Deceased's estate: removal of house contents by family member (not executors)

[Allan]

I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.

If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter? What would be
a sensible way forward to encourage the individual to desist (assuming
having a firm word has no effect).

[Peter Crosland]

Theoretically it is theft. The question might be asked as to why the
executors had not made the property secure by changing the locks ASAP
after the death. What can be done depends on the value involved and of
course proof. Sadly it may be difficult to get the police to take action.

--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 23 Nov 2017 23:29:12 +0000, Allan <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

It is definitely theft, although you may find the police reluctant to
intervene, at least initially, in what they will see as an internal
family dispute. Hopefully the firm word will be effective, but if not
you may need to put it more strongly. I would start from the tack that
they are making it harder for you to do your job, and any items
removed will need to be accounted for. If there are specific items
that they want, and there's nothing particularly controversial about
that, then a promise from the beneficiaries to discuss handing them
over once the estate has been distributed may be helpful.

On a more practical note, as others have already said, you have a
responsibility to secure the estate. If you know that another person
has access to the property, and there is a significant risk that they
may remove items before you can distribute them to the beneficiaries,
then you could be liable for losses incurred as a result of theft from
the estate. So if the aforementioned firm word has no effect, or seems
unlikely to have an an effect, then you should change the locks. In
fact, changing the locks anyway is often a good move under these
circumstances, because you don't necessarily know how many people may
have keys to the house.

Mark

[Martin Brown]

On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:

Changing the locks on the property ASAP.

How you react depends on the value and status of the objects taken. If
they took cash, high value jewellery or a big TV then that might be
worth considering as a criminal matter if you can't resolve it.

But if they took a glass ornament off the mantle piece that they had
always admired and you would probably have sent to a charity shop anyway
then it really isn't worth falling out over.

In between is a grey area where they have acted badly but whether or not
it is worth pursuing needs careful consideration depending on how much
value they have deprived from the estate. Offering to let them buy the
items they have taken from the estate is one possible way out.

OTOH If despite not being executors they took all unused opiate drugs to
the chemist immediately for safe disposal they were doing you a favour.

So really the answer is "it depends".

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Pelican]

There are some missing details, Peter. The items might have been those
belonging to the family member, who was merely recovering them. There
are other innocent possibilities. Who knows, without the situation
being explained?

[Pelican]

On 24/11/2017 18:42, Jeff wrote:
> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:

> It is difficult to think of a set of circumstances where it would not be
> theft, you should contact the police immediately, as any delay could
> count against you; as as an executor you have a legal duty to safeguard
> the effects and could place you at risk from any other beneficiaries
> making a claim against you.

There are several situations where it would not be theft.

[Handsome Jack]

Jeff <je...@ukra.com> posted

>On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:

Change the locks. Tell the police.

>It is difficult to think of a set of circumstances where it would not
>be theft, you should contact the police immediately, as any delay could
>count against you; as as an executor you have a legal duty to safeguard
>the effects and could place you at risk from any other beneficiaries
>making a claim against you.

It's a very common occurrence. The main difficulty is proving that
something really has been taken, especially if the deceased was elderly
and living alone.

--
Jack

[Norman Wells]

On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:

It's theft. The items belong to the estate, and the only people
entitled to deal with them are the executors. If the person concerned
can't account for their actions to the satisfaction of the executors and
won't return the items after a friendly approach, it should be pointed
out that it's a criminal matter. A solicitor's letter to that effect
should do the trick.

[Roland Perry]

In message <Sq2dnbw456SgX4rH...@brightview.co.uk>, at
06:54:54 on Fri, 24 Nov 2017, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:

>The question might be asked as to why the executors had not made the
>property secure by changing the locks ASAP after the death.

Most properties can be secured by bolting all the doors but one, and
therefore just one lock to change. Or even just add a hasp and padlock
to the existing arrangement.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <97mf1dluaf1980e6r...@4ax.com>, at 08:38:54 on
Fri, 24 Nov 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>>I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
>>We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
>>
>>If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
>>goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
>>what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter? What would be
>>a sensible way forward to encourage the individual to desist (assuming
>>having a firm word has no effect).
>
>It is definitely theft, although you may find the police reluctant to
>intervene, at least initially, in what they will see as an internal
>family dispute.

The police may argue that it could be difficult to prove the ownership
of the disputed items, which might have merely been on-loan to the
deceased, or even stored there for safe keeping.

That'll vary a lot depending on the exact nature of the items, and the
nature of the relationship between the deceased and the actor, of
course. But the fact they have a key says they can't be entirely
strangers to one another.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

+1

Another practical consideration is whether the items being taken are
worth what may turn out to be a permanent fracturing of family
relationships. If the estate is solvent with a residue, and the items
not the subject of specific gifts, the residuary beneficiaries might
prefer not to involve the police over "mum always promised *me* her bone
china tea service" disputes where the market value of the items is small.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Martin Brown]

That is a very hard line attitude to take when you don't know the
circumstances or indeed that the things taken were indeed a part of the
estate. In practice I think changing the locks is a sensible precaution
against further problems but how you deal with what has been taken
already really depends a lot on the value of the items concerned.

Bereavement is a difficult time for families and people do stupid things
under stress. It isn't worth falling out over minor transgressions.

The only time I have had to deal with a professional executor who was
handling my aunts estate (for the bank who were her executors) when we
went to the flat he said "take what you like show them to me and if
there is anything of value you can buy it otherwise its yours to keep".
I was one of the named beneficiaries though.

I rescued some family photographs, my grandfather's WWI officers warrant
and one piece of costume jewellery. He decided they were all worthless
from a resale point of view and that was it. Sale of the remaining
contents at auction just about covered the costs of house clearance.
The bank was by far the major beneficiary of the entire transaction.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Norman Wells]

The important thing is that it's the executor who has control of the
estate. He has to be consulted and be in agreement with anything
concerning it.

The person who removed the items here was not even a beneficiary. Prima
facie therefore it looks like theft.

[Roland Perry]

In message <f7qc9a...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:57:48 on Fri, 24
Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>On 24/11/2017 09:45, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 24/11/2017 08:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:
>>>> I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
>>>>We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
>>>>
>>>> If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the
>>>>estate) goes into house and takes items without exor's
>>>>permission/knowledge, what would that constitute? Theft?

>The important thing is that it's the executor who has control of the
>estate. He has to be consulted and be in agreement with anything
>concerning it.

If the items didn't belong to the deceased, they aren't part of the
estate!

>The person who removed the items here was not even a beneficiary. Prima
>facie therefore it looks like theft.

While there's an implication in the OP's question that the "items"
belonged to the deceased, there are many scenarios where that might not
necessarily be the case. And with no disrespect, can the OP (or the
other exor) prove either the ownership or the absence, because both
would be necessary should this end up in court.

And what abut edge cases? I have a piece of furniture for which I have
no use, and make no use; but it's been verbally donated to one of my
children for them to collect "when they have a house big enough". Who
does that belong to? When we were both younger, I procured, set up and
gave telephone support for, a PC for my mother. Had she ever replaced
it, the machine would have come back to me. Who did that belong to?

Especially in the case of the furniture, which languishes in a box room,
how would an executor even know it was missing, if one of the children
"helpfully" removed it, in the circumstances under discussion.
--
Roland Perry

[Chris R]

On 24/11/2017 12:53, Jeff wrote:

> On 24/11/2017 09:05, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:
>>> I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
>>> We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
>>>
>>> If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
>>> goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
>>> what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter?  What would
>>> be a sensible way forward to encourage the individual to desist
>>> (assuming having a firm word has no effect).
>>
>> Changing the locks on the property ASAP.
>>
>> How you react depends on the value and status of the objects taken. If
>> they took cash, high value jewellery or a big TV then that might be
>> worth considering as a criminal matter if you can't resolve it.
>>
>

> The executor needs to contact the police, regardless of how they might
> react, merely to cover himself, as he is personally responsible for the
> estate.
>
No, there isn't a duty to involve the police, nor to act in any way that
is disproportionate.

In most civil disputes, getting police involved is a bad idea, even if
they did take an interest.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Fredxxx]

On 24/11/2017 12:53, Jeff wrote:
> On 24/11/2017 09:05, Martin Brown wrote:

>> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:
>>> I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
>>> We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
>>>
>>> If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
>>> goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
>>> what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter?  What would
>>> be a sensible way forward to encourage the individual to desist
>>> (assuming having a firm word has no effect).
>>
>> Changing the locks on the property ASAP.
>>
>> How you react depends on the value and status of the objects taken. If
>> they took cash, high value jewellery or a big TV then that might be
>> worth considering as a criminal matter if you can't resolve it.
>>
>

> The executor needs to contact the police, regardless of how they might
> react, merely to cover himself, as he is personally responsible for the
> estate.

Responsible for gross negligence, maybe. But for not changing some locks
in hindsight?

If an earthquake should swallow up the house and the insurance
company/names went bankrupt before payout, would the executor still be
responsible and liable?

