Solicitor's letter 7 months after Probate / Estate closed and finalised

Options
123457

Comments

  • Keep_pedalling
    Keep_pedalling Posts: 16,641 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Options
    baza52 wrote: »
    I have read the whole thread and i am aware of the house being gifted to his children.
    Regarding the sisters DRO am i correct in thinking that she did not receive any money until after the DRO had ended?

    OK, but why do you still think the sister is not getting her fair share of the estate? The OP has already said that they will correct the errors with the accounts that were pointed out earlier in the thread.

    As far as DROs are concerned it is the date of death that is important not when you received the money, otherwise you could simply ask an executor to delay payouts to avoid paying your creditors. Any money she was gifted during that period should also have been declared, although it would have been possible to delay the gift to avoid that situation.

    Executors can also be pursued by beneficiaries creditors if the fail to take due diligence on the beneficiaries financial status so they should not just ignore it.
  • Shelldean
    Shelldean Posts: 2,392 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    So you and your sister had 50% each of mother's estate not including the house as that wasn't within the estate?

    So all's fair there half each.
    But to be treated as equals. She would need to receive an equal share from your father. She cant as he's given you the house.

    So even if sister get half of his estate you'll still be better off cos you was gifted part of a house.

    That's what I meant when I said equal shares for both.

    The simple fact your father has gifted you part of the house means you'll never have equal shares.
  • elsien
    elsien Posts: 32,761 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    Shelldean wrote: »

    The simple fact your father has gifted you part of the house means you'll never have equal shares.

    Which was the father's decision to make, and not the OPs responsibility. Whatever his reasons, sometimes life ain't fair.
    All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.

    Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.
  • Keep_pedalling
    Keep_pedalling Posts: 16,641 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Options
    Not having equal shares, is not nessasarily a matter of fairness. If I am in the position to gift children money, there are other factors that come into play that might mean I might not simply split it 50/50.

    For IHT purposes we make regular gifts to our children. This is usually an even split, but in the past we gave our daughter more because she had a student debt, and my son was lucky enough to avoid it. Next year we will give more to our son, as he and his wife have just had their first child so need it more.

    If one of my children had a serious gambling problem then they would get nothing, but I would still gift to the other. If one was in the fortunate position to be in a very high paying job, and the other wasn't then the less well off one would get more financial help.
  • baza52
    baza52 Posts: 3,029 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    Keep_pedalling wrote: »
    If one of my children had a serious gambling problem then they would get nothing, but I would still gift to the other. If one was in the fortunate position to be in a very high paying job, and the other wasn't then the less well off one would get more financial help.

    So as the OP,s sister is obviously a lot worse of financially than him you still think its ok for the OP to get a bigger share?
    By your way of thinking OP would have got the smaller share with more going to the sister who has financial problems.
  • Keep_pedalling
    Keep_pedalling Posts: 16,641 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Options
    baza52 wrote: »
    So as the OP,s sister is obviously a lot worse of financially than him you still think its ok for the OP to get a bigger share?
    By your way of thinking OP would have got the smaller share with more going to the sister who has financial problems.

    Don't cherry pick, I gave two examples of where I would treat children differently, one of which was based on someone's poor decisions on what they did with it. We don't know why the sister got into debt, but if her father thinks she will just waste it he has the right to restrict how much she gets.

    I would still like to know why you think the OP is not prepaired to give his sister her 50% of their mother's estate?
  • baza52
    baza52 Posts: 3,029 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Options
    Keep_pedalling wrote: »
    Don't cherry pick, I gave two examples of where I would treat children differently, one of which was based on someone's poor decisions on what they did with it. We don't know why the sister got into debt, but if her father thinks she will just waste it he has the right to restrict how much she gets.

    I would still like to know why you think the OP is not prepaired to give his sister her 50% of their mother's estate?

    to be fair the OP has admitted that things were charged to the estate that should not have been. That alone means the sister did NOT receive her 50% share.
    correct me if i am wrong ;)
  • Keep_pedalling
    Keep_pedalling Posts: 16,641 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    edited 6 November 2017 at 11:57PM
    Options
    baza52 wrote: »
    to be fair the OP has admitted that things were charged to the estate that should not have been. That alone means the sister did NOT receive her 50% share.
    correct me if i am wrong ;)

    Yes the OP has openly admitted that, but he has also accepted the fact and has said he will correct those errors and distribute the estate correctly so that she does get her fair share (or maybe the OR will). Judging by his attitude and response to those pointing out his error, I am prepaired to give him the benefit of the doubt, that this was a genuine mistake rather than deliberate action to take from his sister, which is why I think your piece of work comment was OOO.

    She could have queried this with him directly, but has chosen instead to resort to solicitors, and to complicate matters has committed a serious offence in not declaring assets to the OR, which puts the OP in a tricky situation, which could get seriously messy unless they can sort this out between them, and remove the solicitors from the equation.
  • badmemory
    badmemory Posts: 7,799 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    To be blunt he has given more to one child because he thinks the other is just going to p*** it up the wall. No-one wants to see this happen to their money, especially if it is their choice and nothing to do with a will. I know that my sister has changed her will recently because she has realised that one of the friends she was going to leave about £50k to was going to do that as she had done just that with £250k left to her by someone else. No-one wants to see their hard earned cash thrown away.
  • childofbaahl
    childofbaahl Posts: 80 Forumite
    edited 7 November 2017 at 1:23AM
    Options
    Baza52 = From your point in post #59: I didn't short change my sister deliberately from the estate, I honestly believed that it had been done fairly and we each received a 50/50 split. When the errors were brought to my attention, I owned them and will amend the estate accounts to ensure she gets what is owed. The estate is not mine to do with as I please, it is/was my responsibility to see that my late mothers life was closed out with dignity and anything remaining is disposed of according to the rules, I thought I had done that and will make sure it is done now I've been made aware of the lapses.


    As for the way I administered the estate, I emailed her each and every week with updates on the progress, kept her in the loop on all things and provided her with a 45 page detailed accounting of the estate breakdown which she signed same day and sent back without ever asking any questions... Honest mistakes happen and if the roles were reversed and she were owning up to her mistakes I would be fine with that.


    Baza52 = From your point in post #61: My sister received the estate payout 4 months before the DRO completed (it was above the £1990 threshold) and knew what she would be getting even before that. She also laid out the agreement with my father to split the house and knew how much she was getting from that 1 month before the DRO completed so is in breach of the DRO as I understand it.


    Shelldean = I understand what you mean now and can agree that this is a view that can be taken but the split decision was my sisters idea and it was my father's to gift me some of his share. What right does my sister have to come after me now? The house was my father's to do with as he pleased. I understand that she might not see it as fair, but that doesn't give her a right to come after me does it?
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 248K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards