credit card debt

Yorkshireman99

craigedmonds wrote: »

As far as I know, the order of priority of creditors being paid puts unsecured credit card debt last in line of being paid.

Executors expenses are number 2 on the list just after secured debts like mortgage and solicitors fees.

So if the estate has 1,000gbp in it and there is an unsecured debt of 600gbp, can the OP simply not write up 1,100gbp of executors expenses and tell the cc company there is no money in the estate?

Or...write up 999gbp in executors expenses and then tell the credit card company there is only 1gbp left, they need to take it or leave it.

Obviously everybody should manage their estate as honestly as possible, but at the same time citizens need to know what loopholes are available to them.

That is known as fraud.

LondonGent

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

That is known as fraud.

Prove to me that it is. Morally questionable maybe, but if one can provide legitimate cause for out of pocket expenses which outweighs the debts, prove to me that its fraud.

Yorkshireman99

craigedmonds wrote: »

Prove to me that it is. Morally questionable maybe, but if one can provide legitimate cause for out of pocket expenses which outweighs the debts, prove to me that its fraud.

Lay executors. i.e. not paid professionals can only claim for genuine out of pocket expenses. They are not allowed to charge for the time. It is not a question of morality but legality. If the executor finds that the estate is insolvent they should cease administrating it. Executors expenses do not take priority over other debts. Assuming you are the executor your approach seems to be completely at odds with the legal facts and with the oath that you swore to administer the estate correctly. If you are not prepared to do the job in an honest manner then you should resign from the post. Your mum would be ashamed of you.

Manxman_in_exile

Re post #13


Your post is contradictory. If (and I emphasise IF) your executor's expenses are legitimate, and you have proof of them, then they can't be morally questionable.


The problem you have (as evidenced on at least 2 other threads on this site) is that you appear to be searching desperately for ways artificially to inflate the expenses you can claim back as executor so as to maximise the amount you get as beneficiary. You are at least trying to do this to the detriment of your father's creditor, and may also be doing so to the detriment of your fellow beneficiaries. Unless, of course, they are colluding with you.


Nobody on here needs to prove to you that this is fraud as your posts on 3 threads would seem to suggest that this is what you are intending. From your research you may have concluded that this is a legal "grey area", but I think you need to do further research.


I don't think any posters on here will advise you to act unlawfully however you pose this question.


EDIT: I note from your opening post on your other thread on this board that you don't want to pay the debt "...just because I am legally obliged to." Proves it all I think.


2nd EDIT: I was replying here to Craigedmonds post #13, not the OP of this thread.

Nick_C

There is no obligation on you to administer your mothers estate. If there is nothing in the estate, I would have nothing to do with it. If the estate has some value, after paying all your mother's debts, then of course it could be in your interests to administer it fairly and lawfully.

I dealt with my mother's estate when she died intestate. Apart from my time and a couple of stamps and envelopes, I didn't incur any expenses. I certainly didn't claim any.

Nick_C

Oh and if your mum was receiving any state benefits, ensure you get written confirmation from the DWP that they have no claim on the estate before distributing the net proceeds! This could take a while.

getmore4less

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Lay executors. i.e. not paid professionals can only claim for genuine out of pocket expenses. They are not allowed to charge for the time. It is not a question of morality but legality. If the executor finds that the estate is insolvent they should cease administrating it. Executors expenses do not take priority over other debts. Assuming you are the executor your approach seems to be completely at odds with the legal facts and with the oath that you swore to administer the estate correctly. If you are not prepared to do the job in an honest manner then you should resign from the post. Your mum would be ashamed of you.

Testamentary expenses(which include executors expenses) take priority over the unsecured debts, which are not even next in line as there is a category above them but rare in domestic cases, there are other lower priority to the unsecured.

LondonGent

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Re post #13
The problem you have (as evidenced on at least 2 other threads on this site) is that you appear to be searching desperately for ways artificially to inflate the expenses you can claim back as executor so as to maximise the amount you get as beneficiary. You are at least trying to do this to the detriment of your father's creditor, and may also be doing so to the detriment of your fellow beneficiaries. Unless, of course, they are colluding with you.

Yes of course, like the OP I am looking for legal loopholes. I thought this was already very clear in all my posts. Regardless of what the reason is or who it affects, my question still remains, is it possible to inflate the expenses in a legal way? If so, what do I need to be careful of?

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Nobody on here needs to prove to you that this is fraud

I am sorry, but if someone comes on and makes a statement saying "its fraud", I am well within my rights to ask them to prove it. If they decide to do so is another matter, but I don't think people should just blurt out statements if they can't back it up.

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

as your posts on 3 threads would seem to suggest that this is what you are intending. From your research you may have concluded that this is a legal "grey area", but I think you need to do further research.

Again, you are bang on. I am trying to do more research on this because its simply not clear at all. So yes, I will continue my pursuit here on the forum until I am clear as to what I can and cant do.

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

I don't think any posters on here will advise you to act unlawfully however you pose this question.

I do not expect anyone to advise me to act unlawfully, the same way I do not expect them to place their purist judgment for asking questions.

LondonGent

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Re post #13
EDIT: I note from your opening post on your other thread on this board that you don't want to pay the debt "...just because I am legally obliged to." Proves it all I think.


2nd EDIT: I was replying here to Craigedmonds post #13, not the OP of this thread.

You have completely misinterpreted what I have said there in the same way I am legally obliged to pay taxes, but if I can find a way to legally NOT pay them or reduce them, then I will do so to the best of my abilities.

So rather than jump the gun and judge me, why not try and add some positive comments to the thread, otherwise keep your views to yourself.

Manxman_in_exile

I think you are contradicting yourself again.


You can't be "legally obliged" to do something and at the same time find a "legal" way to avoid doing so. It's one or the other. People are not legally obliged to pay taxes they can legally avoid paying.


So, you seem to have already accepted that you are "legally obliged" to pay the debt, but you are looking for what you call a "loophole" to avoid this?


What's your definition of a loophole? Is it legal or not?


(PS - if you don't want the benefit of other people's opinions best to steer clear of internet forums and pay a solicitor. You might not like their opinion either)