Missing will, believed to have been "misappropriated" by disgruntled family member: How to proceed?

Sea_Shell

Has B asked C outright if they know what's happened to the will?   Are they just shrugging their shoulders and saying "don't know", in the hope that "no will" goes in their favour?

What conversations have they had?   Is C likely to contest any application for probate attempted?

What other executor duties has B done so far?   Secured the house (who has keys?).  Notified anyone "official"?

km1500

bobster2 said:

northernlass29876 said:

Spendless said:

But that doesn't tell you the contents! That's what's in question here!  Our will follows the same rules of intestacy until you get to the disaster clause and we differed at that point because we didn't want our estate distributed  the way the law would without a will. We still have a will

The contents of the will are not in dispute, as the timestamped and provably authentic photographs will attest to. All that's needed is for the firm who signed it to confirm they issued it and signed it. They can confirm that was the case based on the lawyer's signature and the transaction record.

I'm not saying that this means a probate judge will find in favour of Person B, but it will confirm "that the will was granted in the first place", which is what user1977 said.

It is not that simple. The contents of THAT will may not be in dispute. The problem you have is that with the original missing - you need to overcome the “presumption of revocation”.

If an original will is known to have been stored at home by the deceased - but now cannot be found - the law generally assumes that it must have been revoked/destroyed.

The photographs may help overcome this presumption. But it could be difficult when you have someone disputing your arguments. If Person C is claiming that Person A destroyed the original before their death.

unless I am misunderstanding, the executor had that very will after death and can attest to the contents using the timestamped photos (taken after death) so no revokation or destruction

northernlass29876

bobster2 said:

northernlass29876 said:

Spendless said:

But that doesn't tell you the contents! That's what's in question here!  Our will follows the same rules of intestacy until you get to the disaster clause and we differed at that point because we didn't want our estate distributed  the way the law would without a will. We still have a will

The contents of the will are not in dispute, as the timestamped and provably authentic photographs will attest to. All that's needed is for the firm who signed it to confirm they issued it and signed it. They can confirm that was the case based on the lawyer's signature and the transaction record.

I'm not saying that this means a probate judge will find in favour of Person B, but it will confirm "that the will was granted in the first place", which is what user1977 said.

 But it could be difficult when you have someone disputing your arguments. If Person C is claiming that Person A destroyed the original before their death.

But the photos of the original, taken AFTER the deceased died (provable by EXIF data containing location, and timestamps) would rebut such a claim.

bobster2

northernlass29876 said:

But the photos of the original, taken AFTER the deceased died (provable by EXIF data containing location, and timestamps) would rebut such a claim.

Yes - as I said you could try using the photos to rebut the presumption of revocation.

But I've no idea whether this would be successful in court.

EXIF data is extremely (trivally) easy to alter/fabricate. There are dozens of free software packages that will allow you to give a photo any date / location you want. And there's no chain of custody here (as for police evidence). So who wins if Person B argues the photos are genuinine and that Person C disposed of the will. While Person C argues that the photo dates are wrong - and that Person A revoked the will before their death.

Who wins? No idea.

northernlass29876

bobster2 said:

northernlass29876 said:

But the photos of the original, taken AFTER the deceased died (provable by EXIF data containing location, and timestamps) would rebut such a claim.

Yes - as I said you could try using the photos to rebut the presumption of revocation.

But I've no idea whether this would be successful in court.

EXIF data is extremely (trivally) easy to alter/fabricate. There are dozens of free software packages that will allow you to give a photo any date / location you want. And there's no chain of custody here (as for police evidence). So who wins if Person B argues the photos are genuinine and that Person C disposed of the will. While Person C argues that the photo dates are wrong - and that Person A revoked the will before their death.

Who wins? No idea.

It is easy to fabricate on an iPhone without any external application?

When you click "Adjust" it shows "Original" data, which is greyed out and cannot be altered. This could be verified in court by a tech specialist. 

bobster2

northernlass29876 said:

bobster2 said:

northernlass29876 said:

But the photos of the original, taken AFTER the deceased died (provable by EXIF data containing location, and timestamps) would rebut such a claim.

Yes - as I said you could try using the photos to rebut the presumption of revocation.

But I've no idea whether this would be successful in court.

EXIF data is extremely (trivally) easy to alter/fabricate. There are dozens of free software packages that will allow you to give a photo any date / location you want. And there's no chain of custody here (as for police evidence). So who wins if Person B argues the photos are genuinine and that Person C disposed of the will. While Person C argues that the photo dates are wrong - and that Person A revoked the will before their death.

Who wins? No idea.

