Death Benefit, Am I entitled?

xylophone

Another thing came to mind earlier. My father tried to force sale of our family house and during that legal battle he claimed he had set up a 'trust' for me and my brother. I believe this was false, but could providing proof of these representations indicate to the trustees that he had an intention to ensure we were looked after?

This does not seem to me to be relevant, particularly as you believe your father's claim to be false? And trying to sell your family home over your mother's head will hardly

indicate to the trustees that he had an intention to ensure we were looked after?

Also, should I just write a letter to the insurance company outlining the full facts of the case?

This would certainly seem the way forward if you want an answer.

mgdavid

azapater wrote: »

.....Also, should I just write a letter to the insurance company outlining the full facts of the case? Is that how these things function?

please see posts #3 and #10 - you have the answer already.

jamesd

You should mention the attempt to force sale of the house. It indicates his intent at a particular time and that information will be of use to the trustees in determining who they think he would have wanted the money to do to. It is not negative that he wanted to force sale of the home to provide for his children, it indicates his relative priorities between you two and the woman concerned.

If a solicitor was involved you should check with them whether they know of any trust.

Yes, you should write a letter to the insurance company saying why you contacted them - opened a letter (nothing wrong with you doing that) and saw that it appeared that the pension was still running even though he'd deceased. Then follow with a full summary of the background facts of his situation including all of the things that you have mentioned here.

xylophone

You should mention the attempt to force sale of the house. It indicates his intent at a particular time and that information will be of use to the trustees in determining who they think he would have wanted the money to do to

There is no indication that he intended to use the proceeds of the house sale to set up a trust for the children.

The OP says that the father claimed that he had set up such a trust but that the claim is believed to be false.

It seems to me that by claiming the existence of such a trust, the father was trying to show that he had already provided for the children so that a sale of the house (giving him a share/the whole of the equity) would be justified.

How forcing his children and their mother out of their home would benefit the children is difficult to imagine.

At all events, it would appear that a court did not allow his claim since the family is still in the house.

Since the OP's mother appears to have brought up the children alone (and seems to be shouldering her late partner's debts), surely she would have a claim on this pension?

The OP does not mention his mother's views on this matter- given that his father would still only be 48, one assumes that she is still living?

atush

I was of the understanding, possibly wrong, that he was trying to force the new wife out of the house, not the previous wife and children?

jamesd

azapater, you wrote "We would strongly benefit from any pay out as our household is burdened by the debts left by my deceased father". Please say more about this. Debts are not normally inheritable, instead they vanish when the estate of the deceased has spent the available money on them and no more is left. The pension money would be paid outside his estate and could not be taken to pay those debts.

xylophone, no trust indication other than the statement of azapater about his intent and lack of knowledge of it having been done. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen, it is part of why I suggested contacting the solicitor who handled the related things.

The family home may not have been where the children were living at the time. The children may have been adults at the time or living with the other woman - either their mother or the wife, depending on which of the two was in the home. Even if they were living there it is possible that it would be to the benefit of the children to force the sale if that would have left the family better off, perhaps with higher income available for day to day expenses. Also of note "my brother (whom has severe disabilities)" and what that could mean about the need for a more appropriate property for his needs.

It is not clear that it is the mother of the children who was living in the family home. We don't know which of the two women, if either, the children were living with at the time.

Nor do we need to know, since it doesn't affect what azapater needs to do. She simply need to describe the situation and history as fully as she can.

With estranged mother and estranged wife and a long time since death to indicate a lack of financial dependence for these two women, I think that it is most likely that any payment would be to the children or at least in trust for them.

azapater

Sorry, I'll clear up a few things that may have been poorly expressed.

Myself and my mother have lived in the property together since its purchase. My Father's family firm built the house, and he lived with us for several years, leaving shortly after my brother was born.

He originally secured a car loan on our property when living with us but left shortly afterwards. We, still living in the house were left to pay this car loan in addition with all other bills, mortgage etc. I believe he secured the loan on the property without notifying my mother. Over the years we came very close to having the house repossessed as we were unable to meet the payments, but we clung on.

