Trusts

MortgageMeee

Sorry if this is in the wrong place.
My husband's great aunt died, leaving inheritance to his grandfather - it was around £50,000. His grandfather subsequently gave £10,000 to each of his two daughters. He gave £4,000 to his eldest grandchild as she was an adult. He then put £4,000 per grandchild into trusts and appointed their mothers (his daughters) as the trustees on the condition that the money would be paid out to each child when they turned 18. When my husband's cousins turned 18, they received their money. However, my husband and his sister never received theirs. He is now 24 and never knew that this trust existed (he was only around 6 when the trust was set up). Recently, in a family argument, his grandfather mentioned that he was ungrateful for never thanking him for the trust payout and squandering the money. When he stated that he knew nothing of the trust, his grandfather confronted his mother who stated that she spent it on a specific expensive item that my husband needed, and a similar expensive item that his sister needed. At that stage, my husband secured evidence that his father had paid for those items (produced the receipts, registration and cheque numbers). As that satisfied his grandfather sufficiently to withdraw his accusations that my husband was ungrateful and squandering the money, the argument was dropped and his grandfather is elderly and doesn't need the stress.
Is there anything that my husband can do about the money? Surely he should have some right to recover the money that his mother took? Surely trustees aren't entitled to just spend money against the terms of the trust? Unfortunately, he has no written proof that the trust ever existed and no evidence of its terms - his mother has all of this and there's no way that he can force her to turn it over. Does anyone know whether he can do anything here?

coyrls

He probably can do something but before he decides to do anything, I think he should consider the relationship, emotional and monetary costs of doing something.

MortgageMeee

coyrls said:

He probably can do something but before he decides to do anything, I think he should consider the relationship, emotional and monetary costs of doing something.

Thanks, his mother is a money-grabbing, pure evil b***h so there's no relationship there to consider. My husband and his sister haven't had any contact with her in years and, prior to cutting contact, were only putting up with her abuse so that they didn't upset their grandparents. Once their grandparents witnessed her behaviour first-hand and stopped believing his mother's lies, they no longer tried to force a relationship between them. My husband's grandfather would not want to be involved at all in any court action, and isn't well enough to be involved either. But, aside from that, there's no considerations for the relationship.

Malthusian

For £4,000 plus 18 years of growth it ain't worth it bruv. Even if he could prove it, the legal costs would swallow up the money.

And he can't prove it because you say there is no written evidence available, and the one person who could testify to a judge - the grandfather - understandably doesn't want to.

The grandfather can always amend his Will to redirect his estate from his children (the thieving parents) to his grandchild (your husband) to whatever degree he deems appropriate.

MortgageMeee

@Malthusian We could go no win no fee? Or Judge Rinder? Or recover costs from the other side? Honestly, at this stage, as petty as it sounds, I think we'd take her to court even if it cost us a bit just for the vindication and justice aspect.

2unlimited91

You can sometimes recover costs from the other side (if you win the case), though it often doesn't cover the full costs.

The bigger problem is that winning would, in the absence of documentary evidence, seem to require at least a written statement from the grandfather, or even his giving evidence in court. I suppose you could ask the grandfather if he has any documentary evidence about the trust which he could give you; though would even that be dragging him into the dispute more than you'd like to?

Also, does the mother have the ability to pay, if she lost in court?

Malthusian

MortgageMeee said:

@Malthusian We could go no win no fee?

If you don't have any evidence no lawyer would take it on NWNF. If you managed to find a no win no fee lawyer you would have to be very careful as to who would pay costs if you won but the parents didn't pay up.

Or Judge Rinder?

Judge Rinder is essentially a game show rather than an arbitration procedure because the awards are paid by the TV production company, not the loser.

So if your in-laws would be up for being humiliated on national television, that's not actually a bad idea.

Google tells me that the maximum prize - sorry, award - on Judge Rinder is £5,000, which is less than your husband's loss (given that the £4,000 should have grown to more than that since 2002 if prudently invested by the Trustees). But better than Bus Fare Home.

Or recover costs from the other side?

Without any evidence, in the absence of grandfather's testimony or any documentation of the gift, you'll be the one paying all the costs, including the parents'.