[Robin]

On 24/11/2017 12:50, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> It is difficult to think of a set of circumstances where it would not
>>> be theft, you should contact the police immediately, as any delay
>>> could count against you; as as an executor you have a legal duty to
>>> safeguard the effects and could place you at risk from any other
>>> beneficiaries making a claim against you.
>>
>> There are several situations where it would not be theft.
>

> Please enlighten me. There is no dispute over the ownership of the
> items, they belong to the estate, and a defence of not permanently
> depriving the owner seems very unlikely in the circumstances.
>
Where were we told there is no dispiute over the ownership?

And what about the dispute that may arise when the police are called in:
eg the person who removed the items produces evidence of ownership?

And then makes counter accusations of eg harassment?--

[Norman Wells]

On 24/11/2017 11:27, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <f7qc9a...@mid.individual.net>, at 10:57:48 on Fri, 24
> Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 24/11/2017 09:45, Martin Brown wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2017 08:58, Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:
>>>>> I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
>>>>> We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
>>>>>
>>>>> If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the
>>>>> estate)  goes into house and takes items without exor's
>>>>> permission/knowledge,  what would that constitute? Theft?
>
>> The important thing is that it's the executor who has control of the
>> estate.  He has to be consulted and be in agreement with anything
>> concerning it.
>
> If the items didn't belong to the deceased, they aren't part of the estate!

If they're in the deceased's house, it's a reasonable prima facie
assumption that they belonged to the deceased. That presumption can of
course be rebutted by sufficient evidence to the contrary, but the
executor has to be persuaded. He cannot just allow items of any value
to be removed on someone else's say-so.

>> The person who removed the items here was not even a beneficiary.
>> Prima facie therefore it looks like theft.
>
> While there's an implication in the OP's question that the "items"
> belonged to the deceased, there are many scenarios where that might not
> necessarily be the case. And with no disrespect, can the OP (or the
> other exor) prove either the ownership or the absence, because both
> would be necessary should this end up in court.

Who has to prove what depends on where the burden of proof lies. The
initial presumption will, as I said above, be that items in the
deceased's possession, ie in his house, belonged to him.>

> And what abut edge cases? I have a piece of furniture for which I have
> no use, and make no use; but it's been verbally donated to one of my
> children for them to collect "when they have a house big enough". Who
> does that belong to?

You haven't passed possession, so it still belongs to you.

> When we were both younger, I procured, set up and
> gave telephone support for, a PC for my mother. Had she ever replaced
> it, the machine would have come back to me. Who did that belong to?

You. You clearly reserved ownership by providing that it would come
back to you. It was on loan.

> Especially in the case of the furniture, which languishes in a box room,
> how would an executor even know it was missing, if one of the children
> "helpfully" removed it, in the circumstances under discussion.

What the eye doesn't see, the heart doesn't grieve over. However, in
principle it's still theft from the estate.

[Martin Brown]

On 24/11/2017 12:53, Jeff wrote:
> On 24/11/2017 09:05, Martin Brown wrote:

>> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:
>>> I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
>>> We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
>>>
>>> If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
>>> goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
>>> what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter?  What would
>>> be a sensible way forward to encourage the individual to desist
>>> (assuming having a firm word has no effect).
>>
>> Changing the locks on the property ASAP.
>>
>> How you react depends on the value and status of the objects taken. If
>> they took cash, high value jewellery or a big TV then that might be
>> worth considering as a criminal matter if you can't resolve it.
>

> The executor needs to contact the police, regardless of how they might
> react, merely to cover himself, as he is personally responsible for the
> estate.

That is a very extreme way of looking at it. The situation can probably
be more amicably resolved by talking to the person concerned and if
necessary agreeing a book value for them to pay for the items taken.
This assumes that the executor can identify the missing items.

The only professional executor I have ever dealt with was surprisingly
laid back about the whole thing. Perhaps he was unusual - I don't know.

House contents may well include things which do not belong to the
deceased. The family member might have been taking back something they
owned. It is bad form to do what the family member has done but unless
the executors want to seriously fracture the family by involving the
police for what may be a misunderstanding is a very bad way to proceed.
I have seen how damaging such family rows can be.

Somehow wills and inheritance brings the worst out in some people and
family feuds can develop over what are really trivial incidents.

Whilst if something has been taken it may be technically theft there is
a world of difference between a memento and a 1 carat diamond ring.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Janet]

> >>If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
> >>goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
> >>what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter?

It might be no more than a friend, who for years had unfettered access
to the property with a set of keys, going back to retrieve items that
belonged to themselves. Stuff they had loaned to the deceased, or bought
borrowed or hired to provide some comfort at home while they were ill.

Janet.

[Janet]

In article <f7qk61...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...

> If they're in the deceased's house, it's a reasonable prima facie
> assumption that they belonged to the deceased.
>

There's plenty in my house that doesn't belong to us :-). It belongs
to friends, family members, neighbours etc, who have lent it to us or
store it here, sometimes for years.

Janet.

[Janet]

In article <f7q59o...@mid.individual.net>, h...@unseen.ac.am says...

>
> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:
> > I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
> > We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
> >
> > If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
> > goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
> > what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter?  What would be
> > a sensible way forward to encourage the individual to desist (assuming
> > having a firm word has no effect).
>
> It's theft. The items belong to the estate, and the only people
> entitled to deal with them are the executors.

Well only the deceased's possessions belong to their estate.
Home contents that belong to a friend,relative, ex-partner, are not
part of the estate.

Janet.

[GB]

On 24/11/2017 13:12, Norman Wells wrote:
>> I have a piece of furniture for which I have
>> no use, and make no use; but it's been verbally donated to one of my
>> children for them to collect "when they have a house big enough". Who
>> does that belong to?
>
> You haven't passed possession, so it still belongs to you.

That's surely not correct? The father has given it to the son, and
agreed to store it. Ownership passed at the point of gift.

>
>> When we were both younger, I procured, set up and gave telephone
>> support for, a PC for my mother. Had she ever replaced it, the machine
>> would have come back to me. Who did that belong to?
>
> You.  You clearly reserved ownership by providing that it would come
> back to you.  It was on loan.

You accept that situation, yet elsewhere you suggested an executor
should insist on proof of such an arrangement. ("That presumption can of

course be rebutted by sufficient evidence to the contrary, but the

executor has to be persuaded. ") In practice, family life is a lot
wishy-washier than that.



The OP asked for advice: IMHO unless these items are of very significant
financial or emotional importance, just ask the individual to desist.
It's not worth a confrontation. In any case, if there are any really
valuable items, remove them to safe keeping ASAP.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 17:31:36 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com>
wrote:

>On 24/11/2017 13:12, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> I have a piece of furniture for which I have
>>> no use, and make no use; but it's been verbally donated to one of my
>>> children for them to collect "when they have a house big enough". Who
>>> does that belong to?
>>
>> You haven't passed possession, so it still belongs to you.
>
>That's surely not correct? The father has given it to the son, and
>agreed to store it. Ownership passed at the point of gift.

No. It's a promise to transfer ownership at an unspecified point in
the future.

Although ownership and possession are different things, in general a
transfer of ownership has to be accompanied either by a transfer of
possession or a written contract assigning ownership. A mere spoken
commitment is not enough. Particularly with a gift; a gift has to be
accepted in order to be complete, and in the circumstances described
that has not happened. Indeed, the children may never take the gift,
if they never have a house suitable for them or simply decide that
they don't want them.

This matters in some contexts. For example, in this scenario, if the
father got into debt and a bailiff arrived to seize goods, the promise
to transfer ownership would not prevent the items being seized.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <f7qk61...@mid.individual.net>, at 13:12:34 on Fri, 24

Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>> If the items didn't belong to the deceased, they aren't part of the
>>estate!
>
>If they're in the deceased's house, it's a reasonable prima facie
>assumption that they belonged to the deceased.

There have been plenty of contrary scenarios mentioned here.

>> And what abut edge cases? I have a piece of furniture for which I
>>have no use, and make no use; but it's been verbally donated to one
>>of my children for them to collect "when they have a house big
>>enough". Who does that belong to?
>
>You haven't passed possession, so it still belongs to you.

What if we carried it outside the house, the child gained possession,
and then asked to store it back in my house? Does the law really
distinguish between such trivialities?

>> When we were both younger, I procured, set up and gave telephone
>>support for, a PC for my mother. Had she ever replaced it, the
>>machine would have come back to me. Who did that belong to?
>
>You. You clearly reserved ownership by providing that it would come
>back to you. It was on loan.

Not really. The only reason it would come back to me is because that's
easier than any other way of disposing of it. Although it would also
allow me to archive the HDD. (Whose HDD, whose data?)

--
Roland Perry

[Pelican]

On 24/11/2017 23:50, Jeff wrote:
>>
>>> It is difficult to think of a set of circumstances where it would not
>>> be theft, you should contact the police immediately, as any delay
>>> could count against you; as as an executor you have a legal duty to
>>> safeguard the effects and could place you at risk from any other
>>> beneficiaries making a claim against you.
>>
>> There are several situations where it would not be theft.
>

> Please enlighten me. There is no dispute over the ownership of the
> items, they belong to the estate, and a defence of not permanently
> depriving the owner seems very unlikely in the circumstances.

See above in the thread - "The items might have been those belonging to

[Norman Wells]

On 24/11/2017 17:31, GB wrote:
> On 24/11/2017 13:12, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> I have a piece of furniture for which I have no use, and make no use;
>>> but it's been verbally donated to one of my children for them to
>>> collect "when they have a house big enough". Who does that belong to?
>>
>> You haven't passed possession, so it still belongs to you.
>
> That's surely not correct? The father has given it to the son, and
> agreed to store it. Ownership passed at the point of gift.

