The Lemon Fool

Hi Folks,
Time to update our wills. Original wills contained guardianship of minor children and bequests to Godchildren.
Children grown up and have their own lives/partners/house/jobs etc. Godchildren likewise.

Planning to make them simple and leave everything to each other, Mrs B and myself. They will be separate wills not mutual wills.

Do we need the 'simutaneous death clause' or could that complicate matters in terms of IHT and anything else.

I can't see any advantage given our circumstances. No previous marriages, no step children, just a boring family set up (has definite advantages in life).

Cheers,
Ray.

Hi Folks,
Another thought. Is it better to have two executors. That would be wife/husband and my brother. I am second exec for him.
Ray.

In all cases where… two or more persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other or others, such deaths shall (subject to any order of the court), for all purposes affecting the title to property, be presumed to have occurred in order of seniority, and accordingly the younger shall be deemed to have survived the elder.

http://clarkekiernan.com/contentious-pr ... ous-deaths

Hi,
Looking at my current will it has this clause:
In the event that my wife does not survive me by thirty days my remaining real and personal estate is to be divided equally between my remaining children.

Necessary or not? I understood the default would be to go to them anyway or is it better to state this. I would name the children if I put this in.

Ray.

raybarrow wrote:n the event that my wife does not survive me by thirty days

We have that clause in our will, and at the moment I can't remember why. Sure it stops MrsF changing her mind and leaving everything to the dog for a month if I go first, but I think that clause is something that dates back before the transferrable NRB?

In fact these days it might work against you - consider if you have £1m and Mrs Barrow has £250k, if you go first and she goes a week later, you lose £75k of her NRB (and potentially all her RNRB) from your estates and you pay a lot more IHT.

Paul

pje16 wrote:In all cases where… two or more persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other or others, such deaths shall (subject to any order of the court), for all purposes affecting the title to property, be presumed to have occurred in order of seniority, and accordingly the younger shall be deemed to have survived the elder.

The twins were both in the car as it span out of control and ...

(seems a bizarre clause)!

UncleEbenezer wrote:

pje16 wrote:In all cases where… two or more persons have died in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other or others, such deaths shall (subject to any order of the court), for all purposes affecting the title to property, be presumed to have occurred in order of seniority, and accordingly the younger shall be deemed to have survived the elder.

The twins were both in the car as it span out of control and ...

(seems a bizarre clause)!

Twins do not pop out of their mum at the same time

pje16 wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:The twins were both in the car as it span out of control and ...

(seems a bizarre clause)!

Twins do not pop out of their mum at the same time

But who has a record of the order?

Alternative: suppose it's a couple who happen to share the same birthday, but have no idea what time of day?

UncleEbenezer wrote:

pje16 wrote:Twins do not pop out of their mum at the same time

But who has a record of the order?

Alternative: suppose it's a couple who happen to share the same birthday, but have no idea what time of day?

the same person who records any birth, I can't remember who did mine
if I was the elder twin I would know

can we move the last few posts to pedants corner

pje16 wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:But who has a record of the order?

Alternative: suppose it's a couple who happen to share the same birthday, but have no idea what time of day?

the same person who records any birth, I can't remember who did mine
if I was the elder twin I would know

can we move the last few posts to pedants corner

OK, just for you ...

The twins (conjoined at birth) were both in the car as it span out of control and ...

And it's not pedantry, you're arguing angels on a pinhead!

UncleEbenezer wrote:

pje16 wrote:the same person who records any birth, I can't remember who did mine
if I was the elder twin I would know

can we move the last few posts to pedants corner

OK, just for you ...

The twins (conjoined at birth) were both in the car as it span out of control and ...

And it's not pedantry, you're arguing angels on a pinhead!

sorry being flippant doesn't always work
even conjoined, one must exit before the other
now add caesarian birth

UncleEbenezer wrote:

pje16 wrote:Twins do not pop out of their mum at the same time

But who has a record of the order?

Alternative: suppose it's a couple who happen to share the same birthday, but have no idea what time of day?

