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
Yorkshireman99 wrote: »
but many things don't become effective until probate is granted where the estate is of more than £5,000.
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.
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.
Yorkshireman99 wrote: »
I have no connection with any other poster on this forum. This a figment of your over active imagination.
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.
Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support