The problem is rarely the individual documents
Families with substantial estates usually have competent advisers. What is often missing is anyone whose job is to read the whole set together: the will drafted five years ago, the trust created before that, the shareholders' agreement never revisited, the pension nomination signed on a form nobody has looked at since, and cover arranged when the business was half its present size.
Each piece may be perfectly sound. Read as a set, they can quietly contradict one another — and a contradiction only comes to light at the point when it can no longer be fixed. That is a possibility worth testing deliberately, not a certainty about every family.
Start with how things are owned, not what they are worth
Ownership decides how an asset passes, and it frequently overrides the assumption behind a will. A home held as beneficial joint tenants passes to the surviving owner by survivorship, whatever the will says. The same property held as tenants in common gives each owner a distinct share that can be left by will, or into a trust.
Other assets sit outside the will for different reasons. Pension death benefits depend on the scheme rules: an expression of wishes may guide the provider or trustees but does not necessarily determine payment. Shares pass subject to the company's articles and any shareholders' agreement. A policy written in trust pays to trustees rather than into the estate.
So the useful first exercise is not a valuation. It is a single list of what exists, how each item is legally owned, and which document controls it.
- Property: joint tenants or tenants in common, and in whose names
- Business interests: shareholding, articles, any shareholders' agreement or cross-option
- Pensions: the scheme rules, who is named in any expression of wishes, and when it was last reviewed
- Policies: whether any are in trust, and who the trustees are
- Any existing trust: what it holds, who the trustees are, and whether it is registered
Then test liquidity, separately from wealth
The second recurring issue is cash rather than value. Inheritance Tax is generally due within six months of the end of the month in which someone died, and in some circumstances it can be paid in instalments. Whether any relief applies to a business, to farmland or to a home depends on the facts and has to be confirmed by a specialist.
What a family can do without advice is ask the practical question: if an obligation had to be met next year, which assets could actually be sold, how quickly, and at what discount for haste? An estate can be large and still short of accessible cash at the moment cash is needed.
A hypothetical illustration
This example is entirely fictional and no outcome is promised. Imagine a couple in their sixties. Their home is held as beneficial joint tenants. One of them owns sixty per cent of a trading company; a long-standing shareholders' agreement gives the other shareholders an option to buy on death. Their wills, written eight years ago, leave everything to each other and then equally between three adult children, one of whom works in the business. There is a life policy written in trust for the children from an earlier arrangement, and an expression of wishes on the pension naming a former partner.
That set raises questions rather than establishing that anything is valid, invalid, suitable or unsuitable. The house would not reach the wills on a first death; the shares may be bought out under the agreement rather than passing as the will assumes, so the child in the business could end up with cash instead of a role; the policy pays to trustees outside the estate, on that trust's own terms, which may not match the balance the wills intend; and the pension depends on the scheme rules, with the expression of wishes pointing somewhere the couple would no longer choose.
The illustration is not a finding about anyone's advice. It shows why a family may find it useful to read the documents together as one set.
Questions to put on the table
These are questions for the family, and then for the specialists advising them.
- If a death happened tomorrow, what would actually pass under each document?
- Do the wills, trust deeds, articles and any shareholders' agreement say consistent things?
- Which obligations would need to be met in cash, and from where?
- Are the executor and trustee appointments still appropriate, and do those people know?
- Has cover kept pace with valuations, borrowing and guarantees?
- Do different members of the family need different provision, and has that been said out loud?
- What is inside each adviser's engagement, and who covers what falls between them?
What changes are worth a full re-read
A death, a marriage or divorce, a birth, a business sale or a new facility, a move abroad or the acquisition of foreign property, a significant shift in values, or a change in the rules. Any of those is a reason to read the whole set again rather than amend one document in isolation.
Where assets, residence or beneficiaries cross a border, residence history, where each asset is located, the succession and tax rules applying in each place and any treaty relief all come into consideration. That needs advisers in each relevant jurisdiction, and we say so plainly when a question is beyond what an introduction can sensibly cover.
How Cromwell Associates fits
We coordinate the enquiry. One named contact takes the time to understand how things are owned and what you want to happen, records it accurately, and introduces you to specialists who assess suitability, advise and draft under their own engagement. We do not review legal instruments, advise on tax, manage investments or act as trustee, and we make no claim about the size or composition of any panel.
Further reading on this site is linked alongside this article: our guides on the roles of wills and trusts and on provision for blended families, and the Trusts & Legacy pages, cover the individual pieces in more detail.
Sources and further reading