Honestly, at this stage, as petty as it sounds, I think we'd take her to court even if it cost us a bit just for the vindication and justice aspect.

I agree, it sounds petty considering your grandfather could let justice be served at trivial cost by changing his Will. (Assuming that he was planning to leave any money to his children.) If he can't be bothered then it was a bit of an anomaly that he gave £4,000 to your husband in the first place.

If your husband eventually inherits from his parents (I realise this is a big if) and it's more than the amount stolen, he will eventually get the money back.

bowlhead99

So the mother said that some thousands had been received and held in trust, but was then expended to get [specific expensive item] needed by the son who was the beneficiary of the trust.  The mother's son confirmed to his grandfather that he did indeed get [specific expensive item] but hadn't known it was funded by the trust (which he didn't know existed) and thereby indirectly funded by his grandfather, so hadn't thanked the grandfather, though now he has and they are ok with each other.

The son knows he received [specific item which he needed] and assumed his dad just bought it him out of the goodness of his heart with dad's money, while mum says it was bought with the trust proceeds. As a step one, if dad is still in the picture, son could ask dad whether dad agrees that it was bought with the trust money - or whether dad thinks that mum ran off with the trust money forcing dad to use his own savings to pay for the [specific expensive item(s)] that son and sister had needed. 

Son presumably wouldn't want to go back in time and give up [specific expensive item that son needed] in exchange for some cash now, even if such thing was possible, because it was something he wanted and needed and couldn't have afforded himself. Perhaps mum and dad would not have wanted to pay the [x] for the item that son needed if they had not thought the trust money was available to do that. Mum is 'in the wrong' for using the trust money to buy item for son and not telling the son she had done that, if grandfather's wishes were for son to receive it in cash. But it seems that son got the cake and ate it, and would now like to eat it again; you can't both have your cake and eat it.

If mum broke the responsibilities of being a trustee, and it is felt that she has 'run off with the money', you could get a solicitor involved, if you have some facts and evidence.  Bottom line is that only grandfather and mum would have any documentation trail of the trust's existence and grandfather will not support an expensive solicitor in a legal case against mum after son and mum already 'proved' that his money got used on something sensible.  If son wanted, he could spend his own few thousand pound on engaging a solicitor to chase mum for the money from a trust that son can't prove exists. As we are not talking millions and son already proved that his parents spent [large amount of money] on [expensive specific item] it seems like he would be on a hiding to nothing, by trying to take it to court etc - over the twelve years the £4000 may have grown to an amount exceeding the small claims court limit, and even if not, it's hard to win a he said she said without evidence.

2unlimited91 said:

You can sometimes recover costs from the other side (if you win the case), though it often doesn't cover the full costs.

The bigger problem is that winning would, in the absence of documentary evidence, seem to require at least a written statement from the grandfather, or even his giving evidence in court. I suppose you could ask the grandfather if he has any documentary evidence about the trust which he could give you; though would even that be dragging him into the dispute more than you'd like to?

If the grandfather has had a family argument settled by accepting that the parents used the trust money to buy [x specific expensive item] for son supported by receipts and registration documents and is satisfied that money has not been squandered at all, you would seem to have a hard time getting that elderly man, who doesn't want the stress, to now assist in a court case which says mum should now give more cash to son because in fact the son never benefited from the trust and the money is still in mum's pocket.

MortgageMeee

@bowlhead99 Hi, that's not accurate. She claimed that she spent the money on an item but did not. She did not purchase that item and the item was purchased prior to the death of the relative. I don't know what she did with the money, all I know is that it was withdrawn from the trust against the terms of the trust and was not spent on what she said she spent it on. He still has the item and it has actually increased in value - but it was purchased by his father, not his mother and bought before the relative died.

eskbanker

Is your husband still on speaking terms with his aunt?  She'd presumably have info about who set up the trusts and where the funds were deposited, which might support subject access requests by your husband to the organisations concerned, that could uncover enough evidence to take to small claims?

MortgageMeee

@eskbanker That's a good idea - I hadn't thought of that. He gets on very well with his aunt as his mother and his aunt do not get along.