Solicitor holding onto house sale money

bris

The solicitor will have already told the OP everything he's being told here, but probably doesn't believe him. Any decent solicitor would answer some basic questions like, "hey you where's my money" and explain the procedure to him.


As for the question a poster asked about solicitors spending clients money, well it's protected by a fund all solicitors pay into as insurance for this type of scenario. Solicitors go bust like any other business but clients never lose out.

G_M

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Even if you pay for it you will only get a legal opinion (rather than THE LAW).

Good point. The only time you get THE LAW is when reading a court judgement. And even then it is not GUARANTEED LAW unless the court is the Supreme Court.

Even reading a Statute passed by Parliament does not give you THE LAW, as courts can/and do, interpret statutes in different ways.......

C_Mababejive

G_M wrote: »

????

The same as would happen if a counter clerk at the bank spent your money after it was deposited in your account.

Exactly. Essentially there is nothing to stop a solicitor from nicking a clients money and all that would happen would be he would be prosecuted. It would probably not get you your money back. So why dont we have a system where the money rests with a bigger institution which is bonded and has greater liability?

RuthnJasper

LateStarter wrote: »

Considering the way the OP has behaved here, and another thread he's started, it is within the realms of possibility that the solicitor is holding on to the money because :

1. The OP's techinque of taking part in informed discourse seems to be insulting those in possession of opinions or facts he doesn't like.

2. The OP has used said skills with solicitor (or staff).

Be nice to people, most of them are actually spending time trying to help, !!!!!!.

LS, I think you have hit the hypothetical nail on the head! Whenever I read threads like these it makes me feel for the posters who have taken their (often valuable) time and expertise to offer support for free.


I sincerely appreciate these posters, even if the OP here, and others of his ilk, don't.

Mojisola

LateStarter wrote: »

Considering the way the OP has behaved here, and another thread he's started

It sounds as if the OP jumped the gun by putting in a cash offer on a house before the cash was available and is now trying to blame everyone else for the situation.

Jenniefour

Moosegoose wrote: »

Executors should not distribute estates for at least 6 months from the date of issue of the grant (apart from paying out small legacies, which it will often be appropriate to do). This is because potential applicants have six months from the date of the grant in which to issue proceedings under the 1975 Inheritance (Provison for Family and Dependants ) Act. Executors who wait for six months from the date of the grant before distributing the estate are granted protection from liability, under the 1975 Act

That's correct, as I understand the role of executor. Put another way, should the executor pay out before it is just about certain there are no further claims on the estate they are legally liable for the shortfall if any further claim(s) comes to light. It's a big responsibility.

You can, however, ask if it's possible to have an interim payment.

Generally, it is not wise to commit funds anticipated from an inheritance before the executor is satisfied they have fulfilled their duties to the deceased - settled bills, inheritance tax and so on. That takes time. They can then attend to their responsibility to the beneficiaries by paying out the funds exactly as it says in the will. It is not at all unusual for an executors account to contain funds from a property sale for months before it can be safely handed on to beneficiaries.