British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)

- USA (https://britishexpats.com/forum/usa-57/)

- - Wills (https://britishexpats.com/forum/usa-57/wills-944682/)

Hi all, as we have assets in both uk and USA should we have wills in both. Will writer in uk suggests it can all be covered in uk will?

I am enclosing a link to a USA law firm thats discusses wills from both UK and USA I do not have any personal knowledge of this solicitor and am in no way recommending you engage this firm I am posting for informational purposes only. You should probably make inquiry with at least 3 USA law firms and see if their is a consensus amongst their advice. Good Luck!

https://www.calprobate.com/blog/ensu...in%20the%20U.S.

Opinion on BE is divided, but I would caution against having two wills. One will is more then adequate even if you have assets in two (or more) countries, and two wills may cause significant complications, including that one of them may be ruled invalid and voided by a court after your death, especially if the beneficiary(ies) of whichever is dated later seeks to get the will endorsed to cover assets listed in the other will. .... In short, legally speaking you can only have one "last will and testament", and for that reason I am firmly in the "one will" camp.

Thanks all, good info

Two just seems like a rotten idea

Just chipping in to say that we only ever had one, although we did make a new one well after we settled in the USA and then made another one a year or 2 after moving back. Wills need updating from time to time anyway.

Wills are also executed based on state law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharmacbrit (Post 13128013)

Hi all, as we have assets in both uk and USA should we have wills in both. Will writer in uk suggests it can all be covered in uk will?

I am a retired attorney whose law license is inactive. Accordingly, I refrain from giving specific advice. I make exception for recommendation to consult with competent counsel.

My legal education ended in 1975 and I did not practice in the area of trusts and estates. That said, I have been involved with bequests from relatives.

I read the link you were provided above. It struck me as pretty spot on. In particular, the advice to retain attorneys in both the US and the UK and having them coordinate strikes me as an excellent idea.

It pays to notes that, in my legal lifetime, the use of revocable â€œinter vivos trustsâ€ has come into existence in the US and to predominate over the use of wills for estate distribution. These trusts were NOT allowed under Common Law (a pesky issue called â€œmergerâ€, but I digress). My understanding is the US practice has NOT caught on in the UK.

There are other issues that can complicate things. Inasmuch as estate plans kick in at time of death and then canâ€™t be changed, care must be exercised in drafting the documents. By way of example on a different issue, look at the Estate of Larry Hillblom (the â€œHâ€ in DHL). He had a California will, but died while living on Saipan. The majority of his sizable estate was willed to the University of California. His will did not have the standard disinheritance clause for heirs not mentioned. After all, no children, right? Well, Larry liked young virgins for his kicks. 8 children came forward and DNA did not lie as to four of them.

And even had the standard disinheritance language been there, itâ€™s meaning might have been subject to dispute. See e.g. Estate of Jetter. Jetter also notes difference between the â€œEnglish Ruleâ€ and the â€œAmerican Ruleâ€ on disinheriting â€œpretermitted heirs.â€

Coming back to point, consultation with attorney in both US and UK for coordination is a good idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pulaski (Post 13128039)

In short, legally speaking you can only have one "last will and testament", and for that reason I am firmly in the "one will" camp.

You have mentioned this before. Although multiple wills are generally a bad idea, your statement is not correct. A will is said to speak at time of death. It is at that time the â€œlastâ€ comes into play. And the last will CAN and often does include multiple documents (will and codicils being the most common). Absent express revocation of prior wills, a new will can override prior wills only to the extent the new will is inconsistent with the prior will. And to complicate things, letâ€™s say that last will (with standard revocation language) is contested and invalidated, the prior will is the one that takes effect.

It is an interesting area of law. I mentioned in a prior post the Estate of Larry Hillblom (â€œHâ€ of DHL). His will left a big boodle of money to the University of California. But Larry got his kicks with young virgins. An interesting saga.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S Folinsky (Post 13128298)

You have mentioned this before. Although multiple wills are generally a bad idea, your statement is not correct. A will is said to speak at time of death. It is at that time the â€œlastâ€ comes into play. And the last will CAN and often does include multiple documents (will and codicils being the most common). Absent express revocation of prior wills, a new will can override prior wills only to the extent the new will is inconsistent with the prior will. And to complicate things, letâ€™s say that last will (with standard revocation language) is contested and invalidated, the prior will is the one that takes effect.

It is an interesting area of law. I mentioned in a prior post the Estate of Larry Hillblom (â€œHâ€ of DHL). His will left a big boodle of money to the University of California. But Larry got his kicks with young virgins. An interesting saga.

Thank you, you make some interesting points, which I will bear in mind in future posts, however my limited experience of wills that they generally (mostly?) start off with a revocation of all prior wills.

There was a well known will case in the UK where someone, as far as I know an otherwise unremarkable individual, left a very short will that read, or at least the operational clause read "All to mum" ..... but the complicating factor, that led to the will be contested, was that the testator was commonly known throughout his married life to refer to his wife as "Mum".