It's sounds to me more of a promise than a gift. 'You can have it when
you have a bigger house' rather than 'it's yours but do by all means let
this unwanted, useless item clog up our house for as long as you like
without our being able to get rid of it'.

>>> When we were both younger, I procured, set up and gave telephone
>>> support for, a PC for my mother. Had she ever replaced it, the
>>> machine would have come back to me. Who did that belong to?
>>
>> You.  You clearly reserved ownership by providing that it would come
>> back to you.  It was on loan.
>
> You accept that situation, yet elsewhere you suggested an executor
> should insist on proof of such an arrangement. ("That presumption can of
> course be rebutted by sufficient evidence to the contrary, but the
> executor has to be persuaded. ")  In practice, family life is a lot
> wishy-washier than that.
>
> The OP asked for advice: IMHO unless these items are of very significant
> financial or emotional importance, just ask the individual to desist.

What about what he's already taken? The use of the word 'desist' by the
OP implies he has already.

> It's not worth a confrontation. In any case, if there are any really
> valuable items, remove them to safe keeping ASAP.

Maybe the OP will come back and clarify who the items belonged to, why
this relative is taking them away, and possibly why he wasn't a beneficiary.

[Norman Wells]

On 24/11/2017 16:51, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 08:58:33 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:
>>> I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
>>> We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
>>>
>>> If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
>>> goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
>>> what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter?  What would be
>>> a sensible way forward to encourage the individual to desist (assuming
>>> having a firm word has no effect).
>>
>> It's theft. The items belong to the estate, and the only people
>> entitled to deal with them are the executors.
>

> Based on the bare fact in the hypothetical question to which you are
> responding, how on earth can you claim that?

Only on the balance of probabilities as supported by the facts.

1) The items were in the deceased's house, giving a prima facie
presumption of belonging to the deceased.

2) The person removing them was not so well regarded by the deceased as
to be a beneficiary.

3) He (or she) removed them without either the permission or even the
knowledge of the executors who have responsibility for preserving the
estate's assets for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries, and are
personally liable if they don't.

4) The executors are clearly suspicious, and have a right to be. No
explanation for the removal has been given and they clearly doubt that
one will be, having regard to their obvious knowledge of him or her as a
member of the family. They obviously do not think the items removed
belonged to him.

> In England, whether an
> appropriation is or is not theft revolves entirely around the state of mind
> of the perpetrator and nothing can be theft unless the appropriator believes
> that their action is theft or some other act of dishonesty.

Which of course it is if the items belonged to the deceased, as seems
likely.

>> If the person concerned
>> can't account for their actions to the satisfaction of the executors and
>> won't return the items after a friendly approach, it should be pointed
>> out that it's a criminal matter. A solicitor's letter to that effect
>> should do the trick.
>

> ... in some other place where a presumption of innocence no longer obtains.

The person concerned has given rise to a suspicion of illicit behaviour.
The burden of showing the property belonged to him, which is his only
exoneration, now falls on him.

[Roland Perry]

In message <f7rb0k...@mid.individual.net>, at 19:42:14 on Fri, 24

Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>> I have a piece of furniture for which I have no use, and make no
>>>>use; but it's been verbally donated to one of my children for them
>>>>to collect "when they have a house big enough". Who does that belong to?
>>>
>>> You haven't passed possession, so it still belongs to you.
>> That's surely not correct? The father has given it to the son, and
>>agreed to store it. Ownership passed at the point of gift.
>
>It's sounds to me more of a promise than a gift. 'You can have it when
>you have a bigger house' rather than 'it's yours but do by all means
>let this unwanted, useless item clog up our house for as long as you
>like without our being able to get rid of it'.

As it's my bit of furniture, and a real life example, it's most
definitely within the second category.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <4v1h1dtb8ebp3gtlk...@4ax.com>, at 21:11:20 on
Fri, 24 Nov 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>>>> I have a piece of furniture for which I have
>>>> no use, and make no use; but it's been verbally donated to one of my
>>>> children for them to collect "when they have a house big enough". Who
>>>> does that belong to?
>>>
>>> You haven't passed possession, so it still belongs to you.
>>
>>That's surely not correct? The father has given it to the son, and
>>agreed to store it. Ownership passed at the point of gift.
>
>No. It's a promise to transfer ownership at an unspecified point in
>the future.
>
>Although ownership and possession are different things, in general a
>transfer of ownership has to be accompanied either by a transfer of
>possession or a written contract assigning ownership. A mere spoken
>commitment is not enough. Particularly with a gift; a gift has to be
>accepted in order to be complete, and in the circumstances described
>that has not happened. Indeed, the children may never take the gift,
>if they never have a house suitable for them or simply decide that
>they don't want them.

Would it help if I handed the item over in the living room, and the son
then carried it to the box room for safe keeping?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <f7r2u4...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:24:22 on Fri, 24
Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>On 24/11/2017 16:51, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 08:58:33 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>>> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:
>>>> I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
>>>> We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
>>>>
>>>> If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
>>>> goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
>>>> what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter?  What would be
>>>> a sensible way forward to encourage the individual to desist (assuming
>>>> having a firm word has no effect).
>>>
>>> It's theft. The items belong to the estate, and the only people
>>> entitled to deal with them are the executors.
>> Based on the bare fact in the hypothetical question to which you are
>> responding, how on earth can you claim that?
>
>Only on the balance of probabilities as supported by the facts.

I think you mean "as inferred from the limited facts available".

>1) The items were in the deceased's house, giving a prima facie
>presumption of belonging to the deceased.
>
>2) The person removing them was not so well regarded by the deceased as
>to be a beneficiary.

But well regarded enough to have a key.

Many relatives can be "well regarded" but not beneficiaries; I don't
think it's commonplace to bequeath items to Aunts/Uncles for example.

>3) He (or she) removed them without either the permission or even the
>knowledge of the executors

The executors know now, which leaves us wondering whether that's because
they spotted a patch on the wall where there used to be a painting, seen
the painting in the another house, heard from a third party about the
painting... the list is endless.

>who have responsibility for preserving the estate's assets for the
>benefit of the intended beneficiaries, and are personally liable if
>they don't.

Some items have negative value. Almost any item of brown furniture for
example (yes, you really do have to pay people to take it away).

Again, real story - that furniture in the box room. It was replaced by a
(smaller) item of classic Edwardian brown furniture we picked up on eBay
from a house clearance. Several years later, we've replaced it again
(this time with a 60's retro piece).

When I took a photo of the brown item to the local auction house, which
deals predominantly with house clearances of furniture and estate sales
of collections of memorabilia (one month there were randomly about 500
toby jugs for sale!) they said they wouldn't take it, because it
wouldn't even sell for £10, their minimum bid.

>4) The executors are clearly suspicious, and have a right to be. No
>explanation for the removal has been given

None given to us, but maybe to the OP?

>and they clearly doubt that one will be,

The only doubt expressed was that the person would voluntarily desist
from similar activity in the future.

--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

I don't recall being told that.

> Many relatives can be "well regarded" but not beneficiaries; I don't
> think it's commonplace to bequeath items to Aunts/Uncles for example.

Then they're not theirs to take.

>> 3) He (or she) removed them without either the permission or even the
>> knowledge of the executors
>
> The executors know now, which leaves us wondering whether that's because
> they spotted a patch on the wall where there used to be a painting, seen
> the painting in the another house, heard from a third party about the
> painting... the list is endless.

Yes, they are probably aware now, which is why the query has arisen.
But they didn't know then, and that's the important time.

>> who have responsibility for preserving the estate's assets for the
>> benefit of the intended beneficiaries, and are personally liable if
>> they don't.
>
> Some items have negative value. Almost any item of brown furniture for
> example (yes, you really do have to pay people to take it away).

That's the executor's decision, no-one else's. Someone is not entitled
to remove items belonging to the deceased simply because they consider
they have no value.

>> 4) The executors are clearly suspicious, and have a right to be.  No
>> explanation for the removal has been given
>
> None given to us, but maybe to the OP?

Apparently not, or the query would not have arisen.

>> and they clearly doubt that one will be,
>
> The only doubt expressed was that the person would voluntarily desist
> from similar activity in the future.

The executors know the person concerned. He is a family member. What
the OP said was "assuming having a firm word has no effect". They
clearly think he is impervious to reason.

[Norman Wells]

Interesting you refer to it still as "*my* bit of furniture".

Kind of proves the point.

[Martin Brown]

On 24/11/2017 17:24, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 24/11/2017 16:51, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 08:58:33 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:
>>>> I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
>>>> We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
>>>>
>>>> If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
>>>> goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
>>>> what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter?  What
>>>> would be
>>>> a sensible way forward to encourage the individual to desist (assuming
>>>> having a firm word has no effect).
>>>
>>> It's theft.  The items belong to the estate, and the only people
>>> entitled to deal with them are the executors.
>>
>> Based on the bare fact in the hypothetical question to which you are
>> responding, how on earth can you claim that?
>
> Only on the balance of probabilities as supported by the facts.
>
> 1) The items were in the deceased's house, giving a prima facie
> presumption of belonging to the deceased.

