Unreasonable terms in a will
<p>I'm trying to find information on whether a will in the UK is unenforceable, based on the fact that the terms in it are unreasonable, and can't seem to find any information - all advice on the enforceability of the will is based on things like whether the person writing it was of sound mind, etc.</p>
<p>Say a will has a stipulation that the executors own a property, and are required to let out that property to a particular business, but are not allowed to sell it for 10 years; this means they must take all the necessary responsibility for being landlords of the property, but are not allowed to get out of the arrangement at any time through selling it.  Is this reasonable/enforceable?  How about if they were not allowed to sell it for 20 years, or 100?  Surely there must be some set of rules as to what terms of a will can actually be enforced?</p>

<p>Conditions in a will are.. complicated.</p>
<p>As a rule of thumb you can impose conditions but that doesn't mean they are always going to be upheld.</p>
<p>Some will be ruled void where they are considered &quot;against public policy&quot; - where it's against the public interest to consider the condition valid. e.g:</p>
<ul>
<li>encouraging someone to commit a crime;</li>
<li>inducing the future separation of a married couple;</li>
<li>unreasonable restrictions on marriage;</li>
<li>depriving a parent of control over their children;</li>
<li>requiring a child to change their religion.</li>
</ul>
<p>That sort of thing.</p>
<p>Another way is if the condition is &quot;impossible&quot; (or so improbable/impractical as would make no real difference) e.g. you can't say &quot;they have to leap the grand canyon on a skateboard&quot; or &quot;must visit mars and bring back ice cream first&quot; that sort of thing.</p>
<p>Alternatively if the condition is too vague or uncertain e.g. &quot;the beneficiary will inherit when they are ‘suitably’ married&quot; or impractical to enforce e.g. &quot;no one with the surname Booth may enter the property on a Wednesday&quot;.</p>
<p>I'm not sure those are going to apply here - the condition sounds specific and not particularly difficult to achieve or to measure compliance. That doesn't mean it's going to stick though - you can challenge the condition in court and they might chose to void the condition. Since the condition sounds like what's called a &quot;condition subsequent&quot; (i.e. it comes into effect after receiving the &quot;gift&quot;) the court can use discretion to have the gift still take place if the condition is voided.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>How about if they were not allowed to sell it for 20 years, or 100?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The 100 years variant could fail under &quot;impossible&quot; - since it would take the time period the beneficiary was required to comply with the condition past the point they could reasonably be expected to comply with it (since people typically live that long), similarly with the 20 years (or even the 10) if it was going past the remaining expected lifespan of the recipient.</p>
<p>Basically it boils down to &quot;challenge it in court and see what they say&quot; - but as ever consult an experienced solicitor <strong>before</strong> doing anything along those lines. Having a condition declared void doesn't <em>always</em> translate as &quot;you get it free and clear&quot; - in some circumstances it means the gift becomes part of the Residuary Estate instead.</p>

<p>@motosubatsu does a good job of starting the analysis. I'll supplement it a bit.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/18/notes#:%7E:text=5.,in%20being%2C%20plus%2021%20years." rel="nofollow noreferrer">Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 2009</a> is the primary limitation on the allowed duration of non-charitable restricts in a will or a trust. In a nutshell, property can be tied up for one person's life plus 21 years. But, it is much more complicated than that in the details.</p>
<p>Generally speaking, if all living interested parties agree, a will can be &quot;reformed&quot; so long as it reflects the general intent of the testator (i.e. the person who wrote the will), by a probate court. Also, if the terms of the will are violated and no one complains, it never goes to court and nothing is done about the breach of its terms.</p>
<p>In the absence of unanimous agreement, a court probably has fairly broad powers in equity to adjust the terms on a wide variety of practical and equitable considerations. In Princess Diana's case, for example, her will was reformed to make small devises to people in her circle of attendants and servants whom someone in her station would usually provide for, despite the fact that she failed to do so, something that a U.S. probate court wouldn't dream of attempting.</p>

england-and-wales wills probate