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

Fly_Guy

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.

Yes, I agree. It seems very odd. I think the worry and reason for extra caution (which has now been upgrade to not even arranging a funeral) is that there MAY be a will in there somewhere that names us as executors.

Even if this isn't the case, as a potential beneficiary of the intestate situation, it may be difficult to renounce the administrator role if no other administrator can be nominated in our place. Apparently the Public Trustee is unlikely to step in if a beneficiary competent to perform the task is extant - no matter how unwilling and even if willing to renounce their claim.

As such even the merest hint of intermeddling at any level could weaken our legal position.

getmore4less

Has your legal advice said be careful about the funeral?

Fly_Guy

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

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

The Tell Us Once form requires the applicant to provide the name, address and contact details of the Executor/Administrator who will be dealing with the estate.

We haven't tried, but I suspect that this field cannot simply be left blank, 'unknown' or 'to be decided'.

And yes, our current advice is not to proceed with any funeral arrangements.

konark

If you organise the funeral you would be liable for its cost ( reimbursed from estate if solvent) but it isn't intermeddling.


As for using the tell us once service, that definitely isn't.



Certain acts are not regarded as intermeddling, such as arranging a funeral, securing goods or moving assets to a place of safety. By preserving the estate assets you are not considered to be assuming the role of executor. It doesn't matter if you are named as executor in the will or not, and in your case there is no will.




You've really got to start taking assets out of the estate and making distributions to debtors and beneficiaries to cross the line.

getmore4less

konark wrote: »

If you organise the funeral you would be liable for its cost ( reimbursed from estate if solvent) but it isn't intermeddling.

As for using the tell us once service, that definitely isn't.

Certain acts are not regarded as intermeddling, such as arranging a funeral, securing goods or moving assets to a place of safety. By preserving the estate assets you are not considered to be assuming the role of executor. It doesn't matter if you are named as executor in the will or not, and in your case there is no will.

You've really got to start taking assets out of the estate and making distributions to debtors and beneficiaries to cross the line.

I have modified my view that when you are a named executor the funeral is probably OK as will securing property but notification is a task an executor would be expected to do so best avoided(or let someone that is definitely unlikely to be an executor).

Plenty of legal sources including the gazette mentioned earlier say don't do notifications.

getmore4less

One thing the OP needs to be aware of and be prepared for with a stock answer, hopefully their solicitor has advised something suitable.

The person that registered the death is highly likely to get contacted by various institutions, some can be persistent and some have been known to lie about responsibilities.

Yorkshireman99

getmore4less wrote: »

I have modified my view that when you are a named executor the funeral is probably OK as will securing property but notification is a task an executor would be expected to do so best avoided(or let someone that is definitely unlikely to be an executor).

Plenty of legal sources including the gazette mentioned earlier say don't do notifications.

Care to cite some? Just saying there are plenty is not sufficient. Anyone could say that. I have had conflicting advice on this. It would be nice to get an authoritive source such as case law, where someone been found to have intermeddled just by using the tell us once service.

getmore4less

Use google and pick up any law firms advice that they have posted on their web sites then make your own mind up what you think

Start with the gazette as already posted.
here is another to get you started.
https://www.macfarlanes.com/media/1653/an-introduction-to-being-an-executor.pdf

The repercussions of intermeddling are IMO overplayed, citations that end up with a intermeddler acting are probably extremely rare.

I suspect that where intermeddling has happened there is usually someone to pick up the estate and they just get on with the job, don't bother with trying to force someone that may have intermeddled to do the job.

example: someone dies no known relatives neighbour tries to be helpful and does thing they don't realise is intermeddling, it gets passed to the BV they just take over and/or a relative turns up and picks up the job where the neighbour left off.

You would need a named executor to do something then refuse to act then have no one to just take over then have someone issue a citation, chances.

Just to clarify my view,

It is only named executors that have to be careful as their powers come from the will at date of death so any actions that would be normal for an executor/administrator should be avoided that includes notifications.

Yorkshireman99

getmore4less wrote: »

Use google and pick up any law firms advice that they have posted on their web sites then make your own mind up what you think

Start with the gazette as already posted.
here is another to get you started.
https://www.macfarlanes.com/media/1653/an-introduction-to-being-an-executor.pdf

The repercussions of intermeddling are IMO overplayed, citations that end up with a intermeddler acting are probably extremely rare.

I suspect that where intermeddling has happened there is usually someone to pick up the estate and they just get on with the job, don't bother with trying to force someone that may have intermeddled to do the job.

example: someone dies no known relatives neighbour tries to be helpful and does thing they don't realise is intermeddling, it gets passed to the BV they just take over and/or a relative turns up and picks up the job where the neighbour left off.

You would need a named executor to do something then refuse to act then have no one to just take over then have someone issue a citation, chances.

Just to clarify my view,

It is only named executors that have to be careful as their powers come from the will at date of death so any actions that would be normal for an executor/administrator should be avoided that includes notifications.

Noted and thanks. However that link is no more than an opinion with nothing to back it up. I agree that the risk of I termeddling is often overplayed and solicitors tend to be very cautious. Neither notifying a bank or using the tell us once is going to have any detrimental effect on the estate hence even if it was technically IM proving this in court would be well nigh impossible. As far as I can see the only risk with organising the funeral is that you might be liable for the costs. Are local authorities sho arrange public health funerals guilty of intermeddling? Of course not!

Fly_Guy

Quick update....

Following further legal advice and having now appointed a solicitor, we have been given the go ahead to organise a funeral. But NOT to activate Tell Us Once.

This is because we (the solicitor) need to establish whether the estate is solvent - ie whether auntie owned the house.

If insolvent we pass it all off to an insolvency expert and walk away.

If solvent we CANNOT walk away and will be obliged to assume administrator roles. Even if we renounce then the inheritance passes to our children and they are not yet old enough to renounce, so it would fall on them to administer (!). As such we are obliged to sort out the estate.

This is a bit of a blow and will mean many months of work on our part. However we will at least be protected from much of the legal work and potential personal liability by the solicitor whose fees will be covered by the estate and not ourselves. Our travel, hotel etc costs will also be covered so we shouldn't be too much out of pocket (other than a large amount of our time).

Its a pretty rubbish situation all round, but at least we now see a way forward.