Intestacy rules, can they be challenged?

Marcon

uknick said:

cc1901 said:

It’s an awful situation- the money would be very handy as most was going to my two children.

i tried to get the bank to freeze her account as I fear the money is already gone, police wouldn’t help said it was a civil matter. The legal process takes a long time and doesn’t really help the person that the crime has been committed against.

The attitude of the police in this type of matter really, really hisses me off!!!

If she's taken something from another person that is not legally hers and intends to deprive the other person permanently that is theft, pure and simple.  It's a bit like they won't deal with banking fraud.  What they really mean is, it might not be straightforward to prosecute so not worth the the risk of screwing up their crime stats.

Plus, if the police don't think it's theft, one can arguie it's criminal fraud. This is defined as when a person dishonestly makes a false representation in order to gain for themselves or cause loss to another.  Surely that's what you sister did at the bank. 

The police don't have the resources to deal with serious crime, let alone squabbles (however unpleasant and unwelcome) between siblings. In the absence of any clear proof, it's one sibling's word against another - which is nowhere near the standard of proof needed for criminal fraud to be proven - and this can only be treated as civil matter, especially given the modest amount involved. I'm not for a moment suggesting this isn't serious for OP, or that the amount involved is 'modest' to them, but the police would be taken to task if they started investigating every family disagreement where the chances of a successful prosecution are close to zero and the amounts involved are likely to be lower than the cost of the police investigation.

cc1901

Thanks - the police said it’s a civil matter and to pursue through courts. But she has money that is legally money.
my sister has committed a crime by breaking the rules of intestacy. Legally the estate is split equally between surviving children (if no surviving spouse).

As I raised the small claims court case myself it cost £115. They offer free mediation, had an appointment through yesterday, but you have to agree to negotiate on the amount. No way - why should I negotiate when she has stolen what is legally mine?!

The point of this thread was to see if there were any loopholes that would allow her to win when it goes to a judge.

Gavin83

Just to clarify, as it isn't clear in your posts, what are you actually claiming for? 50% of the estate, with the other 50% going to your sister? 100% of the estate?

cc1901

50% - there is no will so that’s the legal amount from my investigations. No surviving spouse, just myself and my sister (then my children but the aren’t included if no will I believe)

TBagpuss

Well, you could say that you are willing to negotiate, that you want 100% as that's what your dad told you but are wiling to negotiate, but if you have already issued then it may be too late. 
strangely you can say you are open to negotiation as to whether you pursue her for any costs and interest and that you would be willing to waive those if she now releases your share of the funds to you.

IT's also possible that you you could make a claim against the bank for releasing the funds to her without (one assumes) ny proof that she was the executor or administrator . Normally, the ban would have had her sign a form of indemnity stating that she was entitled to the money / was the administrator. You might be able to get your share back from the bank and they can then pursue her to recover it from her (they probably won't get it as it sounds as though there is a strong chance she's already spent it, but they have much bigger resources than you to pursue it 

Of course, it's unfiar - if you are reimbursed by the bank and they don't recover the money from her, then she will have ended up with more than you, but at least you would not be out of pocket.

Have you made a complaint to the bank? IF not., i would suggest that you do so, 

Exodi

Sea_Shell said:

Sadly, if solicitors get involved, you'll both likely end up with very little of the estate is only £10k to start with.

How much of your £5k "share" are you willing to throw at the problem if she doesn't play ball?

If my understanding is correct, the OP has exactly £0k of his share. His £5k now only exists if he's able to successfully convince (whether by court or otherwise) his sister to give it to him.

It is a sorry situation, and I think no-one (including the OP) is blind to the fact that legal fees could swallow a large chunk (or all) of the estate. Unfortunately the alternative currently seems to be using small claims (as the OP is) or accepting that she's stolen his inheritance (by intestate) without contest.

Flugelhorn said:

So we have Dad who died and said to each child that only they were to have the money. Oh joy, he must be having a laugh now. 

Only if you assume that both of them are telling the truth.

It could be, that the OP mentioned to his sister that his dad intended for all of the money to go to him, and as a response, the OP's sister retorted "well he said to me that he thinks I should get all the money, so what do you think about that huh?"

I think the OP is actually being quite reasonable given the circumstances (and assuming he's not in fact lying about what his dad said, which doesn't make much sense on an anonymous forum) by accepting that intestate applies and they should settle on half the estate. It seems quite extreme for the OP's sister to already have emptied out the dad's bank accounts into hers.

uknick

Marcon said:

uknick said:

cc1901 said:

It’s an awful situation- the money would be very handy as most was going to my two children.

i tried to get the bank to freeze her account as I fear the money is already gone, police wouldn’t help said it was a civil matter. The legal process takes a long time and doesn’t really help the person that the crime has been committed against.