Like NHS loan equipment for instance and anything else friends and
neighbours have loaned to the deceased in the recent past.

> 2) The person removing them was not so well regarded by the deceased as
> to be a beneficiary.

But well regarded enough to have a key to the house. We do not have
enough information to tell whether this is a case of the executors
wanting to throw their weight around at someone they don't like or a
genuine problem where goods of material value have been taken without
authority. In the latter case the executors are at least partially to
blame for not securing the premises in a timely manner.

The first thing I did after my mum died was change the combination on
the external keysafe. She had a collection of NHS and neighbour owned
wheelchair when she died (and I suspect that is not at all unusual).

> 3) He (or she) removed them without either the permission or even the
> knowledge of the executors who have responsibility for preserving the
> estate's assets for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries, and are
> personally liable if they don't.

Some assets in a house clearance are liabilities. Most furniture unless
it is antique or very well made for instance. Sofas and chairs with old
PU foam and without a fire certificate is a serious liability.

>
> 4) The executors are clearly suspicious, and have a right to be.  No
> explanation for the removal has been given and they clearly doubt that
> one will be, having regard to their obvious knowledge of him or her as a
> member of the family.  They obviously do not think the items removed
> belonged to him.

The question they asked wasn't particularly well phrased.

If they had given an indication of what had been taken it would be a lot
easier to judge whether they should go to the police or not. My instinct
is that it is a very bad idea unless you want a family feud but perhaps
they have one of those already and are just looking for ammunition.

If the OP is reading these responses perhaps they could clarify.

>> In England, whether an
>> appropriation is or is not theft revolves entirely around the state of
>> mind
>> of the perpetrator and nothing can be theft unless the appropriator
>> believes
>> that their action is theft or some other act of dishonesty.
>
> Which of course it is if the items belonged to the deceased, as seems
> likely.

We don't know that the deceased didn't informally promise something to
the person who took it. My mum left a note hidden at the bottom of a
biscuit tin with her bank books that gave me other instructions (outside
her will) on the disposal of a small number of low value trinkets. I
chose to honour that request. She was lucky I found it though.

>
>>> If the person concerned
>>> can't account for their actions to the satisfaction of the executors and
>>> won't return the items after a friendly approach, it should be pointed
>>> out that it's a criminal matter.  A solicitor's letter to that effect
>>> should do the trick.
>>
>> ... in some other place where a presumption of innocence no longer
>> obtains.
>
> The person concerned has given rise to a suspicion of illicit behaviour.
>  The burden of showing the property belonged to him, which is his only
> exoneration, now falls on him.

You view things in an extremely black and white fashion. There are a lot
of shades of grey involved where families are concerned and possibly
complex undercurrents that are not immediately obvious to outsiders.

People can do stupid things under the stress of a bereavement but
involving the police and making criminal charges against family members
should only be a last resort if you cannot resolve it any other way.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Roland Perry]

In message <f7srna...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:33:31 on Sat, 25

They broke in?

>> Many relatives can be "well regarded" but not beneficiaries; I don't
>>think it's commonplace to bequeath items to Aunts/Uncles for example.
>
>Then they're not theirs to take.

You are conflating items bequested (or not) to aunts/uncles, with
aunts/uncles being well regarded regular visitors and perhaps having
things of theirs in the house they wished to recover.

>>> 3) He (or she) removed them without either the permission or even
>>>the knowledge of the executors
>> The executors know now, which leaves us wondering whether that's
>>because they spotted a patch on the wall where there used to be a
>>painting, seen the painting in the another house, heard from a third
>>party about the painting... the list is endless.
>
>Yes, they are probably aware now, which is why the query has arisen.
>But they didn't know then, and that's the important time.

When is "then"? Are you suggesting the items were removed from under
their noses while at the house? (Would explain the keyholder issue,
though).

>>> who have responsibility for preserving the estate's assets for the
>>>benefit of the intended beneficiaries, and are personally liable if
>>>they don't.
>> Some items have negative value. Almost any item of brown furniture
>>for example (yes, you really do have to pay people to take it away).
>
>That's the executor's decision, no-one else's. Someone is not entitled
>to remove items belonging to the deceased simply because they consider
>they have no value.

Two different issues. I was exploring the legal situation regarding
theft of items with negative value.

>>> 4) The executors are clearly suspicious, and have a right to be.  No
>>>explanation for the removal has been given

>> None given to us, but maybe to the OP?
>
>Apparently not, or the query would not have arisen.

But none given to us.

>>> and they clearly doubt that one will be,
>> The only doubt expressed was that the person would voluntarily
>>desist from similar activity in the future.
>
>The executors know the person concerned. He is a family member. What
>the OP said was "assuming having a firm word has no effect". They
>clearly think he is impervious to reason.

Or just forming a plan B, if plan A (which hasn't yet been tried) fails.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <f7srup...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:37:30 on Sat, 25

Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>>>> I have a piece of furniture for which I have no use, and make no
>>>>>>use;  but it's been verbally donated to one of my children for
>>>>>>them to  collect "when they have a house big enough". Who does
>>>>>>
>>>>>

>>>>> You haven't passed possession, so it still belongs to you.

>>>>  That's surely not correct? The father has given it to the son, and
>>>>agreed to store it. Ownership passed at the point of gift.
>>>
>>> It's sounds to me more of a promise than a gift.  'You can have it
>>>when you have a bigger house' rather than 'it's yours but do by all
>>>means let this unwanted, useless item clog up our house for as long
>>>as you like without our being able to get rid of it'.

>> As it's my bit of furniture, and a real life example, it's most
>>definitely within the second category.
>
>Interesting you refer to it still as "*my* bit of furniture".
>
>Kind of proves the point.

Not at all; it was "mine" at the point I made the gift. Not some third
part whose state of mind I could only guess at.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

On 25/11/2017 09:41, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 24/11/2017 17:24, Norman Wells wrote:
>> On 24/11/2017 16:51, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 08:58:33 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:
>>>>> I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
>>>>> We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
>>>>>
>>>>> If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
>>>>> goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
>>>>> what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter?  What
>>>>> would be
>>>>> a sensible way forward to encourage the individual to desist (assuming
>>>>> having a firm word has no effect).
>>>>
>>>> It's theft.  The items belong to the estate, and the only people
>>>> entitled to deal with them are the executors.
>>>
>>> Based on the bare fact in the hypothetical question to which you are
>>> responding, how on earth can you claim that?
>>
>> Only on the balance of probabilities as supported by the facts.
>>
>> 1) The items were in the deceased's house, giving a prima facie
>> presumption of belonging to the deceased.
>
> Like NHS loan equipment for instance and anything else friends and
> neighbours have loaned to the deceased in the recent past.

Members of the family are not entitled to NHS equipment. If they take
it, it's theft.

Ownership of anything else would have to be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the executors in order to overcme the initial
presumption that they belonged to the deceased because they were in the
possession of the deceased and in his house.

>> 2) The person removing them was not so well regarded by the deceased
>> as to be a beneficiary.
>
> But well regarded enough to have a key to the house.

We don't know that.

> We do not have
> enough information to tell whether this is a case of the executors
> wanting to throw their weight around at someone they don't like or a
> genuine problem where goods of material value have been taken without
> authority. In the latter case the executors are at least partially to
> blame for not securing the premises in a timely manner.

No they aren't. If there is criminal activity, responsibility falls
entirely to the criminal. You are not entitled to take something merely
because it isn't chained down.

> The first thing I did after my mum died was change the combination on
> the external keysafe. She had a collection of NHS and neighbour owned
> wheelchair when she died (and I suspect that is not at all unusual).

What right do you think any relative would have to remove it witholut
even a by-your-leave?

>> 3) He (or she) removed them without either the permission or even the
>> knowledge of the executors who have responsibility for preserving the
>> estate's assets for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries, and are
>> personally liable if they don't.
>
> Some assets in a house clearance are liabilities. Most furniture unless
> it is antique or very well made for instance. Sofas and chairs with old
> PU foam and without a fire certificate is a serious liability.

So they may be. But it's not for any old relative to decide that and
take matters into his own hands. Whatever the value, the items belong
to the estate, which the executors alone have legal authority to
administer and deal with.

>> 4) The executors are clearly suspicious, and have a right to be.  No
>> explanation for the removal has been given and they clearly doubt that
>> one will be, having regard to their obvious knowledge of him or her as
>> a member of the family.  They obviously do not think the items removed
>> belonged to him.
>
> The question they asked wasn't particularly well phrased.
>
> If they had given an indication of what had been taken it would be a lot
> easier to judge whether they should go to the police or not. My instinct
> is that it is a very bad idea unless you want a family feud but perhaps
> they have one of those already and are just looking for ammunition.
>
> If the OP is reading these responses perhaps they could clarify.
>
>>> In England, whether an
>>> appropriation is or is not theft revolves entirely around the state
>>> of mind
>>> of the perpetrator and nothing can be theft unless the appropriator
>>> believes
>>> that their action is theft or some other act of dishonesty.
>>
>> Which of course it is if the items belonged to the deceased, as seems
>> likely.
>
> We don't know that the deceased didn't informally promise something to
> the person who took it.

