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

[Deleted User]

One quick thought, although the OP has been told that her late partner's mum will keep the money, her child hasn't been born yet. So could the partner's family argue (if challenged legally) that they will distribute the estate correctly, set up a trust fund etc. once the baby has actually arrived? (As far as I know they aren't obliged to give the money to the baby's mum).

Sea_Shell

Rabbit24 wrote: »

One quick thought, although the OP has been told that her late partner's mum will keep the money, her child hasn't been born yet. So could the partner's family argue (if challenged legally) that they will distribute the estate correctly, set up a trust fund etc. once the baby has actually arrived? (As far as I know they aren't obliged to give the money to the baby's mum).

This is why I mentioned the "executor's year", as they haven't done anything wrong...yet!!

Maybe they are waiting for baby to arrive safely, they then know name etc. for setting up trust.

Malthusian

Rabbit24 wrote: »

One quick thought, although the OP has been told that her late partner's mum will keep the money, her child hasn't been born yet. So could the partner's family argue (if challenged legally) that they will distribute the estate correctly, set up a trust fund etc. once the baby has actually arrived? (As far as I know they aren't obliged to give the money to the baby's mum).

This is a big problem which occurred to me in the car yesterday. (And then I got sidetracked by a tangent about conception.)

If the OP goes to the police and accuses the mother of stealing the money, the mother has a simple defence: "I'm holding it in trust for the baby".

This is also her defence if the DWP come knocking - money you are holding as trustee for another doesn't affect your benefits.

The OP has no automatic right to be appointed as the trustee for her child's money. The administrator of the estate - the deceased's mother - is first in line for the job, although she is required to appoint at least one other trustee.

The OP could demand that the mother provides an accounting of the trust's money (which she won't be able to do if she's spent it) - but I am not certain she is entitled to one, and if the mother refuses we are back to going to court either way, in a case where the fees would almost certainly eat up all the money. The police or DWP could also demolish this defence by asking for the same thing, but whether they will be bothered is far from certain.

unholyangel

Malthusian wrote: »

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).

Well I was more referring to how its normally expressed in plain terms rather than officially. Officially it would be more:

2)References to a child or issue living at the death of any person include a child or issue enventre sa mere at the death.

I imagine that could pose a fair few strange scenarios where it would be debatable but luckily I think we can escape pondering it as:
1)OP seems to be about 12 weeks along at the time of him passing
2) Some of those scenarios wouldn't be suitable to discuss on this board imo and
3) thankfully its not our problem to solve, its for the courts

alexpem

Update:
I contacted the mothers solicitor (she had already got one involved owner personal belongings of my partners that I had and was keeping, she felt entitled to them, long story!), and have asked him for clarification on what has happened/is happening with my partners estate (bank account and car that his brother scrapped!). Waiting for a response...

@unholyangel I was 24 (maybe 23?) weeks pregnant when he passed away, I’m 34 weeks pregnant now. Not that it makes a difference, the two solicitors I have had advice from regarding baby’s position on inheriting stated that she was already conceived, partner had been to three scans with me (1 private, no problems with pregnancy) and she is definitely first in line to inherit.

I was thinking it all over last night and if they really want the money that bad that they’re happy to sacrifice a relationship with their granddaughter/niece, the closest living thing to their son/brother, then let them. It’s not worth the fight to me, I have her, it won’t bring him back, and I accept that now. I was just angry because his family didn’t have a good relationship with him, almost non existent, made his life hell since he was a child and he’s finally free of them, and I want the same for me and my daughter. He told me they were toxic throughout our entire relationship and the way they’ve acted since his death have proved it.

But thankyou all for your replies, advice and suggestions.

Skiddaw1

Good luck for the future alaxpem. I think you're quite right to draw a line. Nothing can take away the love you shared and he'll be with you and your little girl always.



As for his horrible family....they're sad, bitter, people and what goes around comes around....

Angie200963

alexpem wrote: »

Hi, thanks for your reply.
I have been into the bank and spoken to the manager and they believe they haven’t done anything wrong as the mother and brother went in with a death certificate, said they were next of kin and that was it. They wouldn’t give me any more information. I will make a formal complain tomorrow though, maybe they can help from there.

My partners entire family know about the baby, I’m due in 2 months. Everything has turned nasty and they are saying the baby will get nothing.

I cannot believe the bank has done this, when my dad died I went into the bank with the death certificate and they froze the account until I got a letter of administration from the court giving me the legal right to transfer his money into mums account. Is the bank trying to cover up their mistake with any old excuse.

AnotherJoe

Malthusian wrote: »

The mind boggles. Which definition of conception we are talking about?

The one where its done by implanting an egg or previously frozen embryo, possibly many years after death.

SevenOfNine

Angie200963 wrote: »

I cannot believe the bank has done this, when my dad died I went into the bank with the death certificate and they froze the account until I got a letter of administration from the court giving me the legal right to transfer his money into mums account. Is the bank trying to cover up their mistake with any old excuse.

They all have a financial 'limit' as to what they will hand out on sight of the death cert & ID, & it's more then you think. Lloyds is £50k & I think a lot of other banks are probably similar. Lloyds closed the a/c & gave us £14k without hesitation, & Santander handed over £18k just as easily, though we had to sign the disclaimer for both. Having the death cert is the key.

The only financial organisation that is difficult was Nationwide. Their 'rules' are different, though they also have an upper limit, above which they will not cough up without LoA or Probate. If they are made aware that there are funds/property/whatever that require probate anyway, they do NOT part with one single penny until probate or LoA is granted.

Hence they clung on to a measly £200 in a savings a/c. So next time I have to deal with them I'm going to say "no, nothing else left by the deceased requires probate or LoA"...…….even if it does!

Apologies for muddying the water of your thread OP, & my condolences on your loss. It might be better to close this chapter of the money though. Keep the toxic family out of your future & that of your child.

Flugelhorn

Good luck Alaxpem, all the best for the arrival of your little daughter, she is and will be very precious to all who know her.