We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

No will, family fued, missing money?

124»

Comments

  • getmore4less
    getmore4less Posts: 46,882 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper I've helped Parliament
    Errata wrote: »
    Thank you very much. It appears that the above is a prudent action by the exucutor or administrator, not a legal requirement.
    Madbadrob's post doesn't make clear who the "we" is he refers to, so I shall take your response as the correct one, not his.


    Heir huntrer acting for benifitiaries with their permission.
  • RAS
    RAS Posts: 36,175 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Errata wrote: »
    Thank you very much. It appears that the above is a prudent action by the exucutor or administrator, not a legal requirement.

    What it does is to protect the executor or administrator from any possible action by the beneficiaries after the distribution.

    Which is why I did it - because I would have been personally liable for any money claimed by the beneficiary if there was a disagreement after distribution.

    Same as putting the advert in the Gazette - protecting myself from future claims from long lost creditors.
    If you've have not made a mistake, you've made nothing
  • madbadrob
    madbadrob Posts: 1,490 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Errata wrote: »
    Thank you very much. It appears that the above is a prudent action by the exucutor or administrator, not a legal requirement.
    Madbadrob's post doesn't make clear who the "we" is he refers to, so I shall take your response as the correct one, not his.

    Getmore4less we is the royal we but as I have stated elsewhere I am a probate researcher and my experience of dealing with intestate cases and the knowledge I have gained over the years regarding probate law. Accounts etc are what any probate researcher has to provide prior to payment of the entitled heirs their share of the estate. They all have to agree that it is correct before I pay them out that way there are no arguments after. Yes it may incur a delay in payment but as many would not have gotten anything and by the time we are at the stage of payouts the case could have been going for 9 to 18 months.

    I am happy whether anyone takes my advice or not and would always suggest that they check anything that any one of us on this forum give out. Unless we keep on top of any law changes we are all capable of making a mistake that means bad advice is given.

    Has an example joe public believe for someone to be arrested for shoplifting they need to leave the store. The law is quite clear they do not have to if you can prove intent without it. I digress however

    Rob
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.6K Life & Family
  • 259.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.