Messy probate situation with children fighting with stepmother!

Yorkshireman99

Somerset wrote: »

You are offensive. You started this thread with an unbiased :



You are absolutely biased. You will accept no comments other than those that confirm your own bias.

Fact : W has been removed as executor. Basis W did misappropriate estate funds.

Next Step :


Absolutely spot on.

You already stated ''as it's a discretionary trust, no beneficiary has a right to benefit, so in theory W could decide to keep all the money for herself and D1 & D2 would have no grounds for complaint.'' You then threw in the nugget of W proposing to sell part of the garden without informing or seeking consent from D1/D2.

W wants total control of the DT. W spends estate money on W's wants. W is taking crap advice from 'friends'. W loses round one in court and 'friends' post on a public internet forum expressing amazement. W was wrong, to paraphrase you ''got that'' ? W will not control the DT if D1/D2 (as they fortunately seem capable of/flush enough to litigate) seek to remove her as trustee, to paraphrase you ''got that'' ?

You are trolling, not Yorkshireman99. Don't post for opinions if you can't handle them. You are going to cost W an arm and a leg.

Only post from me whether you insult me or not.

Have a nice day

You have it quite correct. As far as I can see the OP started off apparently seeking advice but actually wanted someone to agree with them. The torrent of biased remarks followed by the OP's abusive reaction to me exposes his real aims.. As far as a DT established under a will is concerned the "trustee" has very limited powers to act before probate is granted. Those powers need to be used with due probity and certainly not to use estate funds for the trustee's own benefit. Even if a trustee is a potential beneficiary they are not allowed to intermeddle as W did. The fact that W is now trying to sell off property she does no own suggests she has not got the message of the court case. I f what the OP says really is true then it is little surprise that the reaction of the rest of the family has been so negative. W's case seems devoid of merit. There are so many odd things about the OP's story I could almost believe that the whole thing is an elaborate wind up in very poor taste. Despite all his provocation I will, for the moment, give him the benefit of the doubt.

Curlylady

Carld, add him to the ignored list. Seems new persons with seeking advice or general opinion are not permitted unless it suits the regulars. I really have no idea what their motivation is. Just ignore him. Good luck with trudging through what seems a complicated scenario.

Yorkshireman99

Your signature line "Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it" sums up your advice. You clearly don't understand the nature of a discretionary trust or how probate works. Upon the death of a testator a valid will starts to take effect but many things don't become effective until probate is granted where the estate is of more than £5,000. Until probate is granted the putative executor needs to be careful not to exceed their powers which is known as intermeddling. In the case of a DT set up under a will any trustee does not have full authotirty to act until probate is granted. Any trustee is legally required to act in the interests of the trust rather than themselves. This can be a difficult concept to grasp and it is clear it has been misunderstood by several people on this thread and by W. Acting with due probity means that the trustee must not put their own interests above those of others. The golden rule is always ask advice. In the case under discussion, rightly or wrongly, the impression has been given that W ignored, and continues to ignore by trying to sell property she does not own, the law. Based on what the OP has said, and ignoring all his emotive language, W has not behaved properly and is now suffering the consequences. If saying that, which is what I have done, in being insensitive then I plead guilty. Finally I have no connection with any other poster on this forum. This a figment of your over active imagination.

Tuesday_Tenor

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

but many things don't become effective until probate is granted where the estate is of more than £5,000.

The reference to £5000 is anachronistic. There is no longer any such threshold. Mention of it must cast doubt on the rest of the information offered by the poster ....

---

Re; the asserted need for probate before trustees are fully trustees. What about the situation where the entire estate consists of say £20k, released from an institution which did not require probate for this. There is no other need to get probate, so it is not obtained. The will puts it all in a DT. The trustees full authority to act surely comes from the will. I've never seen the existence of a DT listed as one of the triggers for needing probate. Is it?

