Recently found shares. Who should claim them?

Manxman_in_exile

I was under the impression that these search companies generally know what they are doing.  (That's if I understand correctly what one is.)  If they think that the son of the first marriage rather than the second wife should inherit, maybe they know more than everyone else does - or maybe they don't know that the husband married again - have they been told?

And why did the search company ask for the son's death certificate in the first place?  Had they been told by someone that he was dead?

Just struck me - is everybody sure that the "husband and wife" were actually married!

xylophone

Just struck me - is everybody sure that the "husband and wife" were actually married!

OP states that they had been married - I would be surprised if the marriage certificate had not been found among the widow's papers.

The OP could check here if not

https://www.freebmd.org.uk/

They might also find details of year of birth of the stepson.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60630/ might be worth a try for a death cert.

Shelldean

Manxman_in_exile said:

I was under the impression that these search companies generally know what they are doing.  (That's if I understand correctly what one is.)  If they think that the son of the first marriage rather than the second wife should inherit, maybe they know more than everyone else does - or maybe they don't know that the husband married again - have they been told?

And why did the search company ask for the son's death certificate in the first place?  Had they been told by someone that he was dead?

Just struck me - is everybody sure that the "husband and wife" were actually married!

xylophone said:

Just struck me - is everybody sure that the "husband and wife" were actually married!

OP states that they had been married - I would be surprised if the marriage certificate had not been found among the widow's papers.

The OP could check here if not

https://www.freebmd.org.uk/

They might also find details of year of birth of the stepson.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/60630/ might be worth a try for a death cert.

Manxman
Yes I'd like to think the search company know what they're doing. But their response goes against everything I've ever been told about intestacy. But I do acknowledge my lack of expertise.
They asked for the sons death certificate when they received the first response from the executor, enclosing  the deceased share holder's death certificate, as it showed him as informant!
Yes we are positive they were married, the executor of the wife, her grandson, attended the wedding. I also have copy of the certificate as I have an interest in genealogy. 
Yes they are aware, the shareholder had remarried, it was explained twice that the executor believed the chain should be, shareholder to wife, wife to grandchildren (as her only child predeceased her) one of  the wife's grandchild, is the executor of her estate.

Xylophone.
Definitely married see my response to Manxman.
Yes I probably could find the stepson birth details, as amongst the widows papers was the shareholders first wife's death certificate too. Wouldn't be difficult to get her and the shareholders marriage details and therefore the children of that marriage. His death certificate IF  he is dead! Would be slightly more difficult but not impossible.
However, in my research I generally stick to blood lines and this being a previous marriage I didn't research into it.
Plus I'm not doing the work of the search company for them!!! Especially as I am of the belief the shares should be transferred to the shareholders wife, as they would've been had we known about them, when the shareholder died! And then to her beneficiaries upon her death.
The fact the wife has died before the shares were found has made the share company believe the shares should go to children of the first marriage!
Something I don't agree is correct!

But as the executor can not get them ( the search company ) to see this, he's told them to not to bother him again!

Manxman_in_exile

Shelldean said:

But as the executor can not get them ( the search company ) to see this, he's told them to not to bother him again!

Hmmm...

You said in the first post that the executor had "filled in some forms" and returned them to the search company.  The executor hasn't agreed to any terms with the search company have they?  It's just that I'm thinking the search company are obviously in this to get something out of it, and that if the executor has agreed to use their services and then pulls out of the agreement, the search company might try to reclaim their expenses - or whatever.  Did the executor agree to anything?

And are you sure the search company fully understands the point that is being made and that it's not some sort of mis-communication or mis-apprehension on their part (or the executor's part)?  Has anybody actually asked a living person at the search company why on earth they need to see the death certificate of the person who was the informant of their father's death?  Do they want to see it because he's the informant or because he's the son?  Would it have made any difference if someone unrelated had been the informant?  Would they have wanted to see their death certificate or still the son's?

"They asked for the sons death certificate when they received the first response from the executor, enclosing  the deceased share holder's death certificate, as it showed him as informant!"  That doesn't make any sense.  It seems obvious to me that there must be some misunderstanding.

