will restrictions

[Scooby_snax]

I guess ultimately I will need to seek legal advice but to get the ball rolling thought I would pose the question here.
I have been asked to examine the possibilities of restricing the beneficiaries of a will to the will writers immediate partner, but with no funds being passed to the step children at any stage.
Personally I dont think this is possible as I believe a will cannot restrict what happens once the assets have been passed to a 3rd party(wife) and what she does with her will is her business.
I have tried some 'googling' to try and find the answer but I am sure this is not a unique issue so just wondered if anyone had any experience either directly or legally who could advise the way forward

[Scooby_snax]

Thanks however what I have been asked to explore is whether anything can be done to prevent the step children being beneficiaries at any time.

[Beardy10]

Perhaps the assets could be placed in a trust for the wife to enjoy over the course of her life ? Upon her death the assets pass to someone else...does this guy have his own children ? You can certainly do that with a house, gets slightly messy if the wife wants to sell the house and move at some stage but it is possible. You'd need to appoint a couple of of very trusted executors (trusted friends or an accountant) to run the trust. You could do the same with cash. The executors can basically let the wife draw down whatever is need for living, holidays etc etc This has a high probability of upsetting the wife though......

I have a similar trust in my will...it's actually to provide for my mother. There is cash set aside for her.....my wife and my sister are executors and if there is money left in it when my mother dies it passes back to the main beneficiaries of my will.

[nomisesor]

If the assets were put in trust then restrictions could be imposed, though the trustees would have to ensure that those restrictions were adhered to, and obviously the only way that they could be enforced would be if the estate was trickled out as a regular income, dependent on continued adherence to the restrictions. I assume that the beneficiary could appeal against unreasonable covenants.

From the "Which" website: "in 1862, Henry Budd left £200,000 [~£5M now] in trust to his two sons on the condition that neither grew a moustache." - seems fair enough... nowadays he might not have wanted his daughters "to acquire a tramp stamp or any other tattoo" - in which case the trustees would need to conduct, or have conducted, regular examinations more extensive than looking at the upper lip.

Ultimately you will need to speak to a solicitor with specialist knowledge.