Will?

nimbo

I'm a bit confused. A relative has recently died. Ive been advised by next of kin - that she wished me to go through her jewellery to pick something. Don't I have to wait to see the will or the will Is read before doing this. (Have a watched too many holly wood movies). How will I even know there is a will?

I have nil problems with the idea as such - it's something she'd said to me years ago - and she didn't have any diamond encrusted anythings. I just don't know how these things work.

We're in Scotland if that makes a difference.

Browntoa

Wills aren't "read" like in the films

securityguy

In theory, the executors shouldn't touch anything on the off-chance that the deceased had large and unknown debts that can only be repaid by the sale of everything they owned.

Or that a previously unknown lovechild whom the deceased had been secretly supporting pops up and demands to continue to be supported from the remaining asses.

Or that the purported next of kin, claiming to the be deceased's wife and exectutor, is in fact a shape-shifting lizard from the fifth dimension while the witnesses to the signing of the will turn out to be holographic projections from the twenty-fifth century.

Back in the real world, jewellery has no significant monetary value, spouses know each others' finances and therefore debts reasonably well, wills are available before or at the point of death and are held to be valid by everyone who might challenge them, intestacy is simple, there aren't mysterious collateral lines in the family tree entitled to support and the next of kin knows perfectly well the assets, particularly the non-monetary assets, will come to them.

So inviting relatives to take a memento shortly after the death is technically risky, but in reality entirely reasonable.

nimbo

Thank you.

Tuesday_Tenor

securityguy wrote: »

Or that the purported next of kin, claiming to the be deceased's wife and exectutor, is in fact a shape-shifting lizard from the fifth dimension while the witnesses to the signing of the will turn out to be holographic projections from the twenty-fifth century.

Ha! I don't come on this particular forum expecting laughs ... But this made me splutter my coffee! Classy enough to become a classic! Thanks Security Guy!

Yorkshireman99

Jewellery often DOES have significant value particularly if it is antique and it is quite wrong to glibly suggest otherwise. Even relatively modest pieces may well have a scrap value. Executors have a legal duty to make sure any potential valuables are not just dismissed as worthless as you advocate.

FreeBear

securityguy wrote: »

Back in the real world, jewellery has no significant monetary value

Most dress jewellery has little value, but some items do. Although, for probate, the value is usually limited to the scrap value of the metal & stones.

As an example, I had to value four pieces of jewellery (three rings and a pendant). Probate value was around £1,500, but for insurances purposes, nearer £20,000.

securityguy

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Jewellery often DOES have significant value particularly if it is antique and it is quite wrong to glibly suggest otherwise. Even relatively modest pieces may well have a scrap value. Executors have a legal duty to make sure any potential valuables are not just dismissed as worthless as you advocate.

No they don't. They have a legal obligation to treat beneficiaries fairly, to pay debts of the estate and (as a special case of those two) pay inheritance tax. If there's a spouse who is a residual beneficiary, then the only issue is debt: that's where the judgement comes in. And the chances of a few pieces of jewellery being the difference between solvency and insolvency or being, of themselves, sufficient to tip the estate into IHT are small. In more complex situations it might matter. But then, the value of the unused tins of food in the larder might, too.

The value of most jewellery is, second hand, very small. Melt value of anything less than 18ct gold is trivial (9ct is about 10 quid a gramme, 18ct 20 quid a gramme) and a wedding ring weighs about 10 grammes. Yes, an executor might be taking a chance on there being unknown debts for which there is no cover, but there would be cover had they not given away a couple of hundred quid's worth of jewellery. That's a chance many people would be willing to take such that their relatives get to keep granny's broach rather than it going for scrap.

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

No they don't. They have a legal obligation to treat beneficiaries fairly, to pay debts of the estate and (as a special case of those two) pay inheritance tax. If there's a spouse who is a residual beneficiary, then the only issue is debt: that's where the judgement comes in. And the chances of a few pieces of jewellery being the difference between solvency and insolvency or being, of themselves, sufficient to tip the estate into IHT are small. In more complex situations it might matter. But then, the value of the unused tins of food in the larder might, too.

The value of most jewellery is, second hand, very small. Melt value of anything less than 18ct gold is trivial (9ct is about 10 quid a gramme, 18ct 20 quid a gramme) and a wedding ring weighs about 10 grammes. Yes, an executor might be taking a chance on there being unknown debts for which there is no cover, but there would be cover had they not given away a couple of hundred quid's worth of jewellery. That's a chance many people would be willing to take such that their relatives get to keep granny's broach rather than it going for scrap.