It is easy to fabricate on an iPhone without any external application?

When you click "Adjust" it shows "Original" data, which is greyed out and cannot be altered. This could be verified in court by a tech specialist. 

Yes - pretty easy to manipulate/edit on any device.

You could install an EXIF editing app on the iphone - or plug the phone into a laptop/desktop - edit remotely using an app on the compuiter. Or copy the photos off - edit the EXIF data and put them back.

northernlass29876

bobster2 said:

northernlass29876 said:

bobster2 said:

northernlass29876 said:

But the photos of the original, taken AFTER the deceased died (provable by EXIF data containing location, and timestamps) would rebut such a claim.

Yes - as I said you could try using the photos to rebut the presumption of revocation.

But I've no idea whether this would be successful in court.

EXIF data is extremely (trivally) easy to alter/fabricate. There are dozens of free software packages that will allow you to give a photo any date / location you want. And there's no chain of custody here (as for police evidence). So who wins if Person B argues the photos are genuinine and that Person C disposed of the will. While Person C argues that the photo dates are wrong - and that Person A revoked the will before their death.

Who wins? No idea.

It is easy to fabricate on an iPhone without any external application?

When you click "Adjust" it shows "Original" data, which is greyed out and cannot be altered. This could be verified in court by a tech specialist. 

Yes - pretty easy to manipulate/edit on any device.

You could install an EXIF editing app on the iphone - or plug the phone into a laptop/desktop - edit remotely using an app on the compuiter. Or copy the photos off - edit the EXIF data and put them back.

A competent forensic phone expert would be able to determine if the photos had been tampered with and/or taken off the phone at any time. Otherwise, all people found with indecent images would be able to refute their veracity easily.

MeteredOut

northernlass29876 said:

bobster2 said:

northernlass29876 said:

bobster2 said:

northernlass29876 said:

But the photos of the original, taken AFTER the deceased died (provable by EXIF data containing location, and timestamps) would rebut such a claim.

Yes - as I said you could try using the photos to rebut the presumption of revocation.

But I've no idea whether this would be successful in court.

EXIF data is extremely (trivally) easy to alter/fabricate. There are dozens of free software packages that will allow you to give a photo any date / location you want. And there's no chain of custody here (as for police evidence). So who wins if Person B argues the photos are genuinine and that Person C disposed of the will. While Person C argues that the photo dates are wrong - and that Person A revoked the will before their death.

Who wins? No idea.

It is easy to fabricate on an iPhone without any external application?

When you click "Adjust" it shows "Original" data, which is greyed out and cannot be altered. This could be verified in court by a tech specialist. 

Yes - pretty easy to manipulate/edit on any device.

You could install an EXIF editing app on the iphone - or plug the phone into a laptop/desktop - edit remotely using an app on the compuiter. Or copy the photos off - edit the EXIF data and put them back.

A competent forensic phone expert would be able to determine if the photos had been tampered with and/or taken off the phone at any time. Otherwise, all people found with indecent images would be able to refute their veracity easily.

How would a forensic phone expert tell if the EXIF data has been changed since that is a destructive change?

Completely different to telling if an image has been doctored.

Sad as it is for this thread, there is no way to prove when a digital photo was taken with 100% veracity.

In hindsight, B should have taken the photo with, for example, a dated newspaper in the shot (I know, even that could be refuted), but I can understand they never expected it to go missing!

bompey

If B and C are siblings and B gets everything but C nothing, does B have a view on whether A had justification for excluding C? I understand the original will said all to B but if C were my sibling and I could see no justification for excluding C then I may take a different view from the original will. 

That said I get on with one sibling but not the other and would understand if my parents excluded them. 

user1977

Spendless said:

user1977 said:

polar_pig said:

I'd have thought the timestamp being after death would have added evidential weight.

Plus the law firm can (presumably) confirm that the Will was granted in the first place and what its contents were.

I'm guessing they won't be able to do that as the OP put this  The original legal firm who drew up the document claim say they don't have a copy of it, although Person B does have timestamped photographs of the original document.

Having said that when I posted about our solicitor last year when we did our wills and then posted them to us when we hadn't signed them (meaning they were invalid till we got them signed and witnessed and the solicitors don't hold a valid copy), I did get told that you can register your Will somewhere. Sorry can't remember details but sure someone will know and that's probably worth checking out.

Even if they never saw a signed Will, it will be persuasive evidence of the deceased's intentions (or at least more persuasive than sibling C claiming...what, that the deceased destroyed the Will because they decided to die intestate instead? And that the OP has forged the pics of the Will?).

Bear in mind this is balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.