Theft of assets belonging to an estate

pjs493

Sea_Shell said:

We're these items she loved, or would she have sold them to release their value at some stage?

It might be a chunk of the estate, but it wasn't actual cash (we've had cases on here where actual cash has been "misappropriated" ☹️)

At the end of the day, what will be gained by pursuing this.   

It appears they were taken for their financial value and not because they had a sentimental attachment. I think all the step mother wants is for the items to be returned. She feels duty bound as executor of the estate to do all she can to ensure it is administered correctly and part of that is to ensure family members aren't striping the place bare like its some sort of free-for-all.

tooldle

There is of course the possibility of Dad having told the offspring ‘you can have this item when I’m gone’, at some point in the past. 

I’ve got furniture from my parents place. To me it is sentimental in a way that decorative items, jewellery etc would not be. Some was given to me years before their deaths and other bits were suggested to be mine when the time came. Whilst some of these items have considerable value, I’d have to sell them to realise the funds. Hence, whilst the furniture is in my house and in daily use, it is sentimental. Another way to look at it perhaps?

Savvy_Sue

As stated, it's unlikely the police would knock on the door. However, Wife 3 has the option of instructing a solicitor to write to state that they are aware X, Y and Z have been taken from the house, that these items have a value of £.... as evidenced by insurance and appraisals, and that if they are returned undamaged within 2 weeks no more will be said. However, if they are not returned, then civil action will be taken to recover their value. 

If it's stated that this is a Letter Before Action, then Wife 3 has the option to go to Small Claims Court (although I don't know if the values exceed what can be claimed there, don't shoot me!) or take other appropriate action. 

pjs493

Savvy_Sue said:

As stated, it's unlikely the police would knock on the door. However, Wife 3 has the option of instructing a solicitor to write to state that they are aware X, Y and Z have been taken from the house, that these items have a value of £.... as evidenced by insurance and appraisals, and that if they are returned undamaged within 2 weeks no more will be said. However, if they are not returned, then civil action will be taken to recover their value. 

If it's stated that this is a Letter Before Action, then Wife 3 has the option to go to Small Claims Court (although I don't know if the values exceed what can be claimed there, don't shoot me!) or take other appropriate action. 

I’m confused as to how a theft wouldn’t be considered a criminal offence.

user1977

pjs493 said:

Savvy_Sue said:

As stated, it's unlikely the police would knock on the door. However, Wife 3 has the option of instructing a solicitor to write to state that they are aware X, Y and Z have been taken from the house, that these items have a value of £.... as evidenced by insurance and appraisals, and that if they are returned undamaged within 2 weeks no more will be said. However, if they are not returned, then civil action will be taken to recover their value. 

If it's stated that this is a Letter Before Action, then Wife 3 has the option to go to Small Claims Court (although I don't know if the values exceed what can be claimed there, don't shoot me!) or take other appropriate action. 

I’m confused as to how a theft wouldn’t be considered a criminal offence.

Nothing in what you’ve quoted says it isn’t a criminal offence. But that’s irrelevant to the right to recover the goods as a civil action. And is something which you can actually control (rather than hope the cops might be interested). And is decided on the balance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

Savvy_Sue

pjs493 said:

Savvy_Sue said:

As stated, it's unlikely the police would knock on the door. However, Wife 3 has the option of instructing a solicitor to write to state that they are aware X, Y and Z have been taken from the house, that these items have a value of £.... as evidenced by insurance and appraisals, and that if they are returned undamaged within 2 weeks no more will be said. However, if they are not returned, then civil action will be taken to recover their value. 

If it's stated that this is a Letter Before Action, then Wife 3 has the option to go to Small Claims Court (although I don't know if the values exceed what can be claimed there, don't shoot me!) or take other appropriate action. 

I’m confused as to how a theft wouldn’t be considered a criminal offence.

Perhaps you haven't had any reason to note what the police are and aren't interested in doing these days - or perhaps, to be fair, what they do and don't devote resources to. 

IF oldest sibling was making a habit of entering other people's houses and leaving with items of a high monetary value, and IF at least some of those disadvantaged by this habit were friends of the Chief Constable or well connected in the media, then it might generate some police action. 