You have no concept of fiduciary duty let alone decency towards the bereaved. You repeatedly spout advice that goes against the way a decent, honest and competent executor would behave. Just one example I have direct personal knowledge shows just how wrong you are. A relative was left a box of some twenty gold, platinum and silver jewellery items that were given a value of £350.00 for probate. There was no problem with debts or IHT. The recipient was concerned that the so called professional executor had got it wrong so she went to well respected jeweller to have ring re-sized and cleaned. Even before cleaning the jeweller told her it alone would fetch £10k at auction and the whole collection minus the ring subsequently fetched £19,400 after commission. The recipient agreed a substantial voluntary settlement with the residuary beneficiary before the sale took place.

securityguy

"Just one example I have direct personal knowledge shows just how wrong you are."

No, it precisely and exactly proves my point.

"A relative was left a box of some twenty gold, platinum and silver jewellery items that were given a value of £350.00 for probate. There was no problem with debts or IHT. The recipient was concerned that the so called professional executor had got it wrong so she went to well respected jeweller to have ring re-sized and cleaned. Even before cleaning the jeweller told her it alone would fetch £10k at auction and the whole collection minus the ring subsequently fetched £19,400 after commission."

And that's the executor's concern because...? Yes, if the probate valuation were low and made the difference between paying and not paying IHT, then that's wrong. But you say IHT wasn't involved. So what's the problem you claim?

The testator is presumed to know the value of what they are leaving. The beneficiary of a named item is perfectly entitled to take their legacy and do whatever they want with it, in this case get a valuation and sell it. The recipient is perfectly entitled to give some of that back to the residual beneficiary but isn't obligated to, and in any event it's nothing to do with the executor. The executor's responsibility was to identify the asset named in the will and, subject to the estate being solvent, convey that to the beneficiary. The end. If the will says "I leave my best china to my aunt", the aunt gets (subject to solvency) the best china. Its value is irrelevant: they get the best china. You are very keen to bandy "fiduciary duty" around, but what duty? The will in the case you cite said to convey an asset, an identified set of rings, to a beneficiary. If that has been done, what duty more is there? The valuation of the asset by the estate is none of the recipient's business; they they decide to go and get a sale valuation, which is different to a probate valuation, and carry that sale out, what is that to the estate? And how does the probate valuation affect the beneficiary?

Why did the recipient settle with the residuary? They'd been left a box of rings. It was theirs to dispose of. The testator either knew the value, or was careless of the value. Whichever, they left a named asset to a named individual. The only person with any right to get upset in this transaction would be HMRC if the value of the rings (and other assets similarly undervalued) would have been enough to take the estate into IHT that otherwise wasn't paid.

Some people own thousands of books. For probate they would be valued at close to nothing: whatever a disposal company would give you. If someone received them and spent enough time cataloging them and checking them for individual value, they might find something worth a sizeable amount. There might be a first edition of Harry Potter, say, which could be worth a grand, more (a lot more) if signed contemporaneously. If the deceased left "all my books" to a named individual, it would be their good fortune if they found something of value in there. It is not the executor's responsibility to pick through thousands of books looking for hidden gems. The same applies for clothes, LPs, furniture: if they form part of a divided residue, then it might be slightly more complex, but in general, they are valued on the assumption that they are plain vanilla. "Probate valuation", in fact.

Yorkshireman99

You miss the points entirely. The executor was negligent in putting a value on assets that they had no knowledge of. The rule is if in doubt get advice. An executor who does not is negligent. Your attitude seems to be that an executor can just put any figure down for estate assets without taking any care at all. That is an outrageous way for any executor to behave. The concept that valuations for probate should be way below the open market value is simply wrong. Absolute values of anything are hard, and even impossible, to establish. Certainly valuations are quite legitimately be at the lower end of the likely range but to grossly undervalue may well be illegal. You make rash assertions about what the details of the bequests to support your flawed arguments when you have no actual knowledge of them at all. In fact the jewelry items were itemized because there were several beneficiaries. Whilst it may be time consuming and difficult for an executor that does not absolve them from making a reasonable effort to accurately value them. Your cavalier attitude to estate valuation is despicable.