I was really excited last week when I saw the trailer on the BBC for “Can’t Take It With You”.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00xk05j/Cant_Take_It_with_You_Charity_Doesnt_Begin_at_Home
Where Gerry Robinson, helps families in turmoil over their Wills decide the best course of action.
For me, it was brilliant as it demonstrated exactly the process I go through with my clients and why I always offer an initial consultation because as a nation we don’t like to talk about death and money!
I have said to many clients that Estate Planning for me is not about dying but in essence creating an “insurance document which underpins a conversation”.
We are as a nation uncomfortable talking about death, emotions and family issues and whilst on the whole most people, when prompted, will think about the “what if’s” they would prefer to live in blissful ignorance and hope “it will be all right”!
The point is, life happens and family units no longer follow the tradition of one marriage, ‘till death us do part. Things change, multiple families occur with responsibility for children who are not your own. Gay couples, in the absence of civil partnerships have no rights over each other. And if you are retired and need long term care then your life achievements, wealth and potential inheritance for children can be lost very quickly.
So what does this mean for an Independent Estate Planner?
In reality, although my objective is to advise and create the correct “insurance document” for my clients, a lot of my conversation is actually around challenging thinking on “what’s best”.
This can create differences of opinion, feelings of discomfort and even upset but it is essential that all family and personal areas are discussed and explored to prevent challenges further down the line.
So in part, my job can end up acting as counsellor, family mediator and confidant. I challenge people’s thinking on what they think is the right thing to do, and alternatives should they be appropriate.
My sessions can “open up the can of worms” but it is precisely these issues that can create conflict after death and need to be discussed. So I ensure these are “opened up”, discussed, committed to your Will and then you can forget about it, hopefully for a very long time.
thoughts from squeezing the limes 
Last night’s programme tried to address the dilemma of a Muslim couple torn between adhering to the Shariah and being fair. Their difficulty was twofold:
a) according to the Sharia, they would be required to leave twice as much to their son as to each of their daughters.
b) if the husband died first, the wife would be left homeless, unless the children agreed to her remaining in what had now become their property (not forgetting the share that would go to the parents of the deceased).
In this case, the wife was a doctor and the husband a dentist. One would therefore assume that both couple had jointly purchased the marital home.
Why was it never pointed out during the programme that at the time the Sharia was written, women did not work? Does the question of fairness not change drastically when the woman has actually contributed with the fruits of her labour?
Thanks for the comment Gitti.
It’s always going to be the case with documentaries that they will touch on number of broad areas with no real time to drill down into the legals of how property and assets are owned. Estate Planning is always a balance between legal process and rights of succession, balanced against ownership and religous belief. Your point surrounding the home is one which could have been explored. Had this been bought jointly with a mortgage then there is an argument that the woman automatically has 50% ownership, certainly that would be the legal view should they default on any payments.
Neil
Love this programme, the way the experts get the family together, allows the persons making the will to visualise what would happen if they had done the wills in the way they had first thought, with in some cases, surprising horrific consequences, its amazing how family members can fall out when money is involved, and then gives them peace of mind when they finally do their wills that things will be more evenly divided and hence avoid the inevitable fallout.
Thank you for making such an excellent and informative programme/
Thanks Mel, this is exaclty how and Indepenent Estate Planner should approach the subject matter. Imagining you had already died isn’t a pleasant thought but does demonstrate that when your voice has gone, are the correct events going to happen. One thing the programme has yet to touch on is also the need to keep your Will up to date. We are unique in being the only company in Scotland who offer a free annual review of Wills. As I often say, having no Will isn’t a great idea but having the wrong one can be even worse. Thanks you for your post.
Did anyone else notice that on tonight’s programme (11 February 2011) that when the females were signing their wills the wills described them as the testator…. and on the males wills it stated that they were the testarix!!!!! OOOOPS!!!!
Thanks for the post Judith, you weren’t alone. Well spotted.
I have just watched episode 5 of “Can’t take it with you” and wondered why the woman’s will said “testator” and the husband’s will said “testatrix”. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Yes, well spotted! As an Independent Estate Planner I always sit down with clients and Witness on their behalf to ensure they’re signing the correct parts and understand what they are signing. Thank for the post.
What about the Tax Man?
The Tax Man is entitled to 40% IHT over the nil rate band allowance on single or joint estates. (£325,000 single or £ 650,000 married). This issue does not seem to have been addressed within programs so far. 40% is a considerable share over the nil rate bands and may lead to assets having to be realised to pay any tax liabilities.
Another great point raised. I guess with this programme the BBC is trying to raise awareness of the complexities of arranging your Will and touches on a number of areas. Pesonally I would like to have seen the issue of IHT discussed as it remains one of the key political levers all parties use in their manifesto, yet the first to be dropped when they come into power. In real terms the current levels are far too low when aligned to the fact that so many people now own their own homes which have increased in value significantly. Again as an Estate Planner I always carry out a valuation of estate to assist clients whose wealth is above these levels and the fact is the majority of clients I see are in this category. There are solutions to mitigate this but again it is down to education and the client understanding the potential risks. Thank you for the post Paul.