Messy probate situation with children fighting with stepmother!

carled

antrobus wrote: »

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.

You didn't read this thread very well then as both of those things are covered in here. But don't let that get in the way of a good old fashioned witch hunt, will you! ;-)

getmore4less

antrobus wrote: »

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.

Not going to re-read but I thought the claim is the funds were beneficial funds of the DT which W is the only trustee that has the discretion to spend them within the terms of the trust.

As the will will be the trust document for both the automatic estate trust and any other trust created by the will, they exist from the DOD

Yorkshireman99

antrobus wrote: »

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.

The property is not W's. W only has, AIUI, a life tenancy and is responsible for the repairs. Spending estate funds on repairs was a breach of trust which is why she was removed as executor. It would be interesting to know how the bank allowed the funds to be spent without seeing the original copy of the will.

carled

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

The property is not W's. W only has, AIUI, a life tenancy and is responsible for the repairs. Spending estate funds on repairs was a breach of trust which is why she was removed as executor. It would be interesting to know how the bank allowed the funds to be spent without seeing the original copy of the will.

You're starting to make yourself look a bit daft now. If you can't be bothered to read the information supplied and are determined to keep soldiering on in the wrong direction entirely then feel free to keep going, but don't be surprised that no-one is responding to you when you are so spectacularly mistaken in what you think is the position. You have already been corrected on this once by another poster and yet you still have W's status completely wrong!

antrobus

carled wrote: »

You didn't read this thread very well then as both of those things are covered in here. But don't let that get in the way of a good old fashioned witch hunt, will you! ;-)

I beg to differ. You failed to mention that W was your mother in your lengthy opening post. It's only getmore4less that provided that information.

getmore4less

I don't think anyone her can say what the situation really is with the house without seeing the documents and even then they may need legal interpretation(which I suspect the courts will be doing in due course).

I think the closest we have is the property MAY be owned TIC by W and the DT, that's if W gives up the insistence(or the court rules her wrong) that there is joint tenancy.

Either way W owns some of it.

It is quite possible(but who knows) that there is no life interest(interest in possession trust) and that there is just a licence under DT to occupy (maybe exclusively) the part of the property owned by the trust along with other terms we don't have any idea about.

carled

antrobus wrote: »

I beg to differ. You failed to mention that W was your mother in your lengthy opening post. It's only getmore4less that provided that information.

I didn't say I mentioned it in the opening post... neither have you picked up on the declaration of trust information already discussed.

antrobus

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

The property is not W's. W only has, AIUI, a life tenancy and is responsible for the repairs. Spending estate funds on repairs was a breach of trust which is why she was removed as executor. It would be interesting to know how the bank allowed the funds to be spent without seeing the original copy of the will.

I don't disagree with you. I was simply noting that spending estate funds on repairs of a property that was not in the estate would be a gross breach of trust, as opposed to being a mere breach of trust.:)

antrobus

carled wrote: »

I didn't say I mentioned it in the opening post... neither have you picked up on the declaration of trust information already discussed.

But my point would be that you didn't. Your opening post carries the clear implication that you are some kind of disinterested observer of this disaster. The fact that you are W's child means that you clearly have a financial interest in the outcome.

getmore4less

antrobus wrote: »

But my point would be that you didn't. Your opening post carries the clear implication that you are some kind of disinterested observer of this disaster. The fact that you are W's child means that you clearly have a financial interest in the outcome.

They did have this at the end, maybe you did not get that far it was a long post.

I'm too close to the action to view it objectively.