Intestacy rules not followed - consequences?

getmore4less

Beenie wrote: »

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.

There is no evidence(not been explicitly said they had no kids) the person that has applied is entitled to anything whoever administers the estate should distribute.
Edit:
Ok read further.
If a siblings distribution as described see if a hunter would be interested in the job.

The current administrator would probably have to instruct but after they pass it might be possible to cut a deal based on the residuals agreeing commission once found.

Mojisola

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!

getmore4less wrote: »

There is no evidence the person that has applied is entitled to anything whoever administers the estate should distribute.

It's confusing without details but I understood it as the second of three siblings had died and the third sibling applied for LOA.

The surviving sibling would be entitled to half of the estate if the deceased sibling didn't have children or grandchildren.

SevenOfNine

Sorry everyone, you can probably see why I have tried to stay uninvolved in this mess (& I wish I could claim "I know nothing").

8 siblings, 4 moved to UK over 60 years ago. 4 left behind, some of whom died trying to escape the Japanese & others over the intervening years leaving only 2 (both in UK).

Number 7 died with no spouse nor children, leaving only number 8 to deal with the 'estate'. As this person increases in years I've been wondering what is the right thing to suggest regarding number 7's money.

I don't doubt there would be nothing left for anyone to inherit if searches for children & children's children commences in a foreign country, but at the same time by doing nothing I'll eventually end up with 1/3rd of it and DO have a conscience (by inheriting my share of number 8's estate when they die).

I don't want to get number 8's eventual Executors in to trouble by default because I said nothing.

I think my options are:
a) To eventually advise Executors of number 8's Will of the circumstances & insist they dump that part of the estate in the lap of a solicitor.
b) Say nothing & plead total ignorance if the sh hits the fan!

To anyone with no Will, get one. Thanks for views on the subject, doesn't seem to be simple answer.

PS Mojisola, particularly helpful comments, thank you.

duchy

jamei305 wrote: »

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

And I believe there is
My belief comes from when my aunt died without making a will.
My brother and I did not benefit as my father was still living whereas my cousins (whose parents were dead) did.

Where does your belief come from ?

Mojisola

SevenOfNine wrote: »

I think my options are:
a) To eventually advise Executors of number 8's Will of the circumstances & insist they dump that part of the estate in the lap of a solicitor.
b) Say nothing & plead total ignorance if the sh hits the fan!

I would be tempted to say nothing unless directly asked about the origin of the money in the account or the way the previous estate was handled.

If you don't want to benefit from what you feel should have gone to others (if they could be found), you could give a donation to a charity that supports people in the country concerned or in similar situations.

Beenie

duchy, I believe what you have told us but that division of the estate looks wrong to me. It should be parents, then siblings then nieces/nephews.

Your father's rights (being your late aunt's brother) would trump those of the neices/nephews.

In other words, he should have got the lot.

Mojisola

duchy wrote: »

And I believe there is
My belief comes from when my aunt died without making a will.
My brother and I did not benefit as my father was still living whereas my cousins (whose parents were dead) did.

Where does your belief come from ?

Beenie wrote: »

duchy, I believe what you have told us but that division of the estate looks wrong to me. It should be parents, then siblings then nieces/nephews.

Your father's rights (being your late aunt's brother) would trump those of the neices/nephews.

In other words, he should have got the lot.

The nephews and nieces didn't get an inheritance in their own right - they got their parent's share divided between them - and that it what the intestacy rules say.

Beenie

Thank for the clarification Mojisola.

Does that mean that when my sister died intestate, my mother is incorrect in her reading of intestacy that she (mother) inherits the whole estate? i.e. as my father is dead, I should inherit his share?

Flugelhorn

Beenie wrote: »

Thank for the clarification Mojisola.

Does that mean that when my sister died intestate, my mother is incorrect in her reading of intestacy that she (mother) inherits the whole estate? i.e. as my father is dead, I should inherit his share?

I think a surviving parent comes before a sibling in the case of intestacy

Jenniefour

http://www.colinsnaith.co.uk/wills/intestacy-flowchart/

Take a look a this. Rules prior to Oct last year when changes were made. I am assuming this would be dealt with under old rules.