If the executor doesn't want any more hassle - fair enough.  But I'd want to check the significance of the forms I returned to the search company, and without knowing the value of the shares, it seems a bit of a risk.  (Obviously the search company thinks it is worth it).

Shelldean

Manxman_in_exile said:

Shelldean said:

But as the executor can not get them ( the search company ) to see this, he's told them to not to bother him again!

Hmmm...

You said in the first post that the executor had "filled in some forms" and returned them to the search company.  The executor hasn't agreed to any terms with the search company have they?  It's just that I'm thinking the search company are obviously in this to get something out of it, and that if the executor has agreed to use their services and then pulls out of the agreement, the search company might try to reclaim their expenses - or whatever.  Did the executor agree to anything?

He just filled in the forms to authorise the shares being moved. To my recollection! However I will dig out the forms as they've been sent back to him again!

And are you sure the search company fully understands the point that is being made and that it's not some sort of mis-communication or mis-apprehension on their part (or the executor's part)?  Has anybody actually asked a living person at the search company why on earth they need to see the death certificate of the person who was the informant of their father's death?  Do they want to see it because he's the informant or because he's the son?  Would it have made any difference if someone unrelated had been the informant?  Would they have wanted to see their death certificate or still the son's?

Postive They understand the point being made. It's been made very clear. Haven't spoken to any living person as the executor doesn't have time to make calls during his working day. Everything has been dealt by email and post! I did question what if it had been a stranger who had registered the death, for example matron of a home but can't recall if that comment was made in writing or just discussion about it

"They asked for the sons death certificate when they received the first response from the executor, enclosing  the deceased share holder's death certificate, as it showed him as informant!"  That doesn't make any sense.  It seems obvious to me that there must be some misunderstanding.
Nope no misunderstanding, they stated in last letter the son was next of kin! Will get the letters and post exactly what they replied

If the executor doesn't want any more hassle - fair enough.  But I'd want to check the significance of the forms I returned to the search company, and without knowing the value of the shares, it seems a bit of a risk.  (Obviously the search company thinks it is worth it).

The executor would like the matter resolved, but feels he's banging his head against as brick wall. The search company is fixated on the son of the deceased shareholder. Totally ignoring executor comments about the rules of intestacy!

Manxman thanks for your thoughts!I've replied in bold. I will dig the forms and letters out and post what exactly the search company has said.

Shelldean

Manxman 
Ok so this is what happened! 
This is rather long, but hopefully I've covered everything.

1.The company wrote to the executor, asking if they knew of the deceased shareholder. If he did he was to make contact with the company.

2.this he did via email, quoting a reference. No details were given.

3.They replied via email asking for a scan or clear photo of the shareholders death certificate!
This was then emailed to them!

4.I don't have to hand the first letter rec'd but I have executors reply.
The first letter also included the claim form and small estates form.
Executor replied saying thanks for the letter requesting the death certificates of the shareholders wife and son. Executor goes on to say I enclose wife's death certificate and also her grant of probate.
Hee asks why they require son's death certificate? And explain everything passed from shareholder to wife by survivorship.
Had these shares been known about in 2004  (shareholders death) they would've been passed to wife, and on her death to himself the executor of her estate.Bite unfortunately not known about.

5.They sent all the forms and certificates back and obviously asked for same certificate again.

6.Executor replied saying there appears to be some confusion as son registers his father's death.
Explains again that ALL of shareholders estate passed to wife. Son received nothing due to intestacy laws. Explains letters of administration were not needed due to small size of the estate. No executor and EVERYTHING passed to wife but survivorship.
He goes on to explain this was a second marriage, and both had adult children. Therefore son who registered the death is not the wife's, he is shareholders son from first marriage. And therefore is not entitled to anything from her estate when wife passed.
Therefore if correct path had been followed, wife would've transferred the shares into her name in 2004, and then executor would've dealt with them when he dealt with his grandmother estate.
He also explains son's ONLY role was registering his father death as an air to the wife as she was 92, frail and partially sighted.


