Uk Will Question: If A Will States A House Is Left To Sombody And Then Passed On To Somebody Else After They Pass..

[flowernm66]

This is a totally hypothetical question. My wife's sister's just been left a house by her ex father in law that states the house is to be left to her BUT after she passes away it's to be sold and then split between three grandchildren. She went shortly after and updated her will to make sure that will happen. The house was ofc put into her name etc and she is the legal owner.

My question is if she was that way inclined (which ofc she isn't)  what would happen if when she passed she asked for it to be sold and left to a new partner or to a charity etc. would the original will be able to be enforced?!

[barry1010]

The original Will was lacking.  It should have specified the house be held in trust with your sister in law having a life interest.

[ToraToraTora]

If the father wants to pass it to the grand children then he must leave it to them directly with the caveat that your wife's sister can live in it until she dies. If he leaves it directly to her he cannot have any control of what she subsequently does with it. She can choose to honour his wishes but she equally can do what she likes. A legacy is passed on once you cannot legally effect a subsequent legacy.

Eg if I leave you my car I cannot then tell you who to leave it to, that would be in your will later.

[barry1010]

As she is now the legal owner she can do whatever she likes with it. 

The grandchildren could challenge that but it would not be straightforward.

[THECORBYLOON]

It would be a conditional bequest and there can be conditions that have to be satisfied prior to being received (condition precedent) or conditions that have to satisfied after receipt (condition subsequent).

https://www.buckles-law.co.uk/blog/leaving-conditional-gifts-in-a-will/

"A condition precedent should be written in a specific manner so that there is a reasonable chance of it being followed, and outline a specific timeframe. If the condition is left open-ended, it becomes increasingly difficult to enforce as time passes.

A conditional subsequent, in contrast, would see the beneficiary take the gift upon probate being granted, but have it revoked or taken away if they fail to comply with the attached condition. An example could be that a person will inherit a business, but only if they provide financial support for certain other people. If no provision is made for those individuals, then the gift will default and the business will no longer legally belong to the beneficiary.

As they are completely open-ended, these types of conditions are generally more difficult to enforce. Breeches may not happen until decades after a gift has been made, after which point it can become extremely problematic and complex to revoke it.

Although the difference between ‘precedent’ and ‘subsequent’ is clear in theory, in practice it is usually the Court that must construe the testator’s intention through the wording used.

Where the condition requires that something occurs over a considerable time period, the condition is more likely to be considered subsequent by the Court because of the law’s preference for early execution."
 

[Peter Pedant]

Barry:  It should have specified the house be held in trust with your sister in law having a life interest.

I think the actual wording is clear: 

 It  specified the house be held in trust with your sister in law having a life interest.

Bar maid needed - actually bar maid not needed - the will seems clear to me

[Peter Pedant]

so the larger problem - can a persons actions and or guarantees limit how he write his will ( that is  limits his freedom to devise to whom he likes)

er answer: yes.  - and so is this one of the situations where it applies - yes.

- or---- you cant leave what you dont have

recently considered in the High Court

[barry1010]

PP, there is no evidence of that in the OP.  'The house was left to her....the house was put in her name and she is now the legal owner....'

No mention of a Trust being recorded on the Registered Title

[Peter Pedant]

Anyone remember the tv series - who the hell are you? - it has one with preening Lawrence Llewellyn Bowen

and it comes up that Aunt Kitty had a fortune and then didnt. Aunt Kitty insisted she had been swizzed out of her lu-lu until she DIIIIIEEEEEED !

Lol said he wasnt interested in the details BUT.... the original law report ( Chancery, and Wills) was on the screen long enough for me to track it down ( 1850)

Her husband had tried to sell on ( spouses' rights) the property Aunt Kitty had the use of, as a free hold - and the Lord Chancellor said, " no no no" - and then they had a replay 1857 same case, same court same result.

so this was the lost estate AUnt Kitty was still squawkig about forty years later.

[Peter Pedant]

by her ex father in law that states the house is to be left to her BUT after she passes away it's to be sold and then split between three grandchildren.

creates a trust - the threesome is there, intention, defined property and the er third thing - the grandchilren are remaindermen

Barmaid specialised in wills and trust so can tell us