---

But, OP, W's attempt to sell off property that was not solely hers to sell is mind-bogglingly out of order and begs the question whether W has the capacity to understand the basics of the legalities, never mind the undeniable complexities of this situation.

carled

Tuesday_Tenor wrote: »

But, OP, W's attempt to sell off property that was not solely hers to sell is mind-bogglingly out of order and begs the question whether W has the capacity to understand the basics of the legalities, never mind the undeniable complexities of this situation.

I feel this bit needs clarification. She has a lot of land. Most of it is bloody useless and just needs mowing. Up in one far corner, there is a bit that juts out that adjoins a neighbour. He asked if she would sell it to her. She would be happy to as it's just useless scrub land to her and not part of something she wants to try and maintain at her age.

She suggested to D1 & D2 that the land be sold off and the money split between them. They refused outright without even giving any reason. This is what galls W so much - whilst they have this level of control, she is unable to choose what to do with the property she's living in. It requires more and more maintenance now her husband is gone and it's damn expensive for her to keep paying handymen to do it as she's currently doing out of her monthly pension (not the DT before anyone asks). We're talking 3 acres or so here, not just a large back garden.

They have also complained about her getting the property re-rendered (even though it was arranged by their father and solved a massive and long-standing damp and mould problem) and some trees being pruned that were overhanging a neighbour's property and, again, had been promised it would be dealt with by the deceased.

Bear in mind that D1 & D2 have been actively preventing probate being applied for for almost a year by sitting on and refusing to release F's deed of renunciation as an executor. They have admitted they have done so as they knew that once probate was granted, they would be facing an IHA act claim that they knew would affect them adversely. All that time they were trying to find a way to get more control and did so in the end by some creative writing in their claim form to get W removed as an executor.

D1 & D2 , far from being the victims in all this as Yorkshireman would have you believe, are active protagonists.

Tuesday_Tenor

carled wrote: »

I feel this bit needs clarification. She has a lot of land. Most of it is bloody useless and just needs mowing. Up in one far corner, there is a bit that juts out that adjoins a neighbour. He asked if she would sell it to her. She would be happy to as it's just useless scrub land to her and not part of something she wants to try and maintain at her age.

She suggested to D1 & D2 that the land be sold off and the money split between them. They refused outright without even giving any reason. This is what galls W so much - whilst they have this level of control, she is unable to choose what to do with the property she's living in. It requires more and more maintenance now her husband is gone and it's damn expensive for her to keep paying handymen to do it as she's currently doing out of her monthly pension (not the DT before anyone asks). We're talking 3 acres or so here, not just a large back garden.

They have also complained about her getting the property re-rendered (even though it was arranged by their father and solved a massive and long-standing damp and mould problem) and some trees being pruned that were overhanging a neighbour's property and, again, had been promised it would be dealt with by the deceased.

Bear in mind that D1 & D2 have been actively preventing probate being applied for for almost a year by sitting on and refusing to release F's deed of renunciation as an executor. They have admitted they have done so as they knew that once probate was granted, they would be facing an IHA act claim that they knew would affect them adversely. All that time they were trying to find a way to get more control and did so in the end by some creative writing in their claim form to get W removed as an executor.

D1 & D2 , far from being the victims in all this as Yorkshireman would have you believe, are active protagonists.

In post #28 you said D1 &2 'got wind of' the proposed sale, which doesn't fit with you now saying she suggested the sale to them openly. The latter suggests W acted reasonably, the former doesn't.

I can't see the wood for the trees here, so this is my last post on this thread.

getmore4less

Trying to build case arguing with the forums judge/executioner is not going to get you anywhere.

............
The issue is with the solicitors.

It is also becoming clear that this property is totally unsuitable and rather than messing about the primary objective should be to move forward to sell it off and get something more suitable.

Without the full will, codicil, other docs along with the relevant legal interpretation or the terms( as these may be what lay people think) it is going to be hard for anyone but your legal team to see how this would be achieved.


