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

Yorkshireman99

Flugelhorn wrote: »

I think that is right - can anyone actually be forced to administer and estate?

Only if they have intermeddled. On balance I think the OP has made the right choice.

silvercar

Fly_Guy wrote: »

This is unclear. She worked in close association with (but apparently independently of) a firm of solicitors for many years dealing with estates. She stepped back from this in the 1980's to nurse an elderly aunt [precise relationship unknown] who [probably] owned the house. When the aunt died she just stayed put, but continued to help people to sort out their affairs. Apparently all pro bono.

Given that she was 85, and given the chaotic nature of her house contents I would be very surprised if she maintained any professional insurance for all these years....

Its all a bit of a nightmare.

Most likely is that she inherited the house from the elderly aunt in the 1980s, or whenever elderly aunt died. If anyone else had any claim on the house they would have come forward at some point.

Somewhere amongst the paperwork there will hopefully be the house deeds and a will of the elderly aunt. I suppose the risk is that you find the house deeds but no will. Then you have to look at the family tree to see if there is anyone else of equal descendant of the elderly aunt who should have a share in the house!

getmore4less

Fly_Guy wrote: »

With all due respect - I think we will take the advice of an experienced professional we have engaged to work in our interests over anonymous internet forum members - no matter how well meaning.

As I mentioned in Post 51, we are currently seeking to establish who has ownership of the house and therefore determine whether the estate is solvent. If this is NOT the case then it gets handed off and our further involvement is minimal but we pay for the advice we have had so far from our own pocket.

If it IS solvent then we know the bills will get paid... but it will still be a pile of work that we cannot avoid.

You have to go with your paid legal that's what everyone should do, you use your own extra research to enhance your understanding of what you are getting told by being able to ask questions.

I really don't get why you have 3rd party iability for the property if you had done nothing.

Fly_Guy

getmore4less wrote: »

I really don't get why you have 3rd party iability for the property if you had done nothing.

Because we can’t do nothing. And because it’s a semi in poor repair full of old paper and electric heaters that’s connected to a house in which live 4 young children. Four kids who do not deserve to live next to a decaying ruin simply because I don’t want to take responsibility.

konark

Fly_Guy wrote: »

With all due respect - I think we will take the advice of an experienced professional we have engaged to work in our interests over anonymous internet forum members - no matter how well meaning.

.

So why did you post on an internet forum?

getmore4less

I forgot to add the feedback from people taking legal advise is useful to us random strangers to add to our knowledge along with other research.

I understand why you may want to this?

I don't see anywhere any legal basis that says you have to.

Yorkshireman99

Fly_Guy wrote: »

Because we can’t do nothing. And because it’s a semi in poor repair full of old paper and electric heaters that’s connected to a house in which live 4 young children. Four kids who do not deserve to live next to a decaying ruin simply because I don’t want to take responsibility.

I take my hat off to you for your approach to this. People on here do try to give valid advice but of course it is no substitute for professional advice. The difficulty is that there are pitfalls such as intermeddling that decent well meaning people acting instinctively can have their pockets hit. The other thing is that the unwary can be pressured into paying for funerals when they don’t have any liability to do so. Please update us on progress as we can all learn.

Sea_Shell

Taking responsibility is fine, as long as you do it in the full knowledge of what this responsibility entails, and what you then become responsible (liable) for.

Once you are so far down this path....there is no turning back, you are in for the long haul. I think that's what people are trying to tell you.

As others have said, establishing the status of the estate is paramount (Solvent or Insolvent) before anyone does (or can do) anything.

Even if on the face of it the Estate IS solvent (eg includes the house)....is it solvent enough to cover any liabilities which may come to light over the "business" she was running.

macman

Am I the only one who finds it ironic (or unlikely) that a 'professional executor' would die intestate?

getmore4less

Sea_Shell wrote: »

Taking responsibility is fine, as long as you do it in the full knowledge of what this responsibility entails, and what you then become responsible (liable) for.

Once you are so far down this path....there is no turning back, you are in for the long haul. I think that's what people are trying to tell you.

As others have said, establishing the status of the estate is paramount (Solvent or Insolvent) before anyone does (or can do) anything.

Even if on the face of it the Estate IS solvent (eg includes the house)....is it solvent enough to cover any liabilities which may come to light over the "business" she was running.

It is important to understand that is not relevant to the solicitors or any professional dealing with the estate, nor are any know debts.

All they want to see is the amount of assets after secured debt and the funeral, because they get first dibs on those they do not need to worry about the other creditors

Solicitor will happily keep on working while those assets will pay the bill, as soon as they run out the OP will be on their own or faced with the rest of the bill if they keep them engaged.