How long is long enough for stolen money to be returned?

CKhalvashi

Sea_Shell said:

CKhalvashi said:

Marcon said:

Emerion said:

As there is ongoing strife with this problem, I have changed some facts to protect identities.
After several years of struggle over my dad’s estate as his executor, my 2 stepbrothers have agreed, via their solicitor, to pay back money that they stole from my dad whilst he was alive, but confused. It amounts to about £100k. I think more has been taken, but have had to accept that I won’t find it all as some of the thefts go back quite a number of years. They were not related to dad. As they have behaved despicably in other ways too, there is no relationship to salvage, so no need for anyone to advise me to be nice for the sake of the family. Six weeks have passed, and no sign of any money. Whilst they aren’t very rich, they are well off enough to be able to find this amount if they wanted to, even if they’ve spent the original money.  When I asked my solicitor what I need to do next, he took it as an excuse to send another letter to their solicitor, for which I will be  handsomely charged, no doubt, and which has produced no response. I’m just wondering how long is reasonable? I really don’t want this to go to court, when it has been unbelievably stressful for so long. I’ve had enough and just want it over. If you’ve been through something like this, how long did it take? Will I have to threaten them with the courts, and hope they want to avoid the embarrassment? If you did go to court, how big an ordeal was it? I won’t end up with costs awarded against me will I? This money is to be shared between a few beneficiaries , so no one is going to end up rich enough to not care about substantial extra costs. 

Poor old solicitor. You ask for advice/want action and he does the correct thing. What did you expect? 

Your solicitor needs to put pressure on your stepbrothers' solicitor to confirm a timescale and then stick to it, failing which court action is likely to be your only option.

Your solicitor is the correct person to advise on all your queries because they have all the facts specific to this case. Nobody here has a clue, apart from the few lines of information in your post, so all you'll get (at best) is well meaning but hopelessly under informed guesswork.

This is the best answer you're going to get, and OP will need to accept that unless there is a clear admission of theft/fraud or it can be proven in another way (which from the facts presented here at this stage it can't) this will be treated as a loan rather than theft/fraud. Please note that I appreciate we may not be working on the full facts but I'm working on what we do have.

Of course.   I hadn't thought of it that way.     "foul play" or not, then this is purely a debt to the estate, to which they've agree is owed.   

So if the debt remains unpaid, then it's a debt recovery situation.   With all that that may entail.   The alleged "theft" element becomes irrelevant. 

With many buts, if it can be offset against money owed to them from the estate, this will make recovery much easier.

This would be my first port of call.

Longwalker said:

You are never going to get this money without court action, and even then its not guaranteed 

If the courts award the money, they may still not cough up with means you will have to pursue it, that costs even more money and they may declare bankruptcy 

Court action without knowing the full facts is complete stupidity IMO.

As above, there may be a right of offset against the money owed which will either reduce or completely eliminate the debt. 

Not sure why you suggest spending money possibly unnecessarily before all other alternatives have been considered. That would not be in the best interests of the estate.

Sea_Shell

I don't think we know there's a will do we?

OP said they are not related (blood) to dad, so wouldn't be due anything under intestacy.

They may not be beneficiaries at all.

Hopefully OP can confirm.

CKhalvashi

Sea_Shell said:

I don't think we know there's a will do we?

OP said they are not related (blood) to dad, so wouldn't be due anything under intestacy.

They may not be beneficiaries at all.

Hopefully OP can confirm.

You are correct, however;

I am aware that a court claim succeeded in (I think) 2019, where the stepparent had inherited all assets from the biological parent where an award of c.£70k was made as it could be proven the claim would meet the requirements under the Inheritance Act.

This will be very situation specific, however rocking the boat too far may put OP in a more difficult situation if the estate is contested. It seems the situation may not be too different here.

I have made the assumption that there is a will as there are 'a few beneficiaries', however that may not be the case. I appreciate we are both reading between lines here and have come to a different conclusion.

Edit: more info here. I can't find the full judgement.

https://www.sleeblackwell.co.uk/legal-articles/step-child

Sea_Shell

CKhalvashi said:

Sea_Shell said:

I don't think we know there's a will do we?

