pass to Rosie, subject to her surviving him for 30 days; Rosie survives Jim by 30 days and takes Jims estate absolutely, when Rosie dies both her and Jim's estates pass according to her Will, to her parents or brothers and sisters leaving Jims family nothing. This is possibly not what Jim would have wanted had it been explained to them both when giving their instructions.

So what are the options?

Option 1 is for each to leave their estate on a life interest trust for each other, and when the survivor dies, the trustees of the trust fund distribute the fund according to the wishes of the testator. However, trusts can be expensive and may also run for many years.
Option 2 is a cheaper alternative is to write the Will as follows:
I give my estate to my partner Rosie subject to her surviving me by thirty days and on her death the residuary estate to be held in two equal shares and distributed as follows:
One share to be divided between the family [named] of Rosie and in equal shares if more than one.
One share [or the remaining share] to be divided between the family [named] of Jim and in equal shares if more than one.
Failure to take account of both families can result in a negligence claim from the aggrieved beneficiaries. Although we have used an unmarried couple, it does not matter whether they are married or not, the result is the same.
Amy - 

Commercial LPAs

Commercial LPAs are different to a normal LPA for a couple of reasons, more so than just the basic preparation and drafting of the documents. For example, the nature of the business, the articles of associations and any partnership or shareholder agreements need to be consulted to ensure that they allow the creation of an LPA, and if not, they will need amending.
The appointment of attorneys need to be carefully considered based on not only trust, but if they are capable of the doing the job in a way that the donor would do. For example, the donor will need to consider if their chosen person is familiar with the business, or at least the market of the business along with sharing the same business ideas as the donor to ensure they act in the best interest of the donor.
Because of how much there is to consider with these documents, WillPack do recommend taking a course on Commercial LPAs along with having a good understanding of Company Law.

- Liam

For more information click here

FAQ

Q. Can my client gift a death in service payment in their Will?
A. No. Well, it's not advised. This money is not held by the client, but in Trust by the company it is set up with, 
which should not pass through the estate. It will have its own assigned beneficiary that the client chose when they set out the plan. If the client is concerned about this they can set up a Pilot Trust that will distribute it according to their letter of wishes.

EU Succession for Expats

The new rules regarding succession in the EU have in theory made it easier for Expats to distribute their estate in the way they wish, instead of local 'forced heirship' rules in the country where they are living.
This has been made slightly more complicated with countries such as the UK, Denmark and Ireland having opted out of the EU650/2012, so these countries shall continue to apply their own individual rules of succession. Hopefully, in practice this will mean that the speed at which estates are dealt with will increase and the cost of cross border succession would
decrease.
Under the new regulations British Expats should still be able to apply British regulations to their foreign assets as long as they are still considered a British citizen, but should still update their Will accordingly with the clause;

 

"I direct and declare that for the purposes of regulation (EU) No 650/2012 English Law shall determine the succession of all my estate situate in *COUNTRY* whether moveable or immoveable."


There are still areas of this regulation that are unclear, for example, when it comes to someone living in a second country and owning property in a third, or if someone moves to another country after making their Will.

With all the unanswered questions still surrounding with this new piece of legislation, we're not going to know much about how it actually affects our clients until people's Wills, containing the EU650/2012 clause, start being executed and we see the clause in practice.

Lee -

Chekov v Fryer [2015] EWHC 1642 (Ch)


Most of you will have heard about the headline making case of Ilott v Mitson. However another family provision case was made around the same time, which was much less reported on.
Mr Fryer and Miss Chekov divorced from each other in 1981 and their court order for financial provision stated that neither could make a claim on each other’s estate under the 1975 Act unless the parties remarry. However at the time of Mr Fryer’s death both were living together as cohabitants.
Miss Chekov wished to bring a claim under the act arguing that the order did not exclude her from making a claim as a cohabitant (the right to make such a claim was not introduced until 1996) whereas the defendants (their two sons) argued the order excluded all claims and brought the case to the court, attempting to strike out Miss Chekov’s case.
The court stated that if Fryer and Chekov had remarried each other, deliberately putting themselves back within the provisions of the 1975 Act and since 1996, the same was true of cohabitation as it is their deliberate actions which have put them in that position. The court did not see any good reason to treat remarriage and cohabitation differently and did not strike out her claim.
The sons are pursuing an appeal and (if they are unsuccessful) there will be further hearings to determine whether the facts of the case are strong enough to award Chekov provision so this case is not over yet. 
Chris - 
Facebook
Facebook
Twitter
Twitter
Website
Website
Email
Email
LinkedIn
LinkedIn
Copyright © 2015 WillPack, All rights reserved.


unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences 

Email Marketing Powered by Mailchimp