Possessions of deceased

Margot123

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

How does that logic work? If, as was suggested in the original post, the ex partner intends to permanently keep the items that do not belong to her that is by definition theft. No ifs, ands, buts or maybes. If the possessions are low value items such as clothes then the de minimis principle applies. If there is theft of significant value then it IS a police matter even though they may be reluctant to act. As I said before the OP has still not specified what items she is talking about.

And where is the 'dishonesty' element? All these points have to be proven.

Yorkshireman99

Margot123 wrote: »

And where is the 'dishonesty' element? All these points have to be proven.

Quite! But as the OP has not clarified what possessions are involved or the value it is imposible to say more.

Tigsteroonie

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Quite! But as the OP has not clarified what possessions are involved or the value it is imposible to say more.

kellit35 wrote: »

I want something and so do his children to remember there daddy and my brother a price if clothing anything.

Possibly typos for "a piece of clothing". Doesn't sound like they want much.

iammumtoone

I can't see how any reasonable partner of the decesed would refuse to let the children and family members have an item of clothing/small keepsake each.

Therefore the reason they are in this situation leads me to belive it was how the question was asked what has lead to this situation.

For example saying to her there was no will you are not entilled to anything could lead her to take this stance (not saying this was said but something must have upset her for her to act this way) or demanding everything when that is unreasonable (she is greving as well and also deserves some keepsakes)

I suggest an apology (even if you don't think you should) and to start again asking in a different mannor.

stormbreaker

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Quite! But as the OP has not clarified what possessions are involved or the value it is imposible to say more.

For there to be a theft their has to be an owner/complainer. Sadly in this case the 'owner' has died. It then comes down to a dispute over ownership and as such is a civil matter regardless of value.

The 'owner' may have gifted all his possessions to his partner prior to his death. As a result any dispute over ownership even if within a written will would have to be taken up with a solicitor to a civil court. Not criminal. In no way shape or form is this a police matter.

Yorkshireman99

stormbreaker wrote: »

For there to be a theft their has to be an owner/complainer. Sadly in this case the 'owner' has died. It then comes down to a dispute over ownership and as such is a civil matter regardless of value.

The 'owner' may have gifted all his possessions to his partner prior to his death. As a result any dispute over ownership even if within a written will would have to be taken up with a solicitor to a civil court. Not criminal. In no way shape or form is this a police matter.

Sorry but you are just wrong. Laglly any property the deceased owned belongs to their estate. Ownership passes to the estate and the rights remain. For example if someone burgles house and during the robbery the owner dies of a heart attack. Thier death does not alter the fact that any goods stolenduring the burlary remain stolen.

stormbreaker

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Ownership passes to the estate and the rights remain. For example if someone burgles house and during the robbery the owner dies of a heart attack. Thier death does not alter the fact that any goods stolenduring the burlary remain stolen.

In the circumstances of the scenario you give, the goods are stolen, thief has appropriated them dishonestly, absolutely no right to them. This is a crime and is a police matter.

Ownership of the items which fall to the estate, which many, may claim entitlement ( this excludes the thief obviously) and resulting in dispute of ownership, would be fought over in a civil court. Not a criminal court. Completely different and remains NOT a police matter.

-taff

Originally, it was asking for his phone, and his ex wifes phone, which were going to be given to the children. I'm not sure how that is a keepsake....

What were you asking her to give you exactly?

iammumtoone

kellit35 wrote: »

All I have asked for is a phone which my brother promised his son

I can see her point a phone is a very personal thing it will have picutes and maybe messages between the both of them she wants to keep hold of I can understand that.

I bet your brother did not promise the phone to his son in the event he died, I'm sure it was more along the lines of when I get a new one you can have the old (something alot of parents do). The situation has now changed.

What is the son going to do with it, use it as his own? therefore wiping it of all memerioes? Thats something you do when the person is still alive not after they have die.

Yorkshireman99

stormbreaker wrote: »

In the circumstances of the scenario you give, the goods are stolen, thief has appropriated them dishonestly, absolutely no right to them. This is a crime and is a police matter.

Ownership of the items which fall to the estate, which many, may claim entitlement ( this excludes the thief obviously) and resulting in dispute of ownership, would be fought over in a civil court. Not a criminal court. Completely different and remains NOT a police matter.

You have missed the point! It might well end up in a civil court but that does not alter the position that theft is theft. It does not matter if the goods were worth £5 or £5,000 it is still theft. If for example a £800 phone was involved it would be reasonable to ask the police to prosecute albeit as a last resort. It was not clear from the original postr, and still is not exactly what the items were. As I said it really comes down to the value Unless the OP tells us what all the goods were we don't know what is the appropriate action. My initial impression was that the ex partner was claiming everything. .