'Mr A Jones RE Master B Jones'

james312235

When I was 13 years old my uncle put £1000 into a savings account for me (specifically a 5 year Guaranteed Capital Investment Bond). The account was in the name of 'Mr A Jones RE Master B Jones'. Mr A Jones was my uncle and Master B Jones was me. As I understand it, my uncle was a signatory on my account - because I was a child.

Two years later, when I was 15 years old, my uncle died. The savings account was included as part of his estate, which in turn was divided equally amongst the residuary beneficiaries.

As I was one of the residuary beneficiaries I kept the savings account and my dad became the signatory on the account. However, the value of the savings account was deducted against what I was paid when the estate was divided up.


I realise this is a very specific area, but was it right to include the savings account as part of my uncle's estate? If not, would the law firm responsible for the estate administration be liable?

AnotherJoe

I would say no and yes, in that order. But, IANAL.

Xbigman

The wording of the will is the important bit. This would appear to be money set aside specifically for you so should not have been counted against your share of any residual amount you received. It would have formed part of the estate as it wasn't in your sole name. You need to see the will and query the disbursements with the executors.



Darren

londoninvestor

You might also need to look at the terms of the investment account. It would turn on whether "Mr A Jones RE Master B Jones" means that A is a trustee holding the investment on bare trust for B's benefit (in which case it was wrongly dealt with when administering the estate), or whether it was just a convenient way to 'tag' the account, while leaving A as the beneficial owner (in which case the estate administrators did the right thing).

IANAL either though!

james312235

Thanks both.

My Uncle’s will was made 2 years before he made the savings account (and 4 years before his death). Therefore I can assume that it would make no reference to the savings account. I should perhaps pay the £10 admin fee to the government to get a copy.

Darren, I do not understand why the savings account should appear in his estate. He was simply the signatory - surely the point of having a signatory is to manage the best financial interest of the account holder (in this case a child).

ValiantSon

james312235 wrote: »

Thanks both.

My Uncle’s will was made 2 years before he made the savings account (and 4 years before his death). Therefore I can assume that it would make no reference to the savings account. I should perhaps pay the £10 admin fee to the government to get a copy.

Darren, I do not understand why the savings account should appear in his estate. He was simply the signatory - surely the point of having a signatory is to manage the best financial interest of the account holder (in this case a child).

If the account was held in bare trust, with your uncle as the trustee, then the account would not form part of his estate, as it was not his money, but yours. I'd suggest that the first thing to do is to clarify the exact nature of the account.

james312235

Thanks that’s very helpful.

Would the law firm have insurance to cover them?

steampowered

You would only have been entitled to that money before receipt of your 'share' in two circumstances:

1) If the account was held in trust, OR
2) If your uncle's will provided for you to receive that savings account as a specific bequest, before 'shares' were considered.

We would need to know a bit more about the account to know whet her condition 1) is satisfied.

The fact that your uncle opened this account 'for you' is not enough by itself to make a trust account.

The key question is whether your uncle would have been free legally to change his mind, take the funds out and pay the £1,000 to someone else?

On balance, unless you have documentation clearly showing that the account was written in trust, it sounds like the account was estate property I'm afraid. The account name suggests that the account holder was Mr A Jones - i.e. your uncle, not you.

The law firm would indeed have insurance, but you'd have to prove they were negligent to claim against it ... and nothing you have said so far would indicate that the law firm were incorrect or negligent.

james312235

Thanks for your informative response.

In answer to you question, I have been told by the bank that any attempt to withdraw the money would have required a letter from my uncle outlining why the withdrawal would have been in my interest. Do you think that would satisfy?

steampowered

james312235 wrote: »

Thanks for your informative response.

In answer to you question, I have been told by the bank that any attempt to withdraw the money would have required a letter from my uncle outlining why the withdrawal would have been in my interest. Do you think that would satisfy?

That information does indeed suggest that the account might have been set up in trust.

But I think you'd need to look a bit further at the bank account documentation to be sure, i.e. the bank account T&Cs - hopefully that would clarify the nature of the account.

Either way, I'm not sure the solicitor's insurance would cover it, unless you could prove that the solicitor had been negligent. If the solicitor was not made aware of the documentation I'm not sure they would have been negligent. There is a limit to the amount of time you could expect a solicitor to spend looking into bank T&Cs for £1,000.

james312235

Will investigate the T&Cs further.

In terms of liability, the solicitors served as both administrators and executors. If their insurance won’t cover it, then they would either have to cover it themselves or ask the other beneficiaries to repay x