Unpaid Beneficiary - probate decades old.

Margot123

Hypothetical question of the day:
Probate was granted in 1990. Beneficiary unaware till recently of will contents, and remains unpaid despite being contactable.
Funds were distributed to beneficiary's adult children as the executor and beneficiary were not on good terms. Beneficiary was also estranged from testator but remained in the will.
Does the beneficiary have recourse after this length of time? If so, to whom do they make the claim?

Malthusian

I don't believe there's any statute of limitations so they still have recourse, as long as the evidence still exists.

The beneficiary claims from the executor. It is up to the executor to try and recover the money from the beneficiary's children, but they are liable whether they can or not.

I suspect it would save a lot of time and legal costs if the beneficiary's children simply handed the money to the beneficiary, if they've still got it.

jackyann

I presume you've got a copy of the will?
Were the beneficiary's funds given to their adult children INSTEAD of them? Or were the adult children beneficiaries in their own right?

I think legal advice is necessary, but make sure you have the information so solicitors aren't charging you for stuff you can do yourself.

Do the usual of looking at home insurance, trades union membership etc. to see if you have legal advice included.

Margot123

jackyann wrote: »

I presume you've got a copy of the will?
Were the beneficiary's funds given to their adult children INSTEAD of them? Or were the adult children beneficiaries in their own right?

I think legal advice is necessary, but make sure you have the information so solicitors aren't charging you for stuff you can do yourself.

Do the usual of looking at home insurance, trades union membership etc. to see if you have legal advice included.

Thank you. The question is hypothetical, so not a personal situation I'm involved in. I pose these questions as I cannot see them answered elsewhere and someone may be in this situation.

Margot123

Malthusian wrote: »

I don't believe there's any statute of limitations so they still have recourse, as long as the evidence still exists.

The beneficiary claims from the executor. It is up to the executor to try and recover the money from the beneficiary's children, but they are liable whether they can or not.

I suspect it would save a lot of time and legal costs if the beneficiary's children simply handed the money to the beneficiary, if they've still got it.

This is what I thought. The first port of call would be the executor as they had the legal duty to administer the will correctly.

Yorkshireman99

Margot123 wrote: »

Hypothetical question of the day:
Probate was granted in 1990. Beneficiary unaware till recently of will contents, and remains unpaid despite being contactable.
Funds were distributed to beneficiary's adult children as the executor and beneficiary were not on good terms. Beneficiary was also estranged from testator but remained in the will.
Does the beneficiary have recourse after this length of time? If so, to whom do they make the claim?

Unless fraud can be proved to the criminal standard of proof i.e. "Beyond reasonable doubt" then after six years it is too late. If there was fraud by the executor the court could award damages plus interest against the executor.

Margot123

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Unless fraud can be proved to the criminal standard of proof i.e. "Beyond reasonable doubt" then after six years it is too late. If there was fraud by the executor the court could award damages plus interest against the executor.

So 6 year limit based on 'balance of probabilities' for a civil action? What if the executor made no reasonable attempts to contact the beneficiary despite knowing exactly where they were? I imagine that would look very much like fraudulent behaviour.

Yorkshireman99

Might I respectfully suggest that you get a textbook on the Law of Sucession rather than asking hyptheticals here? It is a fascinating subject and you would learn much more.

Margot123

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Might I respectfully suggest that you get a textbook on the Law of Sucession rather than asking hyptheticals here? It is a fascinating subject and you would learn much more.

Might I respectfully request that you acknowledge that I post these 'hypotheticals' for the viewing of all those who may be interested. I think I would just keep a textbook (of which I have many) all to myself and not let anyone else have a peep. I will continue, thanks, it's up to each individual if they wish to respond/contribute/make suggestions etc.

Yorkshireman99

Margot123 wrote: »

Might I respectfully request that you acknowledge that I post these 'hypotheticals' for the viewing of all those who may be interested. I think I would just keep a textbook (of which I have many) all to myself and not let anyone else have a peep. I will continue, thanks, it's up to each individual if they wish to respond/contribute/make suggestions etc.

Sorry but I don’t acknowledge that. The forum is, IMHO, intended to help those, often in serious mental distress, to deal with difficulties of wills and other aspects of bereavement. You, on the other hand are using it for your, and I am sorry to say it, own somewhat selfish reasons. For that reason I have reported to the forum management.

Jenniefour

Margot123, to be fair, YM and others do spend a lot of their own time helping people with 'live' issues, voluntary, because they choose to, and as time allows.

Folks on here, in my experience, are more than happy to answer the occasional clarification from others when they're responding to a 'live' situation. I've done it myself and got a response, for which I'm grateful and adds to my understanding. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect YM, or anyone else, to teach us all about probate law through posts about hypotheticals, other than what we learn from responses to the threads. For those who are really interested and want to know a lot more there are ways of doing that. But this is primarily a site to help people with problems and not a distance learning course - for which we would, quite properly, be paying.