Partner died intestate - family has taken money they’re not entitled to

Silvertabby

My sympathies.

If the family used this money to pay for the funeral (funeral expenses come before any beneficiaries), then there will be very little left. Certainly not enough to justify paying any legal fees.

Keep_pedalling

The bank have paid out to the person who is entitled to administering the estate, so they have done nothing wrong. The fact that the administrator has failed to distribute the funds as the law dictates is beyond their control.

This is probate fraud and failing any amicable resolution should become a police matter. Maybe the threat of this might make them see sense.

alexpem

All valid points regarding outstanding debts and funeral expenses etc, but I know the funeral was paid for separately.
His grandmother had given us a lump sum of money earlier in the year for our house purchase (which I pulled out of after his death) and for the pregnancy, but requested this money back after his death to pay for the funeral. His mother is also on benefits and was able to claim a fair amount of the funeral costs back from the government.
My partner only had a very small credit card debt (less than £500) which was taken from the remaining funds (the bank manager let this slip) so I know there is still a fair amount of the £7k left.
Despite all of this, even if it were just hundreds left, our daughter is still more entitled to it than his mother and brother.

His mother has already involved a solicitor regarding some other belongings of my partner which I have and she wanted back, this is how I know my daughter is entitled to inherit as I contacted two seperate solicitors regarding this. At the time the money wasn’t even brought into it so no correspondence between me and her solicitor mentions his money. I have emailed the solicitor today to make him aware of the situation. The solicitors I spoke to both advised me not to pay for a solicitor regarding the personal belongings as it was a clear cut case that my child inherits them and they family couldn’t do anything about it.

Sea_Shell

In hindsight you really should have kept Grandma's money.

If she wanted to be reimbursed from the estate, then that could've happened (from the money mum took) and you'd still have her gift.

I assume the money taken by mum was in his sole account, not a joint (with you), as otherwise the balance would have become yours automatically.

Anyway, what's done is done. His £7k should have been used to pay for the funeral and to settle the CC. (Edit, which I see it was, same bank?)

Malthusian

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

The bank have paid out to the person who is entitled to administering the estate, so they have done nothing wrong.

Blast. You are entirely right. They weren't married, the child isn't even a minor yet, that puts the deceased's mother first in line to apply for letters of administration. A complaint is still free but you have pointed out why it could easily fail, and fail at the Ombudsman as well.

This is probate fraud and failing any amicable resolution should become a police matter.

True. If the police don't say "civil matter, move along".

I hope that doesn't happen but I think this is going to end with the OP writing the money off, as she has already done with the grandmother's gift, which as per Sea Shell she should have kept. If it's any consolation, I doubt it will noticeably improve the mother's life one iota.

DUTR

unforeseen wrote: »

Pick a law site

https://www.google.com/search?q=intestacy+unborn+child&oq=intestacy+unborn+child&aqs=chrome..69i57.10457j0j7&client=ms-android-huawei&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

Your link quotes"Under intestacy law, where the deceased dies without a Will, a child must be living at time of death or already in utero in order to inherit from the deceased parent's estate. Posthumously conceived children may therefore be (albeit indirectly) excluded from the class eligible to inherit intestate."

Which is how I would imagine things run.

unholyangel

DUTR wrote: »

Your link quotes"Under intestacy law, where the deceased dies without a Will, a child must be living at time of death or already in utero in order to inherit from the deceased parent's estate. Posthumously conceived children may therefore be (albeit indirectly) excluded from the class eligible to inherit intestate."

Which is how I would imagine things run.

I think I see where the confusion lies (unless the confusion is now mine and you understand the previous post). Tbagpuss said being born posthumously (which is the "already in utero"). While the exclusion is conceived posthumously.

SevenOfNine

Mother on benefits & inherits £7k. If this stays unpleasant I'd make sure DWP had been advised of her change in financial circumstances.

lisyloo

Did the partner have any pension funds? Or death in service benefits with their employer?

Malthusian

unholyangel wrote: »

I think I see where the confusion lies (unless the confusion is now mine and you understand the previous post). Tbagpuss said being born posthumously (which is the "already in utero"). While the exclusion is conceived posthumously.

The mind boggles. Which definition of conception we are talking about? A trip down Wikipedia's rabbit holes suggests that UK law hasn't decided what it means by conception (albeit the reference is at least 13 years old).

4. Doctors normally date pregnancy from the first day of the woman's last menstrual period. This is not necessarily the day of conception (indeed it is unlikely to be so), and certainly not the day of implantation of the embryo in the uterus. It is generally assumed that when the [Abortion] Act states that "pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week" it means 24 weeks since the first day of the woman's last period. But this is not clear - particularly if there is evidence that conception had taken place on a day after this.

(Termination of Pregnancy; Handout 3: Outline of Legal Positions in England and Wales - The Ethox Centre)

Conception is conventionally measured from the last menstrual period, which is typically 14 days before the mix of the father and mother's genetic material formed a single unified being. If that is the definition being used then a zygote is fairly safe from being disinherited, as the father could go from petite mort to grand mort instantly and their union would be deemed as already being 14 days old at the time dad's wick got snuffed. Meaning there is no question of him/her being conceived posthumously.

If on the other hand conception is defined as implantation (6-12 days after ovulation), in that scenario baby is out of luck. Might be tricky for the alternative heir to go about proving that though.