Complex contentious probate

poseidon1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82144536#Comment_82144536

I believe you have hit the nail on the head with regard to a potential claim against the OP personally.

He has shared that:

1. Father diverted part of the estate property sale proceeds into buying the council house
2. Remaining estate monies largely then retained in his own bank account until his death
3. On father's death the OP then took over his father's accounts and used remaining liquid cash to renovate the property for letting purposes.
4. Finally and significantly it appears OP went on to remove equity out of the property ( for his own benefit) by way of a buy to let mortgage advance.

Seems to me as a result of point 4, OP has left himself wide open to a personal tracing claim by the PR's for A's estate which goes beyond the ex council property ( now burdened with debt), through to the house equity he removed when incurring that debt.

It would seem father built an initial 'bonfire' by way of significant breaches of his executor's fiduciary duties, the OP has subsequently thrown his own kindling into the flames.

RAS

I'm not sure kindling is how I'd describe it. Stoked the fire good and large.

OP, you need advice urgently. It looks like a court could demand not only the ex-council house but also other assets owned by you personally if the house doesn't cover residual assets and the other side's legal costs.

Sea_Shell

Am I following this...

"A" was the neighbour of the cousin, but then moved in with them, and cousin made a will written to give them 50%.

OPs father was to get the other 50%

Did he ever dispute the validity of the will before he applied for and was granted probate?

"Cousin had dementia when he made a will. This is also on his death certificate. His neighbour moved in and almost immediately he did a will to include her."

Sea_Shell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82143515#Comment_82143515

"Can you both dispute a will and obtain probate?"

I just googled that sentence, and it seems not, as it's a direct conflict.

sheramber

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82144615#Comment_82144615

Nobody is saying your father should have given her the money.

He should have kept it aside , invested separately, until such time as person A’s. Affairs were sorted.

Once the sister had authority the sum should have been passed to her.

Your father was not entitled to keep or use any of that money.

The sister is now entitled to personA’s share.

The fact that this is not the answer you want to hear does not change the facts.