ID for legacy payout

£note

My wife has been left a bequest in a will and has just had a letter from the solicitor acting as executor to provide evidence of her identity. Specifically she is asking for proof of a name change which will show her name to be the same as specified in the will. Her name is Susan XXXXX and in the will she is named as Susie XXXXX. The solicitor knows her quite well and has always in the past used the name Susie when speaking to her or about her and will be aware that she just uses the name Susie as a hypocorism of her given name. There is no document on record anywhere that names her as Susie so she cannot provide evidence of a name change that has never happened. What I would like to know is, can the solicitor withhold the legacy because my wife cannot show her legal name to be Susie? The solicitor in question drew up the will and knows full well who the intended beneficiary is what she calls herself. I hope I've explained that clearly enough but if not, happy to elucidate further. Any advice from someone who knows would be very welcome.
Thank you

Flugelhorn

I would ask the solicitor what they suggest - your wife can't be the only person named by a  nickname in a will or other document like this and not having anything official to prove it.

Maybe they can do some sort of declaration that she is Susan also known as Susie?

My parents (and solicitor cousin) managed to spell my name wrong in my parents will (too much sherry one Sunday lunchtime I think) - my solicitor just put it down as "clerical error"

£note

Hi Flugelhorn
Thanks for your response. The wording in the solicitors letter, given that she knows us both quite well has sown some doubt in my mind.

"I should be grateful if you would provide me with a certified copy of your birth certificate. If the name on the birth certificate differs from how it appears in the will please provide a certified copy of the necessary documentation to evidence your change of name. This may be a marriage certificate, decree absolute or change of name deed."

She knows full well there is no name change and I can't help but wonder if this is a mechanism to avoid paying the bequest.

Flugelhorn

No they are just being officious - or maybe this is just a standard letter sent out by a minion rather than the solicitor themself. I would ask the question directly as to what they suggest in these circumstances - ultimately it is what they are prepared to accept as evidence.

Brie

Has the solicitor even written the letter or was it done by an admin at the firm who has no idea who your wife actually is.  

Flugelhorn

Brie said:

Has the solicitor even written the letter or was it done by an admin at the firm who has no idea who your wife actually is.  

agree there  must be endless Bills / Jacks / Freds / Toms / Peggys / Mollys  etc etc who never officially change their names but are always known by the nickname 

£note

Thanks all. I'll contact and ask what she suggests. If I get anything back I'll post here again.

p00hsticks

Flugelhorn said:

Brie said:

Has the solicitor even written the letter or was it done by an admin at the firm who has no idea who your wife actually is.  

agree there  must be endless Bills / Jacks / Freds / Toms / Peggys / Mollys  etc etc who never officially change their names but are always known by the nickname 

and I would think that in those cases, even if not formal proof, there are plenty of things around that would demonstrate the everyday use of that nickname - e.g.e-mail addresses, facebook profiles, work name badges etc 

Alphatauri

This is about money laundering and financial propriety and is not about trying to avoid paying a beneficiary. It is the solicitor taking reasonable steps to be able to demonstrate they have undertaken appropriate checks to verify the beneficiaries identity. 

I would forward copies of birth and marriage certificate along with any formal documents that use the name Susie e.g. bills, employment documents etc. 

As a pp suggests a stat dec may be necessary.  

Sadly we live in a world with a lot of fraud and professionals need to prove they have confirmed a persons identity. 

user1977

£note said:

I can't help but wonder if this is a mechanism to avoid paying the bequest.

How would not paying the bequest help anyone?