7.The final response...
As the shares are held in deceased name we are required to confirm that his closest next of kin have signed and completed the relevant forms. As son is showing as son on death certificate informant please provide a copy of his death certificate.


8.That's when the executor told them not to bother him again

Again apologises for the length of this essay!

Savvy_Sue

Is it worth paying for a solicitor to write them a single letter pointing out the above? I mean, it's very clear to me that you're right and they're wrong, but sometimes it needs a professional to point that out before people will listen. (And IANAL ... so maybe - maybe! - a solicitor could tell you if you ARE wrong!)

Manxman_in_exile

OK - just one point to clarify because I think I've misunderstood something.  In an earlier post you referred to "the search company" which (I think mistakenly now!) I took to mean one of those heir hunter companies.  It's not is it - it's actually the company the husband held the shares in?  (If so it's my error as I should have clarified it earlier.  Don't think it matters anyway except the executor doesn't need to worry about inadvertantly signing up to some finder's fee).

I agree with Savvy_Sue: it's quite clear what has happened and the executor seems to have communicated that quite clearly to the company.  Not sure why they don't understand (or can't give the executor a better explanation of why they need to see it).  I don't suppose a solicitor has been used by the executor and they could ask them?

The only two possibilities I can think of are (1) the executor has had the misfortune of corresponding with somebody at the company who doesn't know what they are doing (eg there is no legal concept of "next of kin), or (2) there is some "unusual" characteristic attached to the shares that mean if they'd been known about when the husband died, they would not have gone to the wife - but I can't* imagine what that would be.  My money would be on the person at the company not understanding what they are doing.  I think if I were the executor I'd try again if only to satisfy my own curiosity.  [EDIT:  It seems they want to see his death certificate because he was identified as "the son" so they obviously think that now the wife is dead he's still the next of kin.  But if he's subsequently died wouldn't they want to know if he'd had any children or who benefited under his estate?  It makes no sense - to me, at least].

*I suppose the husband might have been the legal owner of the shares but not the beneficial owner and there were strings attached to them.  (I only say that because I was once involved in such shenanigans in a low-tax area!  I think it highly unlikely in the UK in this day and age...)

EDIT:  I don't suppose the shares are in something like a family company are they?  Maybe there are ownership restrictions on their transfer after death of the shareholder?

xylophone

He also explains son's ONLY role was registering his father death as an air to the wife 

A cool breeze?   

It seems to me that  as  the shares in question were (apparently) owned by the deceased shareholder  and were therefore an asset of  his estate, it  would have fallen  to the administrator of  that estate to deal with them.

The person with the primary right to administer the (intestate) deceased's estate was his widow - it seemed at the time that because the bulk of his money and possessions were in joint accounts, and the remaining assets were valued at under £10,000, there would be no point in seeking LoA.

Under the rules of intestacy then current, the widow was entitled to provision of at the very least £125,000 - under these circumstances, the deceased's banks released the money to the widow without formality.  She was thus the de facto administrator.

When the widow died intestate, her estate was of a value high enough to require LoA - as her son  (and only child) had predeceased her, his son  (her grandson) had the primary right to be administrator and took over that role. He was therefore the administrator of an administrator.

Under these circumstances, the ultimate ownership of the shares is irrelevant to the issue- it is up to the grandson ( as administrator of an administrator) to obtain the details of the holding so that (having regard to the value of  his grandmother's husband's estate  at date of death), he can properly determine to whom they should belong?

Manxman_in_exile

I read the problem as being the company will not register the transfer of ownership of the shares.  Presumably, that is because for some reason that they have not yet been able to explain (and may not be able to explain) they think the husband's son is entitled to them as "next of kin", and not his widow (and her estate).

But if that's the case, why would they be satisfied with just the son's death certificate?  If he inherited from his father, surely the company would also want to know who the son's heirs were?  It makes no sense.

Either the person dealing with this at the company does not understand what they are doing, or it's some weird, small family company with some sort of restriction on who can own the shares.  My money is on the former.

If I were the administrator I wouldn't give up.  Just out of curiosity I'd want to know why this was happening.