Unpaid Nursing Home fees after death - who is liable?

Errata

erm...that was a serious answer.

splishsplash

scotsbob wrote: »

LOL, thank you for your humour.

I would appreciate a serious answer because it makes it difficult for a newcomer to follow the thread without knowing.

That is what it means - the OP is referring to her husband - he's the executor of the will. It is he who is pitted against the (evil) daughter and the useless solicitor.

Elsewhere

scotsbob wrote: »

LOL, thank you for your humour.

I would appreciate a serious answer because it makes it difficult for a newcomer to follow the thread without knowing.

The abbreviations are confusing - you may like to read this guide
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=397751&postcount=18

scotsbob

Elsewhere wrote: »

The abbreviations are confusing - you may like to read this guide
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=397751&postcount=18

Thanks for that mate. It's all a bit clearer now. Good luck to you.

monkeyspanner

:rotfl:Is DOH dear other half or just plain DOH

margaretclare

A separate regularly updated document seems wiser to me.

Yes, that was the kind of thing I was talking about, not adding to our wills.

Errata

It would be helpful if people remembered this is Ratty's thread and her difficulties of unpaid Care Home fees.

If people want to argue the toss about what should go in or be attached to a will perhaps they'd be kind enough to start a new thread.

sloughflint

Errata wrote: »

It would be helpful if people remembered this is Ratty's thread and her difficulties of unpaid Care Home fees.

It is far more than simply a matter of unpaid fees. It's about an executor's duty to recover money to the estate, pay what's due where applicable and act in the beneficiaries' best interest at all times. Ratty's husband is in a very difficult position indeed.

As a result this thread has quite naturally taken allsorts of twists and turns.

Errata wrote: »

If people want to argue the toss about what should go in or be attached to a will perhaps they'd be kind enough to start a new thread.

It is perfectly appropriate for someone working in the field to highlight the pitfalls of an idea particularly when it was being complimented:

ratty67 wrote: »

What a brilliant idea of listing everything at the back of your wills.

And let's not forget that fraud has featured prominently in this thread as has lying about the existence of Wills.

Maybe it's worth mentioning that Wills can be lodged at the High Court of Justice for safe-keeping. There are threads on this forum from posters who have feared that a Will has been found and conveniently destroyed by people who would benefit more from the rules of intestacy. More info here

Ratty is quite right. This thread is a valuable resource and it is disappointing that someone has complained about a post.Of all the posts, there are more apt ones to be 'tidied'.

Reading that particular post again,I completely agree with this statement:

localhero wrote: »

There are many more people out there in your shoes who are vulnerable to the incompetent and unethical and will remain quite blissfully unaware of this until they leave us for good.

I hope if nothing else, that people will realise just how serious this lack of compulsory regulation of Willwriters is and that also there is a huge gulf in the competence among solicitors in this subject.

This forum provides plenty of evidence sadly.

ratty67

I have got an update to write but first I would like to say a few words regarding this thread.

When I started this thread back on April 8th matters seemed pretty simple. The daughter, when asked to hand over everything relavent to her late Mother's estate simply passed over the debts and kept shtum about the assets. I remember writing that we believed that if the estate had to pay the £1,700 nursing home bill then the estate would become insolvent.

Then things took on a life of their own. DH has been quite the detective and uncovered a trail of deceit, outright lies, truth omissions and blatant fraud. Much of this we have required help with and we are both forever indebted to the wonderful people here who have given so much assistance. In this I count those who have been unable to help but have left messages of support. This thread has over 7,000 reads and I hope that some of those people reading this have been helped in one way or another.

The sub-topic regarding wills I was finding very interesting. I, for example, have been quite rightly corrected by localhero regarding what your will should and should not list. Valuable information indeed!

On the face of it, the Will DH is administering is I believe contestable and it shouldn't be. The lady has disinherited not only her daughter but also the daughters three children. Without mentioning them by name in the Will they could argue that they have been 'missed out' and claim monies. The daughter would certainly be a 'permitted' heir. From what I've read, the lady should have been advised to mention them all by name, state that she was disinheriting them and then write a letter to accompany the Will stating her reasons as to why she had taken that course of action. That alone should have made it watertight.

Please correct me someone if I'm wrong!

Could we all now get along? Please!

Errata

Thank you, Ratty. My post was intended to be helpful. I thought a thread dedicated to the specifics of what a watertight will should look like would be helpful, as all the info would be in one place rather than a small part of the convolutions your OH is embroiled with in settleing what should have been a straightforward estate but turned out to be nothing of the kind.

For clarity: I did not delete any post of any other member on this thread. I do not have that power. Nor did I report any post to the BG's, who do have the power to delete posts.