Messy probate situation with children fighting with stepmother!

carled

getmore4less wrote: »

No one really knows they have the latest will but having no will(as in this case) is a known.

She didn't have "no will" - she had a photocopy of his (and hers) from when they made them together in 2002! That he then went back secretly to the same solicitor and added a codicil which was not put with the copy of the will in their box file at home is hardly her fault, is it? And yet some of you are now up in arms at this "shocking" behaviour when it's nothing of the sort!

getmore4less

Might as well read more of the story here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5391168

getmore4less

carled wrote: »

She didn't have "no will" - she had a photocopy of his (and hers) from when they made them together in 2002! That he then went back secretly to the same solicitor and added a codicil which was not put with the copy of the will in their box file at home is hardly her fault, is it? And yet some of you are now up in arms at this "shocking" behaviour when it's nothing of the sort!

Given
The historical background of the wills(from other thread) and D children getting a bit tetchy and involved.

The lack of financial involvement during the marriage the use of a 13/14year old photocopy was not the smartest way to start.

kind of went downhill since then.

getmore4less

What is also a concern is this now over a year(or more) on yet it seems you and your mum still don't really understand the legal framework that has been set up by the Deed of trust the will and the trusts set up by the will.

carled

getmore4less wrote: »

What is also a concern is this now over a year(or more) on yet it seems you and your mum still don't really understand the legal framework that has been set up by the Deed of trust the will and the trusts set up by the will.

It's taken this long to get this far as D1 & D2 changed solicitor and basically sat on the deed of renunciation for months to delay probate. Then decided to launch their own legal action. It's not by choice. Even if we did fully understand it, it still wouldn't mean it had been settled or that we'd be any further forward.

I don't even know why I'm arguing anymore. It seems that some just want to criticise no matter what!

getmore4less

Here lies your problems you are arguing not listening.

What people here are doing is pointing out where understanding may have been misplaced resulting in process issues or conflict with the others.

Remember it is W and you that have got you to where you are now, clearly something you are doing is not working.

Some things highlighted will be right, some wrong, reality is you can decide which, it's not our inheritance that's at stake.

You need to understand where things have gone wrong and why, if you want any chance to resolve this without very expensive litigation.

The issues are in part due to not understanding what should happen.

The point was that these delays have given ample opportunity to get to grips with the issues so when things do move forward you have a clue what you are doing and what result you need to be aiming for.

You can't resolve the situation if you don't know what the end result should be(not what you want it to be).

It has become fairly clear that this was at risk of going pear shaped before it started if not done by the book and steps take early to diffuse off any concerns raised by D1/2.
F getting out was another clue.

securityguy

So far as I understand it, one of the obligations of someone who believes themselves to be an executor on the basis of a will they have access to is to (a) confirm that the will they have is genuine and (b) satisfy themselves that there is no more recent will. Obviously, you can't prove a negative, and someone might indeed have written a deathbed will, had it witnessed by the doctor and then posted it to their long-forgotten relative in New Zealand.

But proceeding on the basis of a decade or more old photocopy without even getting the original of that particular will from the person that holds it is just madness. Without the original of the will you don't, absent extremely complex legal machinations about determining the authenticity of things that aren't originals but might be deemed so, even have proof that the will you are executing is genuine, never mind that there isn't some later will. And the codicil was exactly where it should have been: with the original of the will.

It might be naivet!. But from the perspective of a court, proceeding on the basis of a copy which is more favourable to you than the combined (original plus codicil), when you could trivially obtain a copy of the substantive will, is going to look dubious.

The friend is well out of it. The step-father didn't do this terribly well. The daughters have every reason to be suspicious of what is going on. The widow is either extremely naive, or very badly advised, or something else.

Yorkshireman99

carled wrote: »

She didn't have "no will" - she had a photocopy of his (and hers) from when they made them together in 2002! That he then went back secretly to the same solicitor and added a codicil which was not put with the copy of the will in their box file at home is hardly her fault, is it? And yet some of you are now up in arms at this "shocking" behaviour when it's nothing of the sort!

Starting administer an estate using just a photocopy of a will rather than getting the original from the solicitor and checking if there is a newer one really is at the best naive. A reasonable person would have checked first and the court clearly felt that this was the case otherwise she would not have been removed as executor. The fact that estate funds were used in a potentially contentious manner without checking the original will is quite shocking. The important thing for you to do now is what I said at the end of post #51 i.e. try and talk some common sense into the family. Otherwise they are all going to suffer even more financially quite apart from the emotional damage they are doing to each other. Step back, take a deep breath, and ask yourself what you want to achieve. Complaining about what people have told you on this forum will achieve nothing.

carled

Well the next part of the saga is going to be interesting. We've just heard from D1 & D2's solicitor and they are claiming that they will be arguing their case that they are executors AND trustees, which should be worth hearing.

If you refer back to the OP, you can see that the will appoints W & F as "my executors and trustees" (exact quote) whereas D1 & D2 in the codicil are appointed "executors in addition to those executors named in the will" (another exact quote).

antrobus

getmore4less wrote: »

Might as well read more of the story here

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5391168

Interesting. For one thing it reveals the connection between the OP and W which was not really made clear in this thread.

For another thing, if the property was 100% W's as a result of the right of survivorship, then that would make her actions in spending estate funds in refurbishing it a gross breach of trust.