The attitude of the police in this type of matter really, really hisses me off!!!

If she's taken something from another person that is not legally hers and intends to deprive the other person permanently that is theft, pure and simple.  It's a bit like they won't deal with banking fraud.  What they really mean is, it might not be straightforward to prosecute so not worth the the risk of screwing up their crime stats.

Plus, if the police don't think it's theft, one can arguie it's criminal fraud. This is defined as when a person dishonestly makes a false representation in order to gain for themselves or cause loss to another.  Surely that's what you sister did at the bank. 

The police don't have the resources to deal with serious crime, let alone squabbles (however unpleasant and unwelcome) between siblings. In the absence of any clear proof, it's one sibling's word against another - which is nowhere near the standard of proof needed for criminal fraud to be proven - and this can only be treated as civil matter, especially given the modest amount involved. I'm not for a moment suggesting this isn't serious for OP, or that the amount involved is 'modest' to them, but the police would be taken to task if they started investigating every family disagreement where the chances of a successful prosecution are close to zero and the amounts involved are likely to be lower than the cost of the police investigation.

I can't diagree with any of that as police resources are restricted.  But, in the OPs case it's not just his word against hers, it's the intestate laws that seem to have been broken as there is no will to contradict either parties' story.

I think the standard answer today from the police in matters such as fraud and estate theft is try the civil courts.  This then makes the issue impossible to progress for many people as the legal costs could well outweigh any cash recovered.  Maybe that's just what the wrongdoers rely on.

With regard to your last comment, which I agree is prevalent, it's a massive shame we now get our jusitice in this country based on value for money.

Linton

uknick said:

Marcon said:

uknick said:

cc1901 said:

It’s an awful situation- the money would be very handy as most was going to my two children.

i tried to get the bank to freeze her account as I fear the money is already gone, police wouldn’t help said it was a civil matter. The legal process takes a long time and doesn’t really help the person that the crime has been committed against.

The attitude of the police in this type of matter really, really hisses me off!!!

If she's taken something from another person that is not legally hers and intends to deprive the other person permanently that is theft, pure and simple.  It's a bit like they won't deal with banking fraud.  What they really mean is, it might not be straightforward to prosecute so not worth the the risk of screwing up their crime stats.

Plus, if the police don't think it's theft, one can arguie it's criminal fraud. This is defined as when a person dishonestly makes a false representation in order to gain for themselves or cause loss to another.  Surely that's what you sister did at the bank. 

The police don't have the resources to deal with serious crime, let alone squabbles (however unpleasant and unwelcome) between siblings. In the absence of any clear proof, it's one sibling's word against another - which is nowhere near the standard of proof needed for criminal fraud to be proven - and this can only be treated as civil matter, especially given the modest amount involved. I'm not for a moment suggesting this isn't serious for OP, or that the amount involved is 'modest' to them, but the police would be taken to task if they started investigating every family disagreement where the chances of a successful prosecution are close to zero and the amounts involved are likely to be lower than the cost of the police investigation.

I can't diagree with any of that as police resources are restricted.  But, in the OPs case it's not just his word against hers, it's the intestate laws that seem to have been broken as there is no will to contradict either parties' story.

I think the standard answer today from the police in matters such as fraud and estate theft is try the civil courts.  This then makes the issue impossible to progress for many people as the legal costs could well outweigh any cash recovered.  Maybe that's just what the wrongdoers rely on.

With regard to your last comment, which I agree is prevalent, it's a massive shame we now get our jusitice in this country based on value for money.

One factor that may be relevent in situations like this is that the civil courts require a much lower standard of proof than the criminal courts.  Balance of probabilities is sufficient.

cc1901

Thanks all - yes the police are stretched but a law has been broken - the fact that my father said to each of us he didn’t want the other to have any money is irrelevant in this case and requires no proof (there is none) as the rules of intestacy have been broken. It’s just taking so long - mediation was unsuccessful as I was not willing to negotiate so the update on the case is that it will go to a hearing.
Not sure of this process but hoping a judge will review and rule without having to attend the court - is this how it works?
Do not have a solicitor as too much money….

uknick

cc1901, let us know how the small claims court case works out.  But, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the judge sends it to the county court as they might think it not within the scope of small claims.

Good luck.