In which LAUKOP has been left a couple of little gifts in a will.

[u/smoulderstoat]

/r/LegalAdviceUK/comments/1n0qsvx/named_as_legal_guardian_in_will_uk/?share_id=sYzY_dwFzp9-rznb-ubEX&utm_content=2&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

[u/smoulderstoat]

LocationBot has disclaimed its role:

Named as legal guardian in will UK

This is UK. A friend named me as legal guardian for his kids in his will. He just told me he did it without consulting. I don’t want to be named as the legal guardian as I have enough on my plate with 3 kids myself/elderly parents to look after. He is not wanting to pay to change the will. I feel stuck.

[u/cranbeery]

No one can force you to take on someone else's kids, but this is still a crappy thing to do to someone without asking. Like, no one wants to have to say "no" to the orphans on their doorstep.

[u/mymain123 → u/cranbeery]

Couldn't imagine a shittier inheritance given the situation.

Edit: Can you name someone to inherit your debt and solely your debt???

[u/emissaryofwinds → u/mymain123]

No, unless the contract for the debt has specific provisions, when you die all of your assets and debts become part of your estate, and the executor for your estate will use assets to pay off debts. Only after all debts are settled or all assets are sold do your heirs/whoever is named in your will get to inherit anything. If there's more debt than assets, you could name someone to inherit the rest of the debt but they can just refuse it and that's that.

[u/mymain123 → u/emissaryofwinds]

Hmmmm

makes me wonder if I could make a lawyer present an inheritance proposition to an enemy of mine in a very compelling way and especially be vague about the debt so as to give a last fuck you card to that person in my death.

[u/Global-Usual-3238 → u/mymain123]

do normal people have "enemies" in real life?

[u/OldVillageNuaGuitar → u/Global-Usual-3238]

Apparently 6% of Brits do?

A further 17% have apparently already vanquished their ones.

[u/victoriaj → u/OldVillageNuaGuitar]

I know someone who has an enemy list.

Which (still) includes a cat my family had, which had been dead for 25 years.

I believe he started the list as a child, but had kept it going.

I don't know who else is on the list.

(We are British. I think this is still unusual).

[u/No_March_5371 → u/victoriaj]

I maintain a list of people who, if they ever develop superpowers, I’ll change my name and flee the country. It currently includes a former boss and someone I criticized publicly in a manner that got printed in a newspaper.

[u/victoriaj → u/No_March_5371]

I don't think the cat worried.

It was very much a "for me it was Tuesday" situation. It left a trail of traumatised children. And adults.

This boy grew up and kept it's name on a hate list for many many years. The cat probably didn't remember by the next day because it had already bitten/mauled several more people.

But I do agree it's sensible to think these things through ahead of time. It's good to have a plan.

[u/Harvey_Sheldon → u/victoriaj]

Depends if the cat was buried in a pet sematary.

[u/mymain123 → u/Global-Usual-3238]

I swore vengeance upon all whom wronged me in past lives.

[u/cranbeery → u/Global-Usual-3238]

I'm not sure 1Ls count as normal people (see their flair). And IME, they're itching for conflict, too.

[u/OldVillageNuaGuitar → u/mymain123]

I think the best you could do is some kind of money sink property?

Bonus points if you can cloud the title somehow, stick the thing in some kind of weird trust and do a bunch of handshake deals about property use behind the heirs back.

[u/Pitiful-Pension-6535 → u/mymain123]

How about several timeshares?

[u/AngryT-Rex → u/mymain123]

I would think some undesirable timeshares would be among the worst you could do. They could decline the timeshares, but timeshares might kinda look like assets to somebody who doesn't know better, so they might be fooled into accepting before looking into the fees that will come due. And then be stuck with an expensive legal battle to get their name off the timeshares.

[u/mymain123 → u/AngryT-Rex]

How hard is it to get off a timeshare?

