No will, family fued, missing money?

Tubby921

Hi thanks for replays...

There was a family fued going on long before his mother died, which didn't get resolved and will never will be. My partner was pushed out the family by his brother... He didn't want to interfere with anything after his mother passed as his brother has been dealing with his mother for the last year. There is no will and the house was sold long before she passed.
We have been informed that the house was sold for 80k. It was split down the middle and 40k was given to the father. He then informed us that he had given 20k back to the brother to put back into his mothers accounts.
We know that there is about 35k left which is due to be split. But that is without the 20k the father gave back. We believe the brother hasn't put it back into his mothers estate. All we have at the minute is a letter from the solicitor asking if we knew of any will and if his brother has permission to sort the estate out. We have heard nothing more from the solicitor.

madbadrob

There is nothing in this that I can see wrong. As the mother died intestate everything goes to the husband anyway. The husband should be dealing with the estate but if he has asked the son to do it then there is nothing ilegal going on. As the estate didnt exceed 250k there is no entitlement of any child to any money from the estate

Rob

Mojisola

Tubby921 wrote: »

His mother was put into a care home a year before she passed and the house also got sold as soon as she left.

Tubby921 wrote: »

We have been informed that the house was sold for 80k. It was split down the middle and 40k was given to the father. He then informed us that he had given 20k back to the brother to put back into his mothers accounts.

We know that there is about 35k left which is due to be split. But that is without the 20k the father gave back. We believe the brother hasn't put it back into his mothers estate.

Was the money from the house sale being used to pay her care home fees?

madbadrob

getmore4less wrote: »

With the BBC program suprised more people are not catching on that once you have been "found" there is no need to sign up and loose part of your share, you will get it anyway.

How often do you advise the benifitiaries they could do the admin and save the solictors fees.

I dont volunteer that information because by the time I get to the point of contacting the entitled heir I have spent many hours researching the case spent money buying certs access to electoral rolls etc but if asked I do tell them that and the fact that they would then be expected to research the other heirs and pay them their entitlement as well. I also tell them that if they miss someone and they then come forward they would have to pay them their share.

Then of course they have to figure out who the intestate is and how they fit into their tree. You need to remember that the majority of these cases are not immediate family we are talking of cousins once or twice removed whom the entitled heir didnt even know existed. You would be surprised how many dont want to administer the estate themselves and deal with the hours of research involved. They also have no idea how to locate these people neither. If they then have to trace people in other countries they are even more at a loss in how to locate them.

Heirhunters only shows you the easy parts of the case and I am sure Peter Birchall, Neil Fraser et al would agree that the tv show is designed to be entertaining and doesnt show the real work that is required.

Entitled heirs are also not aware that from making the claim to receiving a cheque can be anything from 9 months to in one case I had nearly 2 years. I still have cases awaiting payment from 12 months ago. So please feel free if you think it is that easy to pick a case do the research and file a claim.

I have this week alone spoken to 3 different people who have all started this line of work on the back of HH and who when they realised what was involved legally have decided this is not the line for them to be involved in

Rob

madbadrob

getmore4less wrote: »

With the BBC program suprised more people are not catching on that once you have been "found" there is no need to sign up and loose part of your share, you will get it anyway.

How often do you advise the benifitiaries they could do the admin and save the solictors fees.

Oh and one more thing if no heir signs up and they cant find the case then no one gets paid because we cant make a claim without an entitled heir giving us the power to carry out the administration of the case.

Rob

Savvy_Sue

Tubby921 wrote: »

All we have at the minute is a letter from the solicitor asking if we knew of any will and if his brother has permission to sort the estate out.

And you said in your first post that your partner said yes, his brother could sort out the estate. Given that, I think you've got a vanishingly small chance of finding out whether the right amount of money went back into the account or doing anything about it if you think you've not got 'your' share. Your chance to do anything was at that point, when he could have said "I object."

Tuesday_Tenor

Tubby921 wrote: »

Hi thanks for replays...
All we have at the minute is a letter from the solicitor asking if we knew of any will and if his brother has permission to sort the estate out. We have heard nothing more from the solicitor.

I'm not clear who this solicitor is acting for.
Who is the solicitor's client?

Tuesday_Tenor

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

And you said in your first post that your partner said yes, his brother could sort out the estate. Given that, I think you've got a vanishingly small chance of finding out whether the right amount of money went back into the account or doing anything about it if you think you've not got 'your' share. Your chance to do anything was at that point, when he could have said "I object."

I don't follow this.
It is quite reasonable to agree to the brother administering the estate.
You would of course expect him to do this legally and properly, collecting and then distributing the assets according to the laws of intestacy.

The problem here is that it isn't clear whether that is happening.

Anyone can and SHOULD object IF there is something illegal going on.

Savvy_Sue

Tuesday_Tenor wrote: »

I don't follow this.
It is quite reasonable to agree to the brother administering the estate.
You would of course expect him to do this legally and properly, collecting and then distributing the assets according to the laws of intestacy.

The problem here is that it isn't clear whether that is happening.

Anyone can and SHOULD object IF there is something illegal going on.

But the OP mentions a family feud.

I just feel that by saying 'that's OK' when asked if he accepts the brother's offer to sort it all out, any chance of either repairing the feud or checking what's going on or remedying the situation if something illegal IS going on is vanishingly small.

Tuesday_Tenor

Tubby921 wrote: »

Now we have been informed ....

I'm unclear where you are getting your information from.
Brother? Solicitor? Father? Other family member acting as go-between?

If you are unclear as to what it all means, then you need to ask the Administrator (the brother) for a clearer update and set of interim accounts.

If these still don't make sense to you then you need to ask more questions.

At the end of the day, the Administrator (the brother) is required to carry out his responsibilities accordimg to the law. That includes providing, when the estate is finalised, a set of estate accounts for all beneficiaries.

I can't follow all the sale-of-house before death/life-interest/gifting back to the estate etc. If you can't follow it either, or frame the right questions to ask, consider consulting a solicitor for a free initial half-hour, which many offer.

I do know that Huntingtons is a horrible disease to suffer and to have to deal with as a Carer. If the brother has had to deal with this for a year or so, and now has to deal with administering the Estate, maybe he would actually like some support, rather than suspicions and criticisms. Maybe he is floundering.

>>> I don't think it's fair that one son gets more than the other
'Fairness' is subjective and sometimes plays no part in wills and inheritances. In England, a person can leave their their assets to whoever they like; this might not be family members at all.
Within a family, there are many situations in which it may be 'fair' for one son to receive more than another. One son may have given up well-paid work to provide care to the parent for several years, for instance.
However, in this situation, the laws of intestacy DO specify that the part of the estate due to children should to be divided equally between them. So if this is not happening it needs to be queried.

A bit more clarity needed overall first, though.