Executors discover evidence of negligent activity of deceased. What to do ?

Fly_Guy

theoretica wrote: »

While of course she is now personally immune from prosecution and punishment it would also be cruel if someone entitled to compensation or a refund were denied it from the estate.

Yes indeed. And given this risk [there are potentially dozens of estates that may have a plausible claim against her increasingly obvious negligence] and the modest residual value that the estate may hold [if the house even belongs to her] it does appear that the only safe way for ourselves to proceed is indeed to walk away.

We have registered the death (but not triggered the ‘Tell us Once’ service) and will pay for a direct cremation and move on.

Fly_Guy

Sea_Shell wrote: »

I can't offer any advise, but it sounds like a very complicated situation.

I would wonder if she was holding any client money, or supposed to be, (if acting as Executor) and this would be due to the beneficiaries.

Yes, extremely complex. And while the initial grief and horror at the method of her passing is now fading, the emotion that now comes to the fore is increasingly of disbelief and even anger that she spent so may years dealing with people who put their trust in her and whom it appears she let down.

Not to mention the mess she dropped on her own relatives.....

Owain_Moneysaver

The most charitable interpretation is that she wasn't well.

konark

Several contributors have wisely advised seeking professional advice. The problem is that with a mountain of clutter, lots of debts, few liquid assets and a house that might not even be legally hers you may struggle to find a solicitor to take this on, as at the end of the day they aren't sure they will be anything in the estate to pay their bill..

Yorkshireman99

Fly_Guy wrote: »

Yes indeed. And given this risk [there are potentially dozens of estates that may have a plausible claim against her increasingly obvious negligence] and the modest residual value that the estate may hold [if the house even belongs to her] it does appear that the only safe way for ourselves to proceed is indeed to walk away.

We have registered the death (but not triggered the ‘Tell us Once’ service) and will pay for a direct cremation and move on.

It would be helpful to use the tell us once service and any banks you know of. It might speed up,the clearing of the mess for others without any downside to you.

Fly_Guy

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

It would be helpful to use the tell us once service and any banks you know of. It might speed up,the clearing of the mess for others without any downside to you.

I agree that not informing people will make things worse in the long term. And my gut instinct is to inform, shut things down and hopefully minimise future trouble for whoever does eventually have to deal with things.

However the legal advice we have had suggests that to do so could be construed as intermeddling.

Yorkshireman99

Fly_Guy wrote: »

I agree that not informing people will make things worse in the long term. And my gut instinct is to inform, shut things down and hopefully minimise future trouble for whoever does eventually have to deal with things.

However the legal advice we have had suggests that to do so could be construed as intermeddling.

Noted and thanks. Most surprising advice but if that is what you have been told then you should follow it.

getmore4less

Fly_Guy wrote: »

I agree that not informing people will make things worse in the long term. And my gut instinct is to inform, shut things down and hopefully minimise future trouble for whoever does eventually have to deal with things.

However the legal advice we have had suggests that to do so could be construed as intermeddling.

If that is what your legal advisers are telling you take that advice lock up, funeral and move on.
(you can get the door fixed)

getmore4less

I Have looked at this quite a lot and have drawn my own conclusions on what I think I could do in these circumstances everyone has to make up their own minds.

In my view the cut off point is different if you are a named executor.

The gazette has this to say with reference to executors.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/wills-and-probate/content/100321

It is only possible to renounce if you have not intermeddled in the deceased’s estate. Intermeddling is carrying out the sort of tasks that an executor may do, such as letting a bank know of the death.

A named executor that wants to renounce should do nothing, even consider not organizing the funeral if there is someone else that can do that.

A potential administrator can do notifications, anyone can do those it is a neutral act).
If unsure they can just get someone unconnected to the estate to do them.

It would be crazy if you told someone that someone else had died you would be considered to have intermeddled in that estate.

Yorkshireman99

getmore4less wrote: »

I Have looked at this quite a lot and have drawn my own conclusions on what I think I could do in these circumstances everyone has to make up their own minds.

In my view the cut off point is different if you are a named executor.

The gazette has this to say with reference to executors.
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/wills-and-probate/content/100321



A named executor that wants to renounce should do nothing, even consider not organizing the funeral if there is someone else that can do that.

A potential administrator can do notifications, anyone can do those it is a neutral act).
If unsure they can just get someone unconnected to the estate to do them.

It would be crazy if you told someone that someone else had died you would be considered to have intermeddled in that estate.

I find it bizarre that using the tell us once service should be considered inter meddling. Likewise notifying banks of a death. Do you know of any case law on this? TIA