Intestacy rules not followed - consequences?

SevenOfNine

Elderly relative dies with no will, lived like a pauper and in those circumstances left a somewhat shocking amount of money.

Nearest surviving elderly sibling applies for Letters of Administration & wraps up estate, sticking the money in a separate a/c where they have not touched it for 3 years.

Does not attempt to distribute it to possible beneficiaries, loosely speaking for valid reasons in a few of the cases - but I'm not trying to justify this action!

When this elderly relative dies themselves the 'inheritance' will be lumped in with their own estate, could the executors of their estate be held accountable for something they have absolutely no knowledge of IF any of what went previously ever came to light?

TBagpuss

a court can appoint a new administrator of the original estate.

if the executors of the 2nd person were aware that the money was part of an estate they would have to proceed on the basis that the money did *not* form part of the deceased's estate and was held by the deceased on trust.

If you are a potential beneficiary of the intestacy, or a potential executor of the 2nd relative, you should try to speak to them about it now. IS the account in which the money is held at least labelled as an executors account?

SevenOfNine

Executors of 2nd estate would be definitely unaware of where this 'separated' money actually came from, it's just sitting in an a/c in the name of the elderly administrator of the 1st estate.

Looks just like all other monies the person has of their own, ISA, bank a/c, couple of savings a/c's etc They definitely haven't held on to it from a 'greed' point of view - I'm well aware it hasn't been touched & that they have their own money.

All other siblings of the initial deceased person are dead with their own children not living in an easily accessible country (some would have to be traced somehow).

Only 1 in UK & he's not asked 1 single question! I think that is why the elderly person has done nothing (so far anyway). I suppose if a family member lived like a pauper, there's no reason to think they left a pot of money.

For me, the whole thing is like "the elephant in the room"!!!! I can't decide whether to just leave well alone, or give it a 'poke' at some point.

Marktheshark

Where or who are you in the chain ?
Related, how ?

g6jns_2

SevenOfNine wrote: »

Elderly relative dies with no will, lived like a pauper and in those circumstances left a somewhat shocking amount of money.

Nearest surviving elderly sibling applies for Letters of Administration & wraps up estate, sticking the money in a separate a/c where they have not touched it for 3 years.

Does not attempt to distribute it to possible beneficiaries, loosely speaking for valid reasons in a few of the cases - but I'm not trying to justify this action!

When this elderly relative dies themselves the 'inheritance' will be lumped in with their own estate, could the executors of their estate be held accountable for something they have absolutely no knowledge of IF any of what went previously ever came to light?

Who were those entitled under the intestacy rules. The LOA holder has failed in their duty to distribute the estate. Doing this I'd not an option neither have they any discretion in the matter. He or she needs a serious kick up the backside one way or another. Are you entitled in any way? If so I would be demanding action.

Beenie

Apologies if I have misunderstood in some way, but it looks like the elderly relative has done nothing wrong. With intestacy, there are no beneficiaries, only the 'next-of-kin beneficiaries' in a laid down format. So, if this person has applied properly for LOA, been paid out from the deceased's estate, and now popped the lot in his/her bank account, that looks quite legitimate to me. Any other family members -lower down in the intestacy pecking order -will just have to bide their time as they have no claim on the original intestate deceased.

SevenOfNine

Only 1 surviving sibling out of several & that 1 was the youngest & in late 80's now (the one holding this money), all the other beneficiaries would be any 'children' of all the deceased siblings (& worse, I think possibly children's children!). As far as I'm aware they should inherit the share of their dead parent/s.

All but 1 of them lives in UK. Any/all others do not live in UK but in a country which was not open to visit. Communication was nigh on impossible & has not been maintained on either side. 'English' names of the deceased siblings were changed (as far as we know) because of the political climate.

Tracing would certainly have to involve a specialised company with a starting point of practically zero! Looking for the records of dead siblings whose names are changed, followed by finding their children whose names are unknown................!

1/3 of the estate of the person holding this money will eventually drop into my lap, believe it or not I'd prefer it if it didn't. On the other hand I definitely don't want to get saddled with unravelling all this correctly, it is NOT of my doing.

I just have concerns about what might happen if the Executors eventually unknowingly distribute this money as part of the current survivors estate. For me, being in this position SUCKS.

jamei305

Agree with Beenie. If the elderly relative was the only surviving sibling and had no children or grandchildren, then it is likely they inherited everything.

jamei305

I don't believe there is provision for nieces and nephews under the intestacy rules, regardless of whether their parents are deceased.

Mojisola

SevenOfNine wrote: »

Only 1 surviving sibling out of several & that 1 was the youngest & in late 80's now (the one holding this money), all the other beneficiaries would be any 'children' of all the deceased siblings (& worse, I think possibly children's children!). As far as I'm aware they should inherit the share of their dead parent/s.

jamei305 wrote: »

I don't believe there is provision for nieces and nephews under the intestacy rules, regardless of whether their parents are deceased.

SevenOfNine is right. If siblings who would have inherited under the intestacy rules have already died, then their share should be divided between their children and so on down the bloodline.

What a horrible mess this is - it's easy to see all the inheritance being used up just trying to find the beneficiaries.

Mojisola

SevenOfNine wrote: »

1/3 of the estate of the person holding this money will eventually drop into my lap, believe it or not I'd prefer it if it didn't. On the other hand I definitely don't want to get saddled with unravelling all this correctly, it is NOT of my doing.

I just have concerns about what might happen if the Executors eventually unknowingly distribute this money as part of the current survivors estate. For me, being in this position SUCKS.

If the executors don't know anything about the previous estate, they will be acting in good faith when they distribute the money in the accounts.

If someone does try to find all the beneficiaries to distribute the first estate, you can refuse your legacy. It will just be distributed equally among the others.

If you don't want to get involved in dealing with the estate after your aunt/uncle dies, you don't have to. If family pressure makes you take it on, employ a solicitor to do all the work.