That makes no difference. An informal promise is not a gift, nor does
it transfer ownership. Any such items are the property of the estate to
be handled solely by the executors.

> My mum left a note hidden at the bottom of a
> biscuit tin with her bank books that gave me other instructions (outside
> her will) on the disposal of a small number of low value trinkets. I
> chose to honour that request. She was lucky I found it though.

That's fine. That's how it works. But it's the executors' decision,
it's not for anyone else.

>>>> If the person concerned
>>>> can't account for their actions to the satisfaction of the executors
>>>> and
>>>> won't return the items after a friendly approach, it should be pointed
>>>> out that it's a criminal matter.  A solicitor's letter to that effect
>>>> should do the trick.
>>>
>>> ... in some other place where a presumption of innocence no longer
>>> obtains.
>>
>> The person concerned has given rise to a suspicion of illicit
>> behaviour.   The burden of showing the property belonged to him, which
>> is his only exoneration, now falls on him.
>
> You view things in an extremely black and white fashion. There are a lot
> of shades of grey involved where families are concerned and possibly
> complex undercurrents that are not immediately obvious to outsiders.
>
> People can do stupid things under the stress of a bereavement but
> involving the police and making criminal charges against family members
> should only be a last resort if you cannot resolve it any other way.

Of course, but the executors have a legal responsibility towards the
beneficiaries of the Will to ensure that they get everything to which
they're entitled, not just turn a blind eye to theft for example.

[Norman Wells]

On 25/11/2017 11:34, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <f7srna...@mid.individual.net>, at 09:33:31 on Sat, 25
> Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>> On 25/11/2017 08:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <f7r2u4...@mid.individual.net>, at 17:24:22 on Fri, 24
>>> Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>> On 24/11/2017 16:51, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 08:58:33 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> It's theft.  The items belong to the estate, and the only people
>>>>>> entitled to deal with them are the executors.

>>>>>  Based on the bare fact in the hypothetical question to which you are
>>>>> responding, how on earth can you claim that?
>>>>
>>>> Only on the balance of probabilities as supported by the facts.
>>>  I think you mean "as inferred from the limited facts available".
>>>
>>>> 1) The items were in the deceased's house, giving a prima facie
>>>> presumption of belonging to the deceased.
>>>>
>>>> 2) The person removing them was not so well regarded by the deceased
>>>> as to be a beneficiary.
>
>>>  But well regarded enough to have a key.
>>
>> I don't recall being told that.
>
> They broke in?

I have no idea. We haven't been told.

>>> Many relatives can be "well regarded" but not beneficiaries; I don't
>>> think it's commonplace to bequeath items to Aunts/Uncles for example.
>>
>> Then they're not theirs to take.
>
> You are conflating items bequested (or not) to aunts/uncles, with
> aunts/uncles being well regarded regular visitors and perhaps having
> things of theirs in the house they wished to recover.

If items are bequeathed they will pass in due course under the terms of
the Will under the aegis of the executors.

If the items are actually the property of the relative who has taken
them, the correct procedure would have been for the executors to have
been informed of the circumstances and, if satisfied, agreed. Before
they were removed.

>>>> 3) He (or she) removed them without either the permission or even
>>>> the  knowledge of the executors
>>>  The executors know now, which leaves us wondering whether that's
>>> because  they spotted a patch on the wall where there used to be a
>>> painting, seen  the painting in the another house, heard from a third
>>> party about the  painting... the list is endless.
>>
>> Yes, they are probably aware now, which is why the query has arisen.
>> But they didn't know then, and that's the important time.
>
> When is "then"? Are you suggesting the items were removed from under
> their noses while at the house? (Would explain the keyholder issue,
> though).

I don't know. We haven't been told.

>>>> who have responsibility for preserving the estate's assets for the
>>>> benefit of the intended beneficiaries, and are personally liable if
>>>> they don't.
>>>  Some items have negative value. Almost any item of brown furniture
>>> for  example (yes, you really do have to pay people to take it away).
>>
>> That's the executor's decision, no-one else's.  Someone is not
>> entitled to remove items belonging to the deceased simply because they
>> consider they have no value.
>
> Two different issues. I was exploring the legal situation regarding
> theft of items with negative value.

The value of an item is irrelevant to the question of theft. All it
needs to be is 'property' according to the definition in the Theft Act,
and it can be stolen.

>>>> 4) The executors are clearly suspicious, and have a right to be.  No
>>>> explanation for the removal has been given
>
>>>  None given to us, but maybe to the OP?
>>
>> Apparently not, or the query would not have arisen.
>
> But none given to us.

Of course not. The OP can only pass on to us information that he has.

[Martin Brown]

On 25/11/2017 11:48, Jeff wrote:
>
>> But well regarded enough to have a key to the house.
>

> No key was disclosed in the OP, and even if the is a key no comments on
> how it was obtained.

The OP did not say that the house was broken into. The normal way of
opening a locked door is with a key. If the lock had been picked then I
think they might at least have mentioned it in the original question.

BTW The OP seems to have gone very quiet.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Roland Perry]

In message <f7t4dv...@mid.individual.net>, at 12:02:08 on Sat, 25

Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>I don't know. We haven't been told.

...

>The OP can only pass on to us information that he has.

In the absence of any additional information for what was quite a short
original posting, I think further useful comment is very limited, and
mainly relies upon presumptions.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <f7t261...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:23:46 on Sat, 25

Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>Members of the family are not entitled to NHS equipment. If they take
>it, it's theft.

Not if their motivation was to return it to the NHS.
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 08:22:13 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <4v1h1dtb8ebp3gtlk...@4ax.com>, at 21:11:20 on
>Fri, 24 Nov 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>

>>Although ownership and possession are different things, in general a
>>transfer of ownership has to be accompanied either by a transfer of
>>possession or a written contract assigning ownership. A mere spoken
>>commitment is not enough. Particularly with a gift; a gift has to be
>>accepted in order to be complete, and in the circumstances described
>>that has not happened. Indeed, the children may never take the gift,
>>if they never have a house suitable for them or simply decide that
>>they don't want them.
>
>Would it help if I handed the item over in the living room, and the son
>then carried it to the box room for safe keeping?

Possibly. As with all such things, there is no statutory definition of
when ownership changes hands. It's all down to how a court would
interpret the circumstances.

This is, in fact, the origin of the oft-abused expression that
"possession is nine-tenths of the law". Although the wording is
fanciful, and there is no meaningful sense in which the law can be
divided into tenths (or, as in another version, twelve points), the
basic principle stands that a person in actual custodial possession of
an item is assumed to be the owner unless there is sufficient evidence
to prove otherwise[1].

As far as ciminal liability is concerned, if the person in possession
is alleged to be a thief (or a fence, or an innocent customer of
either thief or fence), then it is up to the rightful owner to adduce
evidence of ownership. In the case of a civil dispute, then some
contractual agreement or other evidence which demonstrates the true
ownership will be required. But, either way, the burden of proof lies
on the party asserting that the person not in possession is the owner.

Going back to the topic under discussion in this thread; it is
possible, as some have said, that the person removing items from the
deceased's house was their rightful owner and was merely reclaiming
possession. But, if so, it is up to him to demonstrate that, to the
satisfaction initially of the executors and, if necessary, to a court,
before removing the items. So even if he does own them, he was wrong
to remove them without informing the executors of his ownership and
gaining their approval to remove the items. And the executors are
equally perfectly entitled (in fact, possibly obliged) to instruct the
appropriator not to do so, and to take steps to prevent any such
appropriation until the question of ownership has been settled to
their satisfaction.

[1] An important point to note here is that if an item has recently
been appropriated by the person currently in possession, then any
evidence that the appropriation was unauthorised by the person
previously in possession is also evidence that ownership remains with
the person previously in possession. But this does not disprove the
assertion that the default owner is the person currently in possession
unless there is evidence to the contrary, rather, it merely acts as
evidence to the contrary.

Mark

[Norman Wells]

That's the executors' job, no-one else's.

[Peter Crosland]

Quite! Would the possession of a key imply authority to use it, and
would such authority cease upon the death of the owner? If not does use
of the key become burglary?


--
Peter Crosland

Reply address is valid

[Roland Perry]

In message <kg4j1d99f2u7hqmi5...@4ax.com>, at 16:19:36 on
Sat, 25 Nov 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>Going back to the topic under discussion in this thread; it is
>possible, as some have said, that the person removing items from the
>deceased's house was their rightful owner and was merely reclaiming
>possession. But, if so, it is up to him to demonstrate that, to the
>satisfaction initially of the executors and, if necessary, to a court,
>before removing the items. So even if he does own them, he was wrong
>to remove them without informing the executors of his ownership and
>gaining their approval to remove the items. And the executors are
>equally perfectly entitled (in fact, possibly obliged) to instruct the
>appropriator not to do so, and to take steps to prevent any such
>appropriation until the question of ownership has been settled to
>their satisfaction.

