Locating Next of Kin

BobQ

PasturesNew wrote: »

I am intrigued by the "not seen for 35 years".

That was about 1980.

Was he in a trade where he could travel?
Is he likely to still be localish?
Did he have issues (drink/drugs)?
Was he the marrying sort? You can check records nationwide.

It could be anything from "he went to Australia as he was in the navy, so might've stayed there" through to "he was a local scrote, so probably went to prison and is now in a squat taking drugs" or "they had a disagreement about his girlfriend, who he might've married since".

I'd have another go at thinking through the potential lifestyle/choices that could've been made in the last 35 years and having another pop at that.

That sounds like a rather lengthy genealogical project.

Linton

Does he have a very common name? If not it might be worth trying 192.com. Also death records up to about are 2010 are available online.

getmore4less

BobQ wrote: »

That sounds like a rather lengthy genealogical project.

Tip of an heir hunter.

if they find the son(or issue) job done.

Yorkshireman99

BobQ wrote: »

Interesting debate about intermeddling.

The Probate Rules state

" “intermeddled” is when someone is appointed as an executor and acts in a way that shows that person has assumed the role by performing some tasks to the extent that they cannot then resign from the post;"

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/draft-rules-in-relation-to-non-contentious-probate/supporting_documents/ncprpart1intro.pdf

It seems from this that in order to have intermeddled you need to have been appointed by a will or by a court to execute the will.

As the OP has not been appointed or applied for a Grant of Administration, how can he be accused of intermeddling. He has no authority to act so anything he does in notifying anyone is for information? Based on what the OP states he has just informed people of the death. It is there decision what action to take. Unless the OP has claimed to be the executor (which seems not to be the case) I cannot see he has done anything wrong.

It is the complete reverse of this. Please carefully read the cites already given. In essence the problem only occurs if someone, often with every good intent, takes actions that are the responsibility of the executor, and subsequently decides the don't wish to continue doing so. In most cases this does not cause a problem because the appointed executor takes on the rest of the task. In fact the whole system of executor appointment is bizarre inasmuch as much of the work has to be done before their appointment is confirmed by the granting of probate! IM is usually only a real problem where an estate is subsequently found to be insolvent. The standard advice is to not try and administer an insolvent estate. If someone has, quite inadvertently, and with best of intents, intermeddled then they may be forced to administer such an estate with all the attendant problems. So much of the debate is hypothetical for a large majority of estates. As I have said in the past the whole system of wills and probate in England and Wales is riddled with anomalies and loopholes that can trap the unwary and help the unscrupulous.

getmore4less

if intermeddling included notifications of death then anyone registering a death and using the tell us once service would be intermeddling.

Death certificates are public documents and anyone can notify any institution of a death.


I suspect what is happening is simplifications are getting onto "official sites" and they become facts.

There are plenty of examples where the "common" opinion is wrong.

deed of variation change a will.
executor need a grant to start acting(their power actually comes from the will).
you need a grant if there is property involved
you get IHT taper relief on all gifts
...


notifications of death and enquiries as to asset values are almost certainly not intermeddling, along with safe keeping...
just don't go further, issue instructions, deal with an asset, pay a debt, you won't have intermeddled.


Clearly anyone wanting to get a funeral paid is going to have a hard time getting money from a bank if they can't tell them the person is dead. Arranging the funeral and getting it paid from the estate has always been considered not intermeddling.

securityguy

"Clearly anyone wanting to get a funeral paid is going to have a hard time getting money from a bank if they can't tell them the person is dead. Arranging the funeral and getting it paid from the estate has always been considered not intermeddling."

What a brilliant point.

So, YM, what about it? You've said that arranging a funeral isn't intermeddling. You claim telling a bank someone has died is intermeddling. Explain how that works, in the light of the above point.

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

"Clearly anyone wanting to get a funeral paid is going to have a hard time getting money from a bank if they can't tell them the person is dead. Arranging the funeral and getting it paid from the estate has always been considered not intermeddling."

What a brilliant point.

So, YM, what about it? You've said that arranging a funeral isn't intermeddling. You claim telling a bank someone has died is intermeddling. Explain how that works, in the light of the above point.

I refer you to the cites that state this. Have you ACTUALLY read them yet? I note you have not challenged the point THEY make not the one I am making. I agree it is crazy but I simply quoted what seem to be authoritative sources. In fact whilst it is common practice for banks to pay the FD direct they may withhold information until probate is obtained. AIUI the argument is that by notifying the bank this IS dealing with an estate asset. There are lots of other things that are just as crazy about the system of probate. For example lot of organisations will not cooperate until probate is granted but the executor needs the information to apply for probate. Catch 22 I think! I spoke to a solicitor friend about this today and was told that the standard advice to clients is proceed with extreme caution and the first thing was to try an establish if the estate was solvent. That is in practical terms one of the few times intermeddling is a problem.

securityguy

"Have you ACTUALLY read them yet?"

Yes. Secondary sources which conflict with established case law.

"AIUI the argument is that by notifying the bank this IS dealing with an estate asset."

I've cited an appeal court judgement which holds the precise opposite.

BobQ

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

It is the complete reverse of this. Please carefully read the cites already given. In essence the problem only occurs if someone, often with every good intent, takes actions that are the responsibility of the executor, and subsequently decides the don't wish to continue doing so. In most cases this does not cause a problem because the appointed executor takes on the rest of the task. In fact the whole system of executor appointment is bizarre inasmuch as much of the work has to be done before their appointment is confirmed by the granting of probate! IM is usually only a real problem where an estate is subsequently found to be insolvent. The standard advice is to not try and administer an insolvent estate. If someone has, quite inadvertently, and with best of intents, intermeddled then they may be forced to administer such an estate with all the attendant problems. So much of the debate is hypothetical for a large majority of estates. As I have said in the past the whole system of wills and probate in England and Wales is riddled with anomalies and loopholes that can trap the unwary and help the unscrupulous.

YM, I did read your cites.

They all refer to the ability of an executor to renounce the role (an executor appointed by will) and actions which might be interpreted as having started to execute that will.

I have quoted the official definition in the Probate Rules issued by the MoJ and the definition it cites. Specifically that to intermeddle you have to be appointed as an executor first. In this case the OP seems not to be appointed.

You seem to be saying that a person can intermeddle without a will appointing them to that role. That is not what the Probate Rules say. Do you agree they do not say that?

When someone is named in the Will then I accept the points you make. But if they are not named who is likely to accept they have authority to act on anything?

Yorkshireman99

BobQ wrote: »

YM, I did read your cites.

They all refer to the ability of an executor to renounce the role (an executor appointed by will) and actions which might be interpreted as having started to execute that will.

I have quoted the official definition in the Probate Rules issued by the MoJ and the definition it cites. Specifically that to intermeddle you have to be appointed as an executor first. In this case the OP seems not to be appointed.

You seem to be saying that a person can intermeddle without a will appointing them to that role. That is not what the Probate Rules say. Do you agree they do not say that?

When someone is named in the Will then I accept the points you make. But if they are not named who is likely to accept they have authority to act on anything?

I am still researching the whole issue. I need to look at some textbooks that will be available to me next week.