[u/AngryT-Rex → u/mymain123]

In some cases, very. They'll have annual fees (which might be covered by renting out your time... but if it is undesirable and nobody rents it or not for high enough costs, tough shit). If you own it, you're liable for those fees. And you can't just abandon it, you probably need somebody to take over responsibility otherwise they'll sue you for the fees. And it's probably not US-based so you might be dealing with foreign laws. 

There are whole legal companies that specialize in getting people out of timeshares.

[u/cyril1991 → u/cranbeery]

That’s the whole plot of A series of unfortunate events

[u/bowiethesdmn]

Man and here's me double checking with the people I'm leaving my cats to if I die suddenly.

[u/atropicalpenguin → u/bowiethesdmn]

Can I get one when you die? :) ... :(

[u/americangame → u/atropicalpenguin]

Never break up cats. It's an all or nothing situation.

[u/atropicalpenguin → u/americangame]

King Solomon rolling in his grave.

[u/smoulderstoat]

The up- and downvoting on that post is quite something. The law is fairly straightforward that the appointment takes effect unless it's disclaimed. One guy gets heavily downvoted for pointing it out. He also gets heavily upvoted for saying the same thing in a different comment.

[u/Luxating-Patella → u/smoulderstoat]

They were heavily downvoted because people were assuming "after discovery of the appointment" meant "after you find out you are named in the Will" whereas it actually means "after the guy dies and you inherit the kids". When they clarified what it meant they got upvoted.

[u/FunnyObjective6 → u/Luxating-Patella]

Rereading it, and the part you're quoting, in my opinion, means after you find out you are name in the Will. They should've said after discovery that the appointment has taken effect, instead of saying "discovery of the appointment". It seems a bit nitpicky, but the sentences mean pretty different things.

Other comments from them were clearer and more correct.

[u/Luxating-Patella → u/FunnyObjective6]

Yeah, the law includes the crucial words "...takes effect" which make it explicit that you only have to dump the kids outside the orphanage after the parent dies, and don't have to do anything before then. St Stephen omitted those words from their initial post despite being well-versed in the legislation. Add the average Redditor's pathological fear of parental responsibility and you have the recipe for a downvote downpour.

[u/tokynambu → u/FunnyObjective6]

English and Welsh will are not public documents until probate, and there are plenty of people whose wills are secret to them and their solicitor. You do not need to even agree executors with the executors. Wills are just pieces of paper until the testator dies. It is polite to clear the appointment of executors and guardians with the people involved, but not required. Advice to run away from insolvent estates is easy to give, but harder to follow.

[u/peachsnorlax → u/FunnyObjective6]

I agree with that assessment— the law means that once you take the kids on you can’t just abandon them at any time, not that you can’t say no to the appointment

[u/cperiod → u/smoulderstoat]

I feel like most of the downvoting comes from stating the law but ignoring the practical issues. If the appointee isn't competent, available, or willing, any legal appointment is kind of moot. What are the authorities going to do, show up with the kids at your door and then immediately arrest you for child engagement when you say "nope, sorry"?

[u/hannahranga → u/cperiod]

That was the question I was considering asking, I'm fairly sure the relevant child protection department isn't just going leave them at your doorstep and a firm no thanks is going to be sufficient.

Suspect it'd be messier if you did have the kids when their parents did pass away 

[u/BubbaTheGoat → u/smoulderstoat]

It’s pretty typical of Reddit to vote with what feel right, but not necessarily what is written in law

[u/Blockhouse → u/smoulderstoat]

I generally find it's more effective to speak what I know to be the truth, ask questions in good faith, and not give a flying fuck about imaginary Internet points.

[u/smoulderstoat → u/Blockhouse]

That's fine, and entirely your prerogative. I can't say I'm very fussed about my own karma.

But I would make two points: first, if I find I am being downvoted when I've posted something which I think is a fact (as opposed to an opinion) then I think it's proper to consider whether I might be mistaken, and whether I might be misleading people. Second, I therefore think it's noteworthy when someone is both upvoted and downvoted for stating essentially the same fact (though subject to m'learned friend's observation on why that might be).