Is that all a requirement under some criminal code, or merely
what they should do, to avoid future potential civil liability
to the beneficiaries - including perhaps the taxman.
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Parry]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 16:19:36 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>Going back to the topic under discussion in this thread; it is
>possible, as some have said, that the person removing items from the
>deceased's house was their rightful owner and was merely reclaiming
>possession. But, if so, it is up to him to demonstrate that, to the
>satisfaction initially of the executors and, if necessary, to a court,
>before removing the items. So even if he does own them, he was wrong
>to remove them without informing the executors of his ownership and
>gaining their approval to remove the items. And the executors are
>equally perfectly entitled (in fact, possibly obliged) to instruct the
>appropriator not to do so, and to take steps to prevent any such
>appropriation until the question of ownership has been settled to
>their satisfaction.

An incident which actually happened. Fred was going to a football
match. He had just collected the airline tickets and foreign money
for the family holiday that his family were going on the next morning.
Not wishing to carry the tickets and money plus passports to the match
he went in to see his mate Bert (no relation) who lived near the
grounds and asked if he could leave them with him for safe keeping
until the match was over. Bert agreed. After the match Fred went
back to Bert's and to his dismay found an ambulance outside. Going in
to the house he discovered the paramedics proclaiming that Bert had
shuffled off his mortal coil.

Alive or dead Bert had no title (or anything else) to the money or
tickets nor any interest in the holiday, he was no relative to Fred
and his only involvement was agreeing to the money. tickets and
passports being left with him for a few hours.

Should Fred have left his belongings where they were until Bert's only
son (and presumed executor) came back from overseas where he was
working and agreed to him taking them back? The holiday of course
would have been ruined as no one could have traveled without tickets,
money or passports.

[Roland Perry]

In message <f7tia3...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:59:01 on Sat, 25

Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>> Members of the family are not entitled to NHS equipment.  If they
>>>take it, it's theft.
>> Not if their motivation was to return it to the NHS.
>
>That's the executors' job, no-one else's.

What if by delaying doing so they (or the estate) acquire some kind of
penalty from the NHS for failing to do so sooner?

And while you might call it "their job", under what statute are they
*required* to do so?
--
Roland Perry

[GB]

In any case, the crime of theft requires dishonest intent.

[Norman Wells]

On 25/11/2017 17:26, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <f7tia3...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:59:01 on Sat, 25
> Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>
>>>> Members of the family are not entitled to NHS equipment.  If they
>>>> take  it, it's theft.
>>>  Not if their motivation was to return it to the NHS.
>>
>> That's the executors' job, no-one else's.
>
> What if by delaying doing so they (or the estate) acquire some kind of
> penalty from the NHS for failing to do so sooner?

Too bad. It's the executors' responsibility, as it is for them to take
all reasonable steps to preserve the value of the estate.

> And while you might call it "their job", under what statute are they
> *required* to do so?

The appointed executors have full and exclusive authority to deal with
all aspects of the deceased's estate. They hold the assets of the
estate for the benefit of the intended beneficiaries, and are bound by
the normal duties of care etc that apply to any trustees.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 17:24:19 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

The latter, primarily. If they allow someone to remove items that
should not be remvoed, they may become liable for their loss.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 18:12:51 +0000, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
wrote:

Under the circumstances, had I been Fred, I would have taken the
tickets and money, confident that if challenged I could prove my
ownership. The tickets would probably also have names on them of Fred
and his family, which would have helped establish this, and the
passports clearly belong to the person whose identity they establish.

However, were I one of Bert's executors, and I happened to be present
at the house when Fred arrived, I may have wanted to be sure that Fred
was who he said he was, and that he was the Fred on the tickets, and
that he had title to the money, before letting him remove them. The
passports and tickets would probably be easy enough to establish,
given that the fomer has a photograph and the latter will be linked by
name to the former. And if the money was all together with the tickets
and passports in the same envelope, then it would probably be a
reasonable risk. But if the money wasn't clearly linked to the
passports, then I would probably decline to hand it over.

That's a risk you take when leaving goods with someone else.

Mark

[Martin Brown]

It may not even require physical possession of a key. Knowing the code
to open an external key safe would be enough (and that access mode might
cover GP, district nurses, carers, care on call and sundry others too).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Roland Perry]

In message <f7u2j3...@mid.individual.net>, at 20:36:54 on Sat, 25

Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>On 25/11/2017 17:26, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <f7tia3...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:59:01 on Sat, 25
>>Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>
>>>>> Members of the family are not entitled to NHS equipment.  If they
>>>>>take  it, it's theft.
>>>>  Not if their motivation was to return it to the NHS.
>>>
>>> That's the executors' job, no-one else's.
>> What if by delaying doing so they (or the estate) acquire some kind
>>of penalty from the NHS for failing to do so sooner?
>
>Too bad. It's the executors' responsibility, as it is for them to take
>all reasonable steps to preserve the value of the estate.

I doubt that acting in such a way that penalties accrue would count as
"preserving the value".
--
Roland Perry

[Martin Brown]

On 25/11/2017 17:26, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <f7tia3...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:59:01 on Sat, 25
> Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>
>>>> Members of the family are not entitled to NHS equipment.  If they
>>>> take  it, it's theft.
>>>  Not if their motivation was to return it to the NHS.
>>
>> That's the executors' job, no-one else's.
>
> What if by delaying doing so they (or the estate) acquire some kind of
> penalty from the NHS for failing to do so sooner?

The NHS are nowhere near as vindictive as some of the posters here. They
are actually quite surprised to get anything back (and I suspect they
mostly weight it in as scrap metal rather than trying to recycle it).

Most solicitors I have met dealing with the household contents put a
nominal figure of £2-3k down for a suburban semi (and I have seen
realised values that were negative after agents fees). Failure to clear
a rented premises inside a fairly tight deadline incurs extra rent.

Compared to the estate agents finger in the air +/-5% estimate for the
value of the house itself the contents valuation is pretty much below
the noise unless there are valuable antiques or jewellery involved.

> And while you might call it "their job", under what statute are they
> *required* to do so?

It makes very good sense for whoever is first on the scene to remove
from the empty house any sharps and opiate drugs and surrender them to a
pharmacy as soon as is practically possible.

I didn't know this but apparently if some druggie breaks in steals them
and then dies from overdose their family can sue the estate for damages.
(at least that is what I was told by my local NHS trust)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Roland Perry]

In message <eq1l1d56jpb6q5phf...@4ax.com>, at 09:21:01 on
Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

remarked:
>>>Going back to the topic under discussion in this thread; it is
>>>possible, as some have said, that the person removing items from the
>>>deceased's house was their rightful owner and was merely reclaiming
>>>possession. But, if so, it is up to him to demonstrate that, to the
>>>satisfaction initially of the executors and, if necessary, to a court,
>>>before removing the items. So even if he does own them, he was wrong
>>>to remove them without informing the executors of his ownership and
>>>gaining their approval to remove the items. And the executors are
>>>equally perfectly entitled (in fact, possibly obliged) to instruct the
>>>appropriator not to do so, and to take steps to prevent any such
>>>appropriation until the question of ownership has been settled to
>>>their satisfaction.
>>
>>Is that all a requirement under some criminal code, or merely
>>what they should do, to avoid future potential civil liability
>>to the beneficiaries - including perhaps the taxman.
>
>The latter, primarily. If they allow someone to remove items that
>should not be remvoed, they may become liable for their loss.

How does the taxman know something has gone missing?
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

That depends. But it's the executors' responsibility, no-one else's.
And they are accountable to the beneficiaries.

[Roland Perry]

In message <at1l1d5cd9a2jhsug...@4ax.com>, at 09:27:13 on
Sun, 26 Nov 2017, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>passports clearly belong to the person whose identity they establish.

Note #7, penultimate page; they belong to HMG.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ove24d$6bd$4...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:39:26 on Sun, 26 Nov
2017, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>>>>> But well regarded enough to have a key to the house.

>>>> No key was disclosed in the OP, and even if the is a key no
>>>> comments on how it was obtained.
>>> The OP did not say that the house was broken into. The normal way
>>> of opening a locked door is with a key. If the lock had been picked
>>> then I think they might at least have mentioned it in the original
>>> question.
>>> BTW The OP seems to have gone very quiet.
>> Quite! Would the possession of a key imply authority to use it, and
>>would such authority cease upon the death of the owner? If not does
>> use of the key become burglary?
>
>It may not even require physical possession of a key. Knowing the code
>to open an external key safe would be enough (and that access mode
>might cover GP, district nurses, carers, care on call and sundry others
>too).

I would count that as "having a key".
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <ove21q$6bd$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, at 09:38:03 on Sun, 26 Nov

2017, Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> remarked:

>The NHS are nowhere near as vindictive as some of the posters here.
>They are actually quite surprised to get anything back (and I suspect
>they mostly weight it in as scrap metal rather than trying to recycle
>it).

Depends what it is. I know someone whose wife died (at home, from
cancer) within a few days of the NHS finally delivering an electric bed,
and they came and picked it up PDQ.
--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

There may have been implied consent to enter the premises while the
deceased was alive and he owned them, but that all ceases on death. The
property now belongs to the executors, not the deceased, and they need
to give their consent if there is to be any continuation.

[GB]

On 26/11/2017 09:44, Roland Perry wrote:

> How does the taxman know something has gone missing?

In theory, they inspect the house and notice some patches on the walls
where pictures obviously were.