But a theft under the circumstances described is likely to be noted as unlikely to be repeated, a family dispute, and therefore not going to affect the crime stats either way. 

Also, let's say police do send someone round to 'investigate'. "Oh, Dad gave me these / said I could have these just before he died. He knew I'd always liked them, they reminded me of Mum. No, Stepmum might not have been aware of this / might have forgotten he'd said this. She was quite upset when he died and I'm sure it affected her memory at that time."

Bear in mind that even if the police felt it could be taken further, it's the Crown Prosecution Service who make the final decision as to whether to prosecute or not. They might feel that a "he said, she said" situation isn't likely to lead to a successful prosecution - and is it in the public interest? 

What Stepmum wants is the return of these items - or perhaps just the monetary value? A letter from a solicitor setting out the possible outcomes of a failure to do the right thing seems to me just as likely as a police visit, and is so much easier to arrange!

pjs493

So as an update to the thread, because someone asked elsewhere for me to post any updates: the police are apparently now formally investigating and the daughter who stole the items is apparently due to have an interview with the police (or potentially this has already happened, my cousin wasn’t 100% sure).

The step daughter (my cousins sister-in-law) is apparently steadfast in her claim that she was within her rights to take what she did, but still admits taking them without consent. She also concedes that the items did not belong to her, that there was no promise or unwritten bequest from the father, and she entered the house with the intent of taking said items. She used her own set of keys that she’s had since she still lived at home to access the house while she knew her step mother was at the funeral home. 

It’s caused a huge family rift because no one can understand why she won’t just return the items and stop causing everyone so much upset. Some siblings are trying to play Switzerland, others are showing compassion but urging her to see sense, others are downright furious with her, and the step mother is just on the periphery grieving and wishing the whole situation would just resolve itself somehow. Although it’s my understanding that the step mother called the police because she felt she had no other option as executor of the Will. It’s unclear if the items were left to someone in particular or she was due to inherit them herself. 

No one can understand the sister’s argument that she knows she took something that didn’t belong to her, in other words she stole said items, but at the same time doesn’t think she did anything wrong and feels justified in her actions. She understands that if she walked into a strangers house and stole stuff she’d be committing burglary, but doesn’t see that the same rule applies to her circumstances. That’s the point that everyone is trying to get her to understand, apparently, but she’s just not getting it. 

I’ve no idea why the police decided to investigate, but presumably they felt there was enough evidence, and/or the items taken were worth enough, to pursue the matter. My cousin is obviously relaying the story to me second and third hand so doesn’t have all the pieces of the story herself. I think Probate has been granted which is why the police are acting. 

It’s turning into some kind of soap opera, sadly. 

Spendless

Thanks for the update. I came across a phrase on here not long ago when people do things and from another's pov they are completely in the wrong but the person doing it doesn't see it because they believe they  are 'morally right' When someone believes they are 'morally right' no-one is going to shift that viewpoint.

For that reason I'd  also be playing 'Switzerland' (love that phrase - I'm going to use it -lol) See what the police have to say when they deal with it.

bobster2

pjs493 said:

I’ve no idea why the police decided to investigate, but presumably they felt there was enough evidence, and/or the items taken were worth enough, to pursue the matter. My cousin is obviously relaying the story to me second and third hand so doesn’t have all the pieces of the story herself. I think Probate has been granted which is why the police are acting.

Police love a "slam dunk" - a crime that solves itself. Helps boost their performance metrics. If she has unwisely described how she acquired the items in a manner that meets the definition of theft - because she thinks she's "morally right" - she may have talked herself into a conviction.

lincroft1710

pjs493 said:

No one can understand the sister’s argument that she knows she took something that didn’t belong to her, in other words she stole said items, but at the same time doesn’t think she did anything wrong and feels justified in her actions. She understands that if she walked into a strangers house and stole stuff she’d be committing burglary, but doesn’t see that the same rule applies to her circumstances. That’s the point that everyone is trying to get her to understand, apparently, but she’s just not getting it. 

 

In my job (and I also believe in my personal life) I came across several instances where you could present people with incontrovertible facts and they couldn't see that their reasoning was at best illogical.