What if the executor is not telling the truth?

JacobPasco

Mojisola wrote: »

If you don't challenge the situation, no-one else is going to and he will continue to own the asset.

When the estate was finalized, your daughter (as a beneficiary) should have received estate accounts and an explanation of what was happening to her legacy until she reached 18.

Of course we're going to challenge the situation, but I just meant I don't think it's a fait accompli as your wording suggested.

Whose name should the house be in? My daughter's as well? It says to be held in trust, if it was just flat out in her name, that would be different to "in trust", no? Should there be some sort of legal entity set up for that? Should the Title say the propriater is "Dave and the Sally Trust"?

And what does finalizing the estate actually mean? Is there some sort of form that gets handed to someone to say "Okay, it's done. Everyone who needed paying has been payed"?

Crabapple

JacobPasco wrote: »

Whose name should the house be in? My daughter's as well? It says to be held in trust, if it was just flat out in her name, that would be different to "in trust", no? Should there be some sort of legal entity set up for that? Should the Title say the propriater is "Dave and the Sally Trust"?

And what does finalizing the estate actually mean? Is there some sort of form that gets handed to someone to say "Okay, it's done. Everyone who needed paying has been payed"?

As per my post previously, it should be in two names minimum. Your daughter can't be named on the title if she is under 18. Assuming Dave was sole Executor he needs to appoint a second person to act as Trustee with him and that person should also be named on the title.

Ordinarily there would also be some sort of restriction saying the property was held in part as part of X Trust.

Finalising isn't a particular form. However, there should be Accounts, any debts of the deceased and liabilities of the Estate settled, all assets dealt with as per the terms of the Will (which for the timebeing would have to be held in Trust), taxes settled and in this case the Trust set up.

G6JNS

JacobPasco wrote: »

Of course we're going to challenge the situation, but I just meant I don't think it's a fait accompli as your wording suggested.

Whose name should the house be in? My daughter's as well? It says to be held in trust, if it was just flat out in her name, that would be different to "in trust", no? Should there be some sort of legal entity set up for that? Should the Title say the propriater is "Dave and the Sally Trust"?

And what does finalizing the estate actually mean? Is there some sort of form that gets handed to someone to say "Okay, it's done. Everyone who needed paying has been payed"?

Sorry to repeat what has already been said but you need to face tyhe facts and go and get professional advice from a solicitor. Putting things off will not solve the problem.

JacobPasco

Crabapple wrote: »

Transferring the house into his sole name is wrong. A house held in trust has to have two Trustees. Assets held for a minor have to have two Trustees.

This is where my attempt to anonymize the situation breaks down. Dave is actually two people - both executors, both adults, both equal beneficiaries, both are much closer to each other than they are to me or Sally, and both are now the only two proprietors on the Title (and neither of them is called Dave, obviously). I figured it wouldn't matter, and since this is probably the most popular forum for this type of stuff in the country, and that they might look for some advice themselves, it was best to disguise the situation a bit.

Both the Daves are named on the title - does that count as trustees, or should they have created a legal entity to represent Sally's interests, and be three-way owners with it?

Also, everything you and others have said is very specific information about the process that I don't think normal people would automatically know (I didn't). Is it feasible that they just didn't know any of this, or is there a sort of "This is what you're supposed to do now" type briefing that executors are given, and that it's not conceivable they didn't notice?

Also, our assumption is that we wouldn't want to charge family rent (unless this really was an attempt at fraud), or making them worry about insurance and all of that. It's all a bit mercenary and unpleasant.

Would it be possible for the trustees (the Daves) to sell themselves Sally's third of the house, and just have the money in the trust instead? It sounds like maybe they wouldn't have the authority, even with Sally's parent's permission (which I would give them).

And again, thanks so much to everyone who's replied.

JacobPasco

G6JNS wrote: »

Sorry to repeat what has already been said but you need to face tyhe facts and go and get professional advice from a solicitor. Putting things off will not solve the problem.