[Roland Perry]

In message <f7vl8o...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:01:45 on Sun, 26
Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>> It may not even require physical possession of a key. Knowing the
>>>code to open an external key safe would be enough (and that access
>>>mode might cover GP, district nurses, carers, care on call and
>>>sundry others too).

>> I would count that as "having a key".
>
>There may have been implied consent to enter the premises while the
>deceased was alive and he owned them, but that all ceases on death. The
>property now belongs to the executors, not the deceased, and they need
>to give their consent if there is to be any continuation.

What offence is committed, and does it require intent?
--
Roland Perry

[Peter Parry]

That the tickets were to Orlando and the money in dollars would
probably be a clue :-)

[Norman Wells]

At the very least it's trespass. If any taking of the estate's property
is in mind, there's a whole range of theft offences that may be committed.

[Harry Bloomfield]

Martin Brown wrote on 26/11/2017 :
> The NHS are nowhere near as vindictive as some of the posters here. They are
> actually quite surprised to get anything back (and I suspect they mostly
> weight it in as scrap metal rather than trying to recycle it).

I found that to be very true. I rang the number given on some equipment
return and it seemed they were quite unused to issued equipment being
returned to them. They had to find out what the process was, before
making arrangements for collection.

They (NHS) waste many millions of pounds on loaned out equipment -
There was a scheme I saw on TV, where such equipment was being
accepted, serviced and passed on to those needing it.

[Peter Parry]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 11:23:46 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 25/11/2017 09:41, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 24/11/2017 17:24, Norman Wells wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2017 16:51, Anthony R. Gold wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 08:58:33 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 23/11/2017 23:29, Allan wrote:
>>>>>> I'm co-exor of a friend's estate (other exor is friend's daughter).
>>>>>> We're just about to embark on house clearance prior to sale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If another family member (not exor and not beneficiary of the estate)
>>>>>> goes into house and takes items without exor's permission/knowledge,
>>>>>> what would that constitute? Theft? Civil/criminal matter?  What
>>>>>> would be
>>>>>> a sensible way forward to encourage the individual to desist (assuming
>>>>>> having a firm word has no effect).
>>>>>
>>>>> It's theft.  The items belong to the estate, and the only people
>>>>> entitled to deal with them are the executors.
>>>>
>>>> Based on the bare fact in the hypothetical question to which you are
>>>> responding, how on earth can you claim that?
>>>
>>> Only on the balance of probabilities as supported by the facts.
>>>
>>> 1) The items were in the deceased's house, giving a prima facie
>>> presumption of belonging to the deceased.
>>
>> Like NHS loan equipment for instance and anything else friends and
>> neighbours have loaned to the deceased in the recent past.

>
>Members of the family are not entitled to NHS equipment. If they take
>it, it's theft.

I once collected an oxygen concentrator on loan to someone from the
local NHS store and signed for it. When they died a few months later
I collected it from their house and returned it to the same store. At
the same time BOC came to collect a dozen oxygen cylinders and I
helped them to remove them.

Was the BOC driver guilty theft for collecting the cylinders they
owned?

Was I for returning equipment owned by the local Health Authority and
which I had signed for and given to the dead person?

"Theft Act 1968 Basic definition of theft.
((1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates
property belonging to another with the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed
accordingly.)"

[Roland Perry]

In message <oveh9o$a9l$2...@dont-email.me>, at 13:58:13 on Sun, 26 Nov
2017, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:

>> How does the taxman know something has gone missing?
>
>In theory, they inspect the house and notice some patches on the walls
>where pictures obviously were.

In practice, (a) do they really do that, and (b) how can they tell how
recent the removal was?
--
Roland Perry

[GB]

On 26/11/2017 14:13, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
> Martin Brown wrote on 26/11/2017 :
>> The NHS are nowhere near as vindictive as some of the posters here.
>> They are actually quite surprised to get anything back (and I suspect
>> they mostly weight it in as scrap metal rather than trying to recycle
>> it).
>
> I found that to be very true. I rang the number given on some equipment
> return and it seemed they were quite unused to issued equipment being
> returned to them. They had to find out what the process was, before
> making arrangements for collection.

When MIL died, the NHS asked us NOT to return the equipment they had
provided (Zimmer frame, perch stool, commode, frame to go round the
toilet etc.) They said it was too expensive to check it over and clean
it. I'm delighted to hear that there are charities that recycle this
stuff, because we certainly could not get anyone to take it.

[Norman Wells]

On 26/11/2017 15:03, Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:22:02 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
>
>> On 26/11/2017 11:14, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <f7vl8o...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:01:45 on Sun, 26
>>> Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:
>>>
>>>>>> It may not even require physical possession of a key. Knowing the
>>>>>> code  to open an external key safe would be enough (and that access
>>>>>> mode  might cover GP, district nurses, carers, care on call and
>>>>>> sundry  others too).
>>>
>>>>>  I would count that as "having a key".
>>>>
>>>> There may have been implied consent to enter the premises while the
>>>> deceased was alive and he owned them, but that all ceases on death.
>>>> The property now belongs to the executors, not the deceased, and they
>>>> need to give their consent if there is to be any continuation.
>>>
>>> What offence is committed, and does it require intent?
>>
>> At the very least it's trespass.
>

> Trespass to land is generally not an offence in England.

It's still trespass. The point wasn't about whether a criminal offence
had been committed but whether anything wrong is done at all by entering
the deceased's property.

[Norman Wells]

No, but unless you were an executor or acting with the executor's
consent, you were trespassing and exceeding your authority.

By what right did you think you were entitled to enter the deceased's
house without permission?

[Serena Blanchflower]

I've contacted them a few times about loaned equipment which I no longer
needed. Some things, they've collected but other, cheaper stuff they've
told me to dispose of and I've generally been able to rehome it, either
through friends or freecycle.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. What happened to the hyena that swallowed an Oxo cube?
A. He made a laughing stock of himself.

[Peter Parry]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:08:37 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 26/11/2017 14:52, Peter Parry wrote:


>By what right did you think you were entitled to enter the deceased's
>house without permission?

What makes you think there was no permission? Permission was granted
by the deceased before he died and also his next of kin

[Norman Wells]

You cannot have the permission of anyone who is dead.

Moreover, unless the next-of-kin was an executor, he or she had no right
to give you permission either.

The estate vests in the executors and no-one else. They own it. They
control what happens with it, exclusively. It was the deceased's will.

[Peter Parry]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:13:44 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>

wrote:

>On 26/11/2017 16:00, Peter Parry wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:08:37 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>> wrote:
>>> On 26/11/2017 14:52, Peter Parry wrote:
>
>>> By what right did you think you were entitled to enter the deceased's
>>> house without permission?
>>
>> What makes you think there was no permission? Permission was granted
>> by the deceased before he died and also his next of kin
>
>You cannot have the permission of anyone who is dead.

What makes you think the permission lapsed?

>Moreover, unless the next-of-kin was an executor, he or she had no right
>to give you permission either.

They lived there. I have no idea who the executor was.

>The estate vests in the executors and no-one else. They own it. They
>control what happens with it, exclusively. It was the deceased's will.

How is one to know who the executor is and confirm they are indeed
the executor??

[GB]

If there's a dispute about the value, the district valuer may well come
round to inspect. I suspect that it's possible to tell whether the
picture was there in the last 7 years, which is what matters.

Of course, it's difficult for HMRC to tell if any chattels of value have
been removed. In any case, pictures and furniture may have negligible
value compared to other more portable items. I suppose that, once their
suspicions are raised, they can start looking at insurance policies as
evidence of what was in the house.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:21:43 +0000, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
wrote:

Yes, it's good evidence, for sure. But there are circumtances where it
may not be conclusive. After all, Bert may have a perfectly good
reason for holding a wedge of USD himself. It's not an uncommon
currency, by any means.

If the money wasn't physically linked to the tickets (eg, by being in
the same envelope, or even in the same particular safe place where
Bert has put it), then the executors might well ask Fred to offer a
bit more evidence, such as a receipt from the exchange.

Mark

[Peter Parry]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:01:16 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 14:21:43 +0000, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:

>If the money wasn't physically linked to the tickets (eg, by being in
>the same envelope, or even in the same particular safe place where
>Bert has put it), then the executors might well ask Fred to offer a
>bit more evidence, such as a receipt from the exchange.

Bert was of an age where there was only one safe place for money where
no one would ever dream of looking - in the teapot with the cosy on
it.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 09:44:07 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

Possibly because someone grasses on them, or there are other aspects
which don't add up. If the item removed is valuable, it could impact
on inheritence tax liability. It's not unknown for heirs in such
circumstances to come to an agreement for a friend to "look after" an
item before it gets totted up in the estate, and then reclaim it later
once the (reduced) tax liability has been caclulated. Like all such
easy-to-perform tax dodges, HMRC are wise to them and will start
sniffing around if they suspect anything.

Mark

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 09:46:09 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

Well, yes, but the person they identify has a right to possess them.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:35:25 +0000, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>

wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:13:44 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>wrote:
>
>>On 26/11/2017 16:00, Peter Parry wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:08:37 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 26/11/2017 14:52, Peter Parry wrote:
>>
>>>> By what right did you think you were entitled to enter the deceased's
>>>> house without permission?
>>>
>>> What makes you think there was no permission? Permission was granted
>>> by the deceased before he died and also his next of kin
>>
>>You cannot have the permission of anyone who is dead.
>
>What makes you think the permission lapsed?

