Tracing western union payments of deceased.

securityguy

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

It may be unpleasant and distressuping but it does not meet the standard of proof that would make it criminal.

Most actions over wills aren't criminal but rather civil law, so the test is "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Even if you allege a criminal act in the process of the will dispute (eg, that X blackmailed Y into leaving A to then you can get the will overturned on balance of probabilities that the blackmail happened. This, even though there is not enough evidence to charge and convict X of the criminal offence of blackmailing Y. It is quite common for civil courts to hold that something illegal was done by a named individual, and to make a wider finding on that assumption, but for criminal courts not to be able to do anything further about it. A little thought will show why this is the least worst way of doing things: civil cases would effectively stop if all actions had to be proved, by civil litigants, to criminal standards: the police have powers of investigation that civil litigants simply don't have (search warrants, for example: Anton Pillar orders and Norwich Pharmacal orders are much weaker instruments, and even then very rarely granted).

However, from the OP, I don't really even see a 51:49 balance of probabilities case. And as you say, the cost of even getting into the room to have the discussion is tens of thousands. Moreover - I am not a lawyer, and I would need this confirmed - I believe that executors cannot use the assets of the estate to bring actions attempting to overturn the will that appointed them, amongst other reasons because their status as executors depends on the will being valid. Executors can use the assets of the estate to defend the validity of the will against challenges, of course, as otherwise only the very rich or very foolish would accept executorships, and anyone wanting to challenge a will would be able to do so by the mere threat of an action.

MadMag

Thank you for your replies. They are all very helpful. Being an open forum I am not giving the whole picture. If you think you can help with advice please pm me and I will fill you in on relevant details.

TW1234

Were the elderly person still alive, such a situation could be advised to the officer responsible for Vulnerable Adults at your local council. I am not sure whether they could advise in this situation, after death, but it may be worth while asking.

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

Most actions over wills aren't criminal but rather civil law, so the test is "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt". Even if you allege a criminal act in the process of the will dispute (eg, that X blackmailed Y into leaving A to then you can get the will overturned on balance of probabilities that the blackmail happened. This, even though there is not enough evidence to charge and convict X of the criminal offence of blackmailing Y. It is quite common for civil courts to hold that something illegal was done by a named individual, and to make a wider finding on that assumption, but for criminal courts not to be able to do anything further about it. A little thought will show why this is the least worst way of doing things: civil cases would effectively stop if all actions had to be proved, by civil litigants, to criminal standards: the police have powers of investigation that civil litigants simply don't have (search warrants, for example: Anton Pillar orders and Norwich Pharmacal orders are much weaker instruments, and even then very rarely granted).

However, from the OP, I don't really even see a 51:49 balance of probabilities case. And as you say, the cost of even getting into the room to have the discussion is tens of thousands. Moreover - I am not a lawyer, and I would need this confirmed - I believe that executors cannot use the assets of the estate to bring actions attempting to overturn the will that appointed them, amongst other reasons because their status as executors depends on the will being valid. Executors can use the assets of the estate to defend the validity of the will against challenges, of course, as otherwise only the very rich or very foolish would accept executorships, and anyone wanting to challenge a will would be able to do so by the mere threat of an action.

It is, AIUI, the beneficiaries who are challenging the will. If they do decide to do so then they will have to put the money up front. The executor is then in a difficult position as to how to get involved in the legal process.

Yorkshireman99

MadMag wrote: »

Thank you for your replies. They are all very helpful. Being an open forum I am not giving the whole picture. If you think you can help with advice please pm me and I will fill you in on relevant details.

If you will not give the full picture how do you expect people on here to give an accurate answer? If you won't do so, and I can understand why you might not want to, then I suggest you go and get paid for advice elsewhere. Trying to help you without a full picture is a waste of time and can be very counterproductive for you. In any case you should never rely solely on help from here.

MadMag

Just a bit of background information. Social Services and Age Concern have had vulnerability and ill treatment issues raised by the family during the last 5 years. . Both of them have stepped in and been active in improving the situation. but it still has been far from ideal. He confessed to a cousin in the last few months of his life that he could not keep up with her demands and that she wanted 'everything' yet he was frightened of being on his own.

securityguy

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

It is, AIUI, the beneficiaries who are challenging the will. If they do decide to do so then they will have to put the money up front. The executor is then in a difficult position as to how to get involved in the legal process.

The OP says s/he's an executor, so presumably the will is being challenged by residual beneficiaries who are also executors. The entertainment then becomes whether the same person should simultaneously defend the will as executor and attack it as beneficiary, and what assets can be used for those two roles.

Lots of money for lawyers. Not much left for anyone else.

leespot

MadMag wrote: »

Just a bit of background information. Social Services and Age Concern have had vulnerability and ill treatment issues raised by the family during the last 5 years. . Both of them have stepped in and been active in improving the situation. but it still has been far from ideal. He confessed to a cousin in the last few months of his life that he could not keep up with her demands and that she wanted 'everything' yet he was frightened of being on his own.

Is there a reason why didn't you do more about it? If this was happening to one of my parents, I can guarantee you without doubt that the person in question would have not had time to blink before we took action, let alone allowing it to go on for 5 years.

Figures wise - how much are you talking about? It could cost you more to pursue this than it would to walk away and move on.