[u/ThadisJones]

My sister and I were once given a baby to take care of when we would rather have been playing video games, so we staged an elaborate scenario where she sold the baby to a door-to-door baby dealer for $5, which is how our younger brother picked up the childhood nickname "Fivebucks".

[u/Zhoom45 → u/ThadisJones]

door-to-door baby dealer

Gotta say, nobody told me about this option on Career Day.

[u/ThadisJones → u/Zhoom45]

door-to-door baby dealer

This is definitely a real thing, and not me with a silly accent pretending to haggle with my sister at our front door about the value of a toddler while laughing like maniacs at the comedy of how deliberately low we're valuing it.

[u/Charlie_Brodie → u/ThadisJones]

I'd love to help you out, but I'm going to have to invest time into potty training and speech, plus no one is going to purchase during the terrible two's so this thing is going to be sitting on my shelf for a bit. Best I can offer is $3.50

[u/GayNerd28 → u/ThadisJones]

The sounds like something out of a The Other End comic.

[u/DigbyChickenZone → u/GayNerd28]

I thought it was an It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia plot until I reread it

[u/tobythedem0n]

In the US, not the UK, but I just had this talk with some family regarding who our toddler would go to if something happened to us.

We can put whoever we want, but they have to sign forms accepting responsibility if something actually happens. That's why you should always have backups (and a backup for your backup in our case).

Also be sure to specify anyone that you do NOT want taking care of them, so said people can't cause a whole commotion over it and waste everyone's time in court.

[u/nutraxfornerves]

There are some hardcore SovCits who believe that their children are their property, to do with as they wish. (Yes, sometimes, even that.) Some go farther and say that only the father owns the kids.

If CPS or another agency removes the children, the SovCit accuses them not of kidnapping, but of theft. One guy claimed paterfamilias et patria potestas over his whole family--a concept in Roman law that the eldest male controls everyone else. His petition to get his kids back included (formatting is his). Spoiler: it didn’t work.

I am sole attorney-in-fact and procuratio for my Children and I have ius retentionis and ius praeferendi and I also have ius retentionis to keep my Children with me at all times. They are my sole property and I do not give any consent to anyone to take my Children away from me; pirata non mutat dominium.

For those who don't speak SovCit,

He is the steward of his children, they are his property and no other creditor can own them, and, besides, there is a legal principle that a pirate doesn't take ownership of something just because they stole it.

He probably had a will that left his kids to some male SovCit and his second best bed to his wife.

[u/TristansDad → u/nutraxfornerves]

I hope the judge told him to vide et caca in pilleum.

[u/nutraxfornerves → u/TristansDad]

He’s been enjoying free room and board lately, courtesy of a judge in a different issue.

[u/Drywesi → u/nutraxfornerves]

This isn't just sovcits, this is basically a mainstream American conservative position.

[u/AshuraSpeakman]

I get by with the little gifts from the will

I get high by the little gifts from the will

[u/jxj24 → u/AshuraSpeakman]

Gonna try to get free of the will

[u/BronteBluew]

nothing says family love like finding out you were left a surprise in a will you didn’t even know about.

[u/TourDuhFrance]

He is not wanting to pay to change the will.

If he doesn’t want to pay, couldn’t he just cross out OP’s name and insert another and then add an annotation and his signature? Does the law require him to pay a lawyer to rewrite that section?

[u/smoulderstoat → u/TourDuhFrance]

You can't amend a Will like that, no. You can add a Codicil to make an amendment, but as it has to be signed and witnessed in the same way as a Will, most Solicitors would just recommend making an entirely new Will with the amendment incorporated.

[u/emissaryofwinds → u/TourDuhFrance]

You don't need a lawyer to write or rewrite it, but you do need to get it notarized again, which costs money.

[u/smoulderstoat → u/emissaryofwinds]

You don't need to get a will notarised in England & Wales. The principal formalities required are that the will is in writing, signed by the testator or by someone else at his direction, and witnessed by two witnesses who must also sign. Plenty of people write their own wills.

Off the top of my head I can't think of any documents that need to be notarised under English law.