He, years later, tried to force sale of the house and during the legal battle stated he had set up a trust fund for us. This was obviously false as we have not heard anything of it since his passing, and it's evident he was in no financial position to set up a trust as his poor financial situation was motivation for trying to force sale on the house. He took his life right before we were set to agree on a split of the proceeds from selling the house... so, (without saying fortunately) we were able to remain living here. Yet, we have always continued to be burdened by the loan he tied to our property. We did try to restructure the debt in taking out another loan... unsure if this would have any bearing on things. Also as a result of this loan, my Mother has acquired a large amount of credit card debt which came from paying other utility bills.

At the time of death I believe I was 15 as it was during my mock GCSEs, my brother being 2 years younger.

Regarding my mum, she is very much still with us, and we still live together- working as a team to care for my brother, who has severe autism. My father and mother were never married, but were a couple when the pension would have been set up. Therefore, my thinking would be if such a nominated person was required, it would be her. I'd also think that this would never have been updated given his address itself was still listed as at our house.

My mother and I are in agreement we could strongly benefit from any payout, if only to clear the debt we have amassed. It is also a strong desire of ours, however, that we would not want his estranged spouse to receive the payout. His suicide came within a few months of their separation, and this was confirmed as when, strangely, he moved into a house on the same street as us (since the family business owns and rents out some of the properties on the street). We therefore see this woman as playing a large role in his downfall and harbour ill feeling towards her still. We would rather see money unclaimed than her given this unexpected windfall.

Any leftover money we have, should we be fortunate enough to be awarded it, would go towards the purchase of a new house when we sell this one. It has felt increasingly unsuitable as our neighbour (ironically, my father's cousin) has a vendetta against us, claiming we were responsible for the death. He regularly contacts the environmental health complaining about the noise made by my brother who is unable to control himself at unsociable hours. At the time of death we also received an anonymously posted newspaper cutting in the post with the annotation WHY written on it. There are other instances I won't go into for the sake of brevity. This has increasingly left us uncomfortable and my brother gets to go out less due to agoraphobia this has given my mother. This combined with her stress regarding the finances has taken its toll on her and as a result my brother leads a more restricted life than we'd like him to have.

So we find ourselves in a tricky position, we are desperate to clear our debts, but at the same time cautious about enriching the life of his widow, whom I might add already owns a business separately.

jamesd

Given the circumstances I think it's most likely that the money would go to the children, with a substantial portion in trust for your brother. In trust in this situation means to be used for a broad range of things to improve his circumstances.

TBagpuss

It may be that you as the children would be entitled to some money, as you were minors at the time your father died.

However, it is probable that your father's wife, at the time of his death, would *also* be entitled to a pension or lump sum unless your father made a specific nomination in your favour and expressly excluding her (and ven then, the trustees may have the discretion to make a payment to her as his widow)

It is very unlikely that your mother would be entitled to anything as she was not married to him at the time of his death.

In addition, If there was a court order as part of the divorce it is probable that that specifcally excluded any new claims against him or his estate.

unless you were specifically nominated by your father than it is likely that your father's wife will be entitled to the majority of any funds, although you and your brother may have a right to limited amount if the fund would have paid dependent's pensions while you were still under age. The trusteees might be willing to pay a larger sum for the benefit of your brother, depending on the nature and severity of his disabilities, but obviously if they did, that money would have to be used for his benefit, and not to pay off general debts.

However, each pension fund has different rules and you are not going to know until you contact the pension company. It may be that that does ultimately mean that your father's wife benefits, but you won't know unless you contact them.

atush

OK, your mother and father were never married. So she would get nothing, incl the house if in his name? Is her name on the house at all?

If he married again, you, your brother and the new wife would split all. And this could include your house and having to sell it? But your brother might, as a dependant child, might receive the most?

Get down the the CAB immediately, and get some free advice but you may need a solicitor too. Did your mother ever get maintenance for you both? If not, she could claim back maintenance for his estate.

And this is one of Many reasons you should not have children w/o being married.