We're not putting anything off. We're organizing a bank account, and taking the weekend to research things like the Title from the Land Registry, and dig around online for the type information people in this thread have been kind of enough to provide.

Also we don't have all the facts in order to be able to face them yet.

Tomorrow we call Dave, give him the account in to which he is supposed to pay the £2,000, and say "So what's up with Sally's". At which point he'll either lie and we'll know (he doesn't know that we have the will, probate, and title), in which case things are much more clear cut, or he'll tell the truth and apologize, in which case we'll clear up the legal mess on more friendly terms.

JacobPasco

Sorry, there's duplication of questions going on here. People are replying while I'm replying.

G6JNS

JacobPasco wrote: »

This is where my attempt to anonymize the situation breaks down. Dave is actually two people - both executors, both adults, both equal beneficiaries, both are much closer to each other than they are to me or Sally, and both are now the only two proprietors on the Title (and neither of them is called Dave, obviously). I figured it wouldn't matter, and since this is probably the most popular forum for this type of stuff in the country, and that they might look for some advice themselves, it was best to disguise the situation a bit.

Both the Daves are named on the title - does that count as trustees, or should they have created a legal entity to represent Sally's interests, and be three-way owners with it?

Also, everything you and others have said is very specific information about the process that I don't think normal people would automatically know (I didn't). Is it feasible that they just didn't know any of this, or is there a sort of "This is what you're supposed to do now" type briefing that executors are given, and that it's not conceivable they didn't notice?

Also, our assumption is that we wouldn't want to charge family rent (unless this really was an attempt at fraud), or making them worry about insurance and all of that. It's all a bit mercenary and unpleasant.

Would it be possible for the trustees (the Daves) to sell themselves Sally's third of the house, and just have the money in the trust instead? It sounds like maybe they wouldn't have the authority, even with Sally's parent's permission (which I would give them).

And again, thanks so much to everyone who's replied.

The trustees owe a duty to maximize, within the rules, the income of the trust assets. Furthermore they are legally obliged to comply with the law relating to trusts. There is nothing mercenary, or unpleasant, in ensuring that the executors/trustees comply with the rules. By not doing anything about this is just compounds the wrongdoing. If the house burns down and there is no insurance how will you feel? The bottom line is that members of your family have behaved disgracefully, and illegally. If you allow them to get away with it does that serve anybody's interests but those who are guilty?

JacobPasco

G6JNS wrote: »

The bottom line is that members of your family have behaved disgracefully

Can we be sure of that? Maybe they just didn't understand their responsibilities? Like I say, I wouldn't have known about trusts and insurance, and all of that. I might have just thought "Oh no problem, I'll look after the house for my niece until she's old enough".

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate here, I'm genuinely asking - is it possible for an executor to simply not realize they were supposed to do all this stuff? Or is there a step in the process (that I've never personally gone through) where some official sits you down and tells you all this stuff?

G6JNS wrote: »

If the house burns down and there is no insurance how will you feel?

Precisely. Which is why the most favorable situation to us is to turn her share in to cash, and leave Dave to his own devices. But it's sounding like that's not a legal option for the trustees.

Mojisola

JacobPasco wrote: »

Also, our assumption is that we wouldn't want to charge family rent (unless this really was an attempt at fraud), or making them worry about insurance and all of that. It's all a bit mercenary and unpleasant.

The trustees of your daughter's share of the estate don't have any leeway - they can't decide not to charge rent because they have legal and financial responsibilities to the minor beneficiary.

Neither can you make that decision.

dzug1

JacobPasco wrote: »

Or is there a step in the process (that I've never personally gone through) where some official sits you down and tells you all this stuff?

There is no such step that I know of


It's not so much that it's illegal for the trustees to do things with Sally's share but that if they do so they - and/or those who gave them 'permission' to do so - lay themselves open to being sued by Sally when she comes of age if she feels she has been badly done by - or by the others if they feel she has been unduly favoured.