OP said they are not related (blood) to dad, so wouldn't be due anything under intestacy.

They may not be beneficiaries at all.

Hopefully OP can confirm.

You are correct, however;

I am aware that a court claim succeeded in (I think) 2019, where the stepparent had inherited all assets from the biological parent where an award of c.£70k was made as it could be proven the claim would meet the requirements under the Inheritance Act.

This will be very situation specific, however rocking the boat too far may put OP in a more difficult situation if the estate is contested. It seems the situation may not be too different here.

I have made the assumption that there is a will as there are 'a few beneficiaries', however that may not be the case. I appreciate we are both reading between lines here and have come to a different conclusion.

I didn't know that.   Interesting to bare in mind with so many blended families these days.

CKhalvashi

Sea_Shell said:

CKhalvashi said:

Sea_Shell said:

I don't think we know there's a will do we?

OP said they are not related (blood) to dad, so wouldn't be due anything under intestacy.

They may not be beneficiaries at all.

Hopefully OP can confirm.

You are correct, however;

I am aware that a court claim succeeded in (I think) 2019, where the stepparent had inherited all assets from the biological parent where an award of c.£70k was made as it could be proven the claim would meet the requirements under the Inheritance Act.

This will be very situation specific, however rocking the boat too far may put OP in a more difficult situation if the estate is contested. It seems the situation may not be too different here.

I have made the assumption that there is a will as there are 'a few beneficiaries', however that may not be the case. I appreciate we are both reading between lines here and have come to a different conclusion.

I didn't know that.   Interesting to bare in mind with so many blended families these days.

Completely agree. The legislation is very outdated at this time and will likely need to be refreshed due the change in family makeup.

I've just liked a summary from the law firm above, but on a quick search can't find the original judgement.

Pennylane

Sorry you are in this situation.  From experience it seems to me that the person/people who are in the wrong come off best.  The innocent party end up paying a fortune to solicitors who really couldn’t give a damn.

Marcon

Sea_Shell said:

I don't think we know there's a will do we?

OP said they are not related (blood) to dad, so wouldn't be due anything under intestacy.

They may not be beneficiaries at all.

Hopefully OP can confirm.

We do, because OP refers to being the executor, which means there was a will (assuming OP has the terminology right and that wasn't one of the 'facts' they have changed to protect identities).

Sea_Shell

Marcon said:

Sea_Shell said:

I don't think we know there's a will do we?

OP said they are not related (blood) to dad, so wouldn't be due anything under intestacy.

They may not be beneficiaries at all.

Hopefully OP can confirm.

We do, because OP refers to being the executor, which means there was a will (assuming OP has the terminology right and that wasn't one of the 'facts' they have changed to protect identities).

Quite.  As you say terminology is everything.

So, speculating...they either took the money because they WERE in the will, so felt entitled to help themselves early.

Or

They knew they weren't, so decided that was unfair, so took it anyway !!

Malthusian

CKhalvashi said:

Completely agree. The legislation is very outdated at this time and will likely need to be refreshed due the change in family makeup.

Blended families are not a new thing, otherwise they wouldn't be central to the plot of fairy tales that are hundreds of years old. They were if anything more common when the mortality rate was higher and the safety net for widows much weaker, creating a greater incentive to re-couple up.

As it stands in England and Wales, there is nothing to stop stepchildren inheriting from stepparents if a) their stepparent leaves them something in their Will b) their stepparent leaves funds to their birthparent who leaves it to them in turn or c) they have a clear reasonable claim to a legacy from their stepparent, even though they excluded them or didn't bother to make a Will (as you pointed out).

Stepchildren who are financially dependent are already covered if their stepparent dies, and the general consensus in England and Wales is that non-dependent stepchildren have no expectations of an inheritance and should be grateful for anything they get. 

I don't see the Government changing intestacy law so that when you marry someone your new stepchildren, whom you could quite easily never have met, gain an automatic entitlement to your money. You wouldn't be able to move for shouts of "golddigger's charter".

Sea_Shell

Any updates for us @Emerion ?