Locating Next of Kin

getmore4less

BobQ wrote: »

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?

Those rules only cover the case of a named executor, anyone can intermeddle and become an administrator of there own doing(executor de son tort).

Same as a person that intermeddles in a trust without being a trustee can be treated as having the legal responsibility of a trustee.

...
For a named executor(where the powers come from the will, not the grant) there is the possibility that doing anything could be considered as acting in the capacity as executor.

...
in practice the intermeddling only becomes an issue if someone want to try and force that person to act or they need to demonstrate some wrongdoing and make a claim.

securityguy

getmore4less wrote: »

Those rules only cover the case of a named executor, anyone can intermeddle and become an administrator of there own doing(executor de son tort).

They can, but the question people seem to misunderstand in these debates is who can enact these obligations.

There is no probate police roaming the land, seeking out people who might be held to have done executor-things and forcing them at gunpoint to act as executors.

The issue of who is an isn't an executor only arises if there is dispute. The people with standing to bring actions are stakeholders in the estate. Executors, beneficiaries, creditors, people with potential claims, people who might be potential administrators, in cases of severe insolvency the official receiver. If someone dies with a estate small enough (in either assets or debts) that no one can be bothered to administer the estate then it sits there: if anyone is bothered, they can simply apply for letters of administration themselves, and the issue of what other people may or may not have done is irrelevant.

Someone dies. People around them do things: they tell banks, they tell landlords, they tell utilities, they settle small debts like the newspapers from small assets like the pot of pound coins in the kitchen, they clear the fridge, they SORN the car, etc, etc. Any of these are, in principle, actions of an executor (YM's and I think your point). They are also the actions of neighbours and friends.

IF (and you can read all the following "ifs" as similarly capitalised) someone with suitable standing (probably a creditor or potential beneficiary) believes that these actions materially impact the estate, and if they believe the actions are not in the best interests of the estate, and if they are sufficiently minded as to go to a court, and if they are sufficiently convincing that they can get a ruling, and if they are then sufficiently at odds with the original actors to enforce the ruling, then it is possible that the original actors can be held to have acted as, and taken on the responsibilities, of executors.

That bar is, and YM is now I see researching a topic they have previously been rather less nuanced about, incredibly high. The case of people renouncing executorships and then later being held responsible for prior malfeasance is not unheard of. Most people don't renounce, they just go powers reserved, which means they retain their rights and their obligations anyway. But there are various reasons to do a full renouncement (insolvency, refusal to get involved, wanting to bring an action against the estate) and if you have intermeddled that is a problem, and solicitors earn good money sorting the mess out.

That said, the case of people who have out of goodwill done things for the deceased which are, in principle, acts of executors in an estate which later becomes contentious and are therefore held to have taken on responsibilities vicariously is the stuff of law student moots. I guess it has happened. It will probably happen in the future. It would be a once in a career event, if that, for a solicitor. It is a theoretical risk.

If you are very risk averse, then don't tell the milkman to stop delivering if your neighbour dies. Because if your dead neighbour turns out to secretly be Robert Maxwell you might find yourself liable to act as his executor. But quite why anyone who actually _does_ want an estate administered would set out to force an unwilling an inexperienced bystander to do it rather than do it themselves is something of a mystery. And even if they did, the idea that a court could, or would, force someone who has no other connection to an estate to be an executor is fanciful (I'd like to see a citation for it happening in the UK ever) and it's not clear why any other party to the estate, who actually cares, would want to force this.

So this is fun moot stuff, and like YM, I am interested in the details. But the reality is that it will only happen in the most extraordinary circumstances, and you would be so unlucky that you've probably already been struck by lightning several times first.