'Mr A Jones RE Master B Jones'

james312235

-DEVELOPMENT-

Could it be that The Rule Against Double Portions has been applied by the solicitors? Does anyone have any deep knowledge of this principle? I had initially thought that unless the deceased was a parent or in loco parentis to the beneficiary, the rule of portions would not apply.

james312235

-DEVELOPMENT-

I have spoken to the solicitors. They are going to call their papers out of the archives. They said they suspect I might be right but will need to check T&Cs of the savings account. I've also paid the £10 fee to get a copy of the will from the government so that I can check that. So now it's a waiting game...

james312235

Any thoughts on double portions?

Wildsound

Interesting thread. Whilst deviating a little from the forum sub type and no good in this particular situation now, my point might be a nice pointer for people in the future when it comes to making your Will:

1) Always keep it updated
2) If it's a complicated estate, get a specialist to do it (you can likely afford it, and it's not over the top anyways)
3) NEVER have a solicitor as an executor - in most cases, this is just giving them a blank cheque to do what they want, at their own speed, charging time for it and are extremely hard to remove. Any appointed executors could potentially use a solicitor if they wish it necessary, but they hold that power, and can choose who they want to appoint to help if they wish (i.e. shop around).

Malthusian

james312235 wrote: »

Any thoughts on double portions?

I agree with your initial thought that it's irrelevant as the legacy was from your uncle, not your parent. Has the solicitor attempted to claim otherwise?

Reaper

james312235 wrote: »

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?

Just to muddy the waters even more... lots has been made of this to prove it was a trust. However if it was a verbal statement from a member of bank staff I would not put much faith in it. In my experience bank staff have little understanding of the working of designated accounts vs bare trust.

As the solicitors are now examining the account T&C hopefully all will soon become clear.

james312235

Update

I now have in writing a letter from the bank confirming that 'The signatory of the account was Mr A Jones and Master B Jones was the interest beneficiary'.

Do you think this is sufficient to satisfy that the account was held in bare trust?

Malthusian

james312235 wrote: »

I now have in writing a letter from the bank confirming that 'The signatory of the account was Mr A Jones and Master B Jones was the interest beneficiary'.

Do you think this is sufficient to satisfy that the account was held in bare trust?

I'd say it's beyond any reasonable doubt now, yes.

SmashedAvacado

james312235 wrote: »

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

If the law firm is liable this will be covered by the law firm because this level of claim will be nowhere near their insurance excess. If you allege that they have been negligent they will need to tell their insurers. They are unlikely to use words like "sorry" because that implies fault.

james312235

So potentially the amount that I could negotiate as a settlement from the solicitors is significantly higher than the £1000. First, there's any interest due (inflation rate or something else?). Second, they are likely to have charged too much in fees (as the estate was overvalued). Third, there's the emotional damage of going back through all this.