I have a feeling that in the case of twins the time of birth is noted on the birth certificate.

Oh yes - see
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... et_Web.pdf

Gersemi wrote:

UncleEbenezer wrote:But who has a record of the order?

Alternative: suppose it's a couple who happen to share the same birthday, but have no idea what time of day?

I have a feeling that in the case of twins the time of birth is noted

Maybe getting a bit off-topic, but:

Just checked my own records - I am not a twin and was born in Scotland in the 50s.

My (original) birth certificate has a box labelled “where and when” born. This box names the hospital , the date and the time. Arguably, “where” might just require date but not time.

However, a copy birth certificate (obtained in late 70s from same registrars office which recorded my birth) has a box explicitly labelled “date and time”.

My conclusion is that even when a birth is not a twin, the time of birth is probably recorded, at least in Scotland.

DeepSporran wrote:

Gersemi wrote:
I have a feeling that in the case of twins the time of birth is noted

Maybe getting a bit off-topic, but:

Heh. I post a single comment, and it becomes a monster sub-thread. These twins were of course the MacDuffs, ripped untimely from their mother's womb.

As for recording the time, I was in a registrars office less than a month ago to record a death. They recorded the date but not the time on that. The processes may not be identical, but don't they have a lot in common, legally and historically speaking?

If someone dies at home, the body cannot be moved from the premises (e.g. by an undertaker) without a Verification of Death form. This is completed by one of the NHS (subcontract) Home Visiting Services clinicians or a GP. This form has the date and time that the clinician / GP warranted that the deceased was indeed dead, and the time may well bear no resemblance to the time the person actually died. They might even have died the evening before.

The form is scanned or faxed to the area Coroner if the deceased has not been seen within fourteen days by someone from their GP practice.
Whether this form could be used as supplementary evidence in a court of law if there was a dispute about who died first I don't know, but I cannot see why not.
The Cause of Death certificate is issued by the GP direct to the Registrar, and the copy of the register entry - the 'Death Certificate' - contains the date only.

Birth certificates do indeed sometimes record the time of birth. I was born a twin and my register entry has the date and time of birth, so since registrars have little discretion about what to write, there are presumably some instructions for this. It is, of course, hugely important when the first twin out will one day inherit a Dukedom and huge estate while number two may be selling Big Issue.

can confirm that twins DEFINITELY know who was born first! It seems to somehow form part of nearly every debate between them

Gilesyb27 wrote:can confirm that twins DEFINITELY know who was born first! It seems to somehow form part of nearly every debate between them

yes...but that doesn't really help when they are both "sumultaneously" dead.

Gilesyb27 wrote:can confirm that twins DEFINITELY know who was born first! It seems to somehow form part of nearly every debate between them

Indeed. Assuming that information is recorded in the first place. And the identical twins aren't - perhaps repeatedly - swapped in infancy. Or later: twins impersonating each other is a common story.

But these twins (aside from being not of woman born, but ripped untimely from their mother's womb) just got killed. The rest of the world is uncertain.

Did I mention Roberto della Griva?

raybarrow wrote:Do we need the 'simutaneous death clause' or could that complicate matters in terms of IHT and anything else.

I've dug out the following note on this which I picked-up from a JEBLLB post on TMF long ago. pje16's link mentions both bits of legislation and observes the effect of transferable NRBs but this may add further clarity.

"For IHT purposes it is generally better not to have a survivorship clause in the will of the older spouse, or at least to say it does not apply if commorientes applies, due to the advantage of the inter relationship between s.4(2)IHTA84 and s.184 LPA25.

IHTA84 s.4(2) says that for tax purposes neither survives the other - which means that the elder's estate doesn't, for IHT purposes, pass to the other."

As the older spouse I don't have a survivorship clause in my Will.

If you nominate only one executor then problems may arise not only in the (rare) case of commorientes if spouse is sole nominee but also if capacity of nominee is an issue when you die. Consider whether 'joint & several' is best option.

Cheers!