Bear in mind that D1 & D2 have been actively preventing probate being applied for for almost a year by sitting on and refusing to release F's deed of renunciation as an executor

Did no one bother to phone F and get them to send another one.

Although the real issue would have been D1/2 could have just refused to proceed

It should never have got to W being removed leaving D1/2 there was an impasse all or none.


I speculate F knew there were issues(D probably warned them) and kept out finding a plausible excuse( I moved) rather than tell the truth it's going to get messy leave me out of it.

What would F have got from acting?
if there was nothing then another reason to keep clear.


Why did W not attend the court madness when you are about to have your executorship ripped from you and have no counter claim in to do the same.

SevenOfNine

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

I have no connection with any other poster on this forum. This a figment of your over active imagination.

...........I recognised you immediately with the new alias, seems I wasn't the only one.

My understanding of DT's is more than sufficient, my husband & I both have one within our Wills, know exactly why we wanted them, what the advantages & possible disadvantages are, how they will be set up & run & EXACTLY when they kick in. Post probate is not it. Please do some better research.

£5000??? Where on earth did you get that figure. Better tell Santander, they gave us the contents of our son's bank account, over £18k, on production of the death certificate, several weeks before the Grant was issued.

MSE appoint forum moderators for a reason, self appointed ones are not appropriate.

SevenOfNine

Curlylady wrote: »

Carld, add him to the ignored list. Seems new persons with seeking advice or general opinion are not permitted unless it suits the regulars. I really have no idea what their motivation is. Just ignore him.

A very fair observation. :beer:

Yorkshireman99

carled wrote: »

I feel this bit needs clarification. She has a lot of land. Most of it is bloody useless and just needs mowing. Up in one far corner, there is a bit that juts out that adjoins a neighbour. He asked if she would sell it to her. She would be happy to as it's just useless scrub land to her and not part of something she wants to try and maintain at her age.

She suggested to D1 & D2 that the land be sold off and the money split between them. They refused outright without even giving any reason. This is what galls W so much - whilst they have this level of control, she is unable to choose what to do with the property she's living in. It requires more and more maintenance now her husband is gone and it's damn expensive for her to keep paying handymen to do it as she's currently doing out of her monthly pension (not the DT before anyone asks). We're talking 3 acres or so here, not just a large back garden.

They have also complained about her getting the property re-rendered (even though it was arranged by their father and solved a massive and long-standing damp and mould problem) and some trees being pruned that were overhanging a neighbour's property and, again, had been promised it would be dealt with by the deceased.

Bear in mind that D1 & D2 have been actively preventing probate being applied for for almost a year by sitting on and refusing to release F's deed of renunciation as an executor. They have admitted they have done so as they knew that once probate was granted, they would be facing an IHA act claim that they knew would affect them adversely. All that time they were trying to find a way to get more control and did so in the end by some creative writing in their claim form to get W removed as an executor.

D1 & D2 , far from being the victims in all this as Yorkshireman would have you believe, are active protagonists.

Oh dear! Once again you have disclosed extra information and made contradictory statements. AIUI you said that the W is a life tenant of the property. That means that she does not have the right to sell any of the property or to make alterations not approved by the freeholder. She may find that “galls” her but it is the reality of the situation and the freeholder is quite within their rights to decide what is, or is not done. You state that she has “a lot of land” and that D1 and D2 have refused to sell it and give her half the proceeds. Is this her land or part of the property that she is a life tenant of? It is part of the property it is the freeholders choice and from what you have said she has no rights in the matter. From the additional information you have given other members of the family have behaved just as badly but that does not excuse W. The bottom line is that they all need to start behaving like responsible adults and sort their differences out. In view of their behaviour none of them would seem to be fit to be executors or trustees. W may well have a valid claim under the Provisions for Family and Dependents Legislation but that will have to wait until probate is obtained. What you should be doing is trying to talk some common sense into the family.