Because the person granting it died, and rights to grant permission
have passed to the estate.

>>Moreover, unless the next-of-kin was an executor, he or she had no right
>>to give you permission either.
>
>They lived there. I have no idea who the executor was.
>
>>The estate vests in the executors and no-one else. They own it. They
>>control what happens with it, exclusively. It was the deceased's will.
>
>How is one to know who the executor is and confirm they are indeed
>the executor??

Ask to see the will, and don't do anything until you've seen it.

Mark

[Robin]

You can repeat as often as you wish that the estate vests in the
executor but that doesn't affect the fact that things the deceased did
not own are not part of the estate.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Norman Wells]

On 26/11/2017 16:35, Peter Parry wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:13:44 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
> wrote:
>> On 26/11/2017 16:00, Peter Parry wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 15:08:37 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 26/11/2017 14:52, Peter Parry wrote:
>>
>>>> By what right did you think you were entitled to enter the deceased's
>>>> house without permission?
>>>
>>> What makes you think there was no permission? Permission was granted
>>> by the deceased before he died and also his next of kin
>>
>> You cannot have the permission of anyone who is dead.
>
> What makes you think the permission lapsed?

Permission is an ongoing ephemeral thing. Its nature is that it only
exists at a particular moment in time. It can be granted or withdrawn
in an instant. However, that really requires the person to be alive.
Once he ceases to be, the only logical conclusion is that any ongoing
permission lapses.

>> Moreover, unless the next-of-kin was an executor, he or she had no right
>> to give you permission either.
>
> They lived there. I have no idea who the executor was.

Then the next-of-kin had certain rights, presumably including letting
you enter the property. However, unless he or she was an executor, they
had no right to allow you to do anything with or to the deceased's property.

And you do not gain any such rights by not knowing who the executor was.
If you don't know, you have to find out. The property isn't yours,
nor is it any longer the deceased's. It's the executor's alone.

>> The estate vests in the executors and no-one else. They own it. They
>> control what happens with it, exclusively. It was the deceased's will.
>
> How is one to know who the executor is and confirm they are indeed
> the executor??

By whatever means you can. For as long as you can't, you have no right
to intervene.

[Peter Parry]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:12:38 +0000, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:

>On 26/11/2017 16:35, Peter Parry wrote:

>> They lived there. I have no idea who the executor was.
>
>Then the next-of-kin had certain rights, presumably including letting
>you enter the property. However, unless he or she was an executor, they
>had no right to allow you to do anything with or to the deceased's property.

It wasn't the deceased property and never had been. In the case of
the oxygen cylinders they even had "property of BOC" stenciled on
them.

In the case of the oxygen generator I had signed for the loan of it
and collected it.

>And you do not gain any such rights by not knowing who the executor was.
> If you don't know, you have to find out. The property isn't yours,
>nor is it any longer the deceased's. It's the executor's alone.

The deceased, when alive, had no title in either item. How on earth
did he get title by dying? His executor also had no title in the
items and no means of obtaining one so the property was not his nor
did it form part of the estate.

[Roland Perry]

In message <f80108...@mid.individual.net>, at 14:22:02 on Sun, 26

Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>> There may have been implied consent to enter the premises while the
>>>deceased was alive and he owned them, but that all ceases on death.
>>>The property now belongs to the executors, not the deceased, and they
>>>need to give their consent if there is to be any continuation.

>> What offence is committed, and does it require intent?
>
>At the very least it's trespass.

Does it require intent?

As it's not a "rave" or a "squat", which statute applies.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <f8048a...@mid.individual.net>, at 15:17:32 on Sun, 26

Nov 2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>>>> What offence is committed, and does it require intent?
>>>
>>> At the very least it's trespass.

>> Trespass to land is generally not an offence in England.
>
>It's still trespass. The point wasn't about whether a criminal offence
>had been committed

Quote: What offence is committed
Answer: At the very least it's trespass

--
Roland Perry

[Pelican]

Following Norman's logic, the right to possession the deceased had ended
on death. Does that mean that the executor has unlawful possession of
the item(s)?

Is that theft? Should the police be called?

[Norman Wells]

It did.

>  Does that mean that the executor has unlawful possession of
> the item(s)?
>
> Is that theft?  Should the police be called?

It would be theft if the executor intended to permanently deprive BOC of
them, but not otherwise.
>

[Norman Wells]

It's the executor's job to sort out what belongs to the estate and what
doesn't. It's not for all and sundry to go in, have a rummage around,
decide for themselves, and pocket whatever they want without even a
by-your-leave.

[Norman Wells]

It depends on the circumstances of course. It's trespass. It may be
theft. It may be fraud. It may conceivably be perverting the course of
justice or similar.

[Pelican]

Should the all-and-sundry go cap-in-hand to the executor and request the
return of their property, while tugging the forelock?

[Peter Parry]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:33:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:35:25 +0000, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>wrote:

>>

>>>The estate vests in the executors and no-one else. They own it. They
>>>control what happens with it, exclusively. It was the deceased's will.
>>
>>How is one to know who the executor is and confirm they are indeed
>>the executor??
>
>Ask to see the will,

Ask who?

>and don't do anything until you've seen it.

Why ever not? I knew the items did not and never had belonged to the
deceased and in one case I had signed to take responsibility for it.
If I had been visiting them and they died while my car was in their
drive should I wait months for the executor to show up to allow me to
reclaim it?

The idea that on death everything within the property boundary
suddenly and magically becomes the property of the executor no matter
who had title in it a moment before seems to be rather irrational.

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Sunday, 26 November 2017 14:57:20 UTC, GB wrote:
> When MIL died, the NHS asked us NOT to return the equipment they had
> provided (Zimmer frame, perch stool, commode, frame to go round the
> toilet etc.) They said it was too expensive to check it over and clean
> it.

I used to work in one of those departments.

Some of the commodes that came back weren't empty ...

Fortunately not my job to take them outside and pressure-wash them.

Owain

[Pelican]

Well, ahem, your right to be there, with your car, ceased immediately on
death. At the least, you became a trespasser. Surely?

[Pelican]

What do you think about unlawful possession, Norman?

>> Is that theft?  Should the police be called?
>
> It would be theft if the executor intended to permanently deprive BOC of
> them, but not otherwise.

I doubt if the idea crossed the executor's mind.

[Mark Goodge]

No, because the whole point of there being an executor is that they
take legal responsibility for the estate when the bequeathor dies. If
the deceased was in lawful possession when alive, then so will the
estate be after thir death.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 22:48:45 +0000, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>

wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 17:33:03 +0000, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Nov 2017 16:35:25 +0000, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
>>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>The estate vests in the executors and no-one else. They own it. They
>>>>control what happens with it, exclusively. It was the deceased's will.
>>>
>>>How is one to know who the executor is and confirm they are indeed
>>>the executor??
>>
>>Ask to see the will,
>
>Ask who?

Ask the person claiming to be the executor.

>>and don't do anything until you've seen it.
>
>Why ever not? I knew the items did not and never had belonged to the
>deceased and in one case I had signed to take responsibility for it.
>If I had been visiting them and they died while my car was in their
>drive should I wait months for the executor to show up to allow me to
>reclaim it?
>
>The idea that on death everything within the property boundary
>suddenly and magically becomes the property of the executor no matter
>who had title in it a moment before seems to be rather irrational.

It doesn't become the property of the executor. It becomes the
responsibility of the executor.

If the executor is a personal friend, or close family member, of the
deceased, then their knowledge of the deceased's relationships with
other people may well help smooth the process of returning items to
their rightful owner. But if not, then the executor is perfectly
entitled to be cautious about accepting a third party's claim to
ownership.

Mark

[Chris R]

Death and probate is one of the main areas in which the fuzziness that
exists in legal relationships at the personal level is allowed to
continue. Whilst there is (now) a correct legal way to do things,
departing from that is tolerated in many ways, and families are left to
sort things out in their own way. The state normally interferes only in
the most egregious of cases. Civil action will normally only succeed if
someone can prove financial loss. So things done informally, or even
quite seriously wrongly, will normally go unchallenged. Whoever is
prepared to take responsibility for arranging a funeral, or clearing a
flat, or paying the gas bill will normally not be penalised for it.
Hanging about waiting for proper legal authority is likely to do more
harm than good.

In these regulated days we are not used to the way the law used to work,
when the absence of any effective remedy was often the test of whether
something could or could not be done, and most legal rights were
relative rather than absolute. "Is it legal" would be a meaningless
question in those contexts.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[Robin]

On 27/11/2017 08:55, Mark Goodge wrote:

> No, because the whole point of there being an executor is that they
> take legal responsibility for the estate when the bequeathor dies. If
> the deceased was in lawful possession when alive, then so will the
> estate be after thir death.
>

Except where it isn't because the lawful possession ends on the death -
eg many gifts of chattels with reservation of benefit (albeit less
common now with the IHT measures against them and pre-owned assets).

[Roland Perry]

In message <f80rt8...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:01:11 on Sun, 26 Nov

2017, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am> remarked:

>> You can repeat as often as you wish that the estate vests in the
>>executor but that doesn't affect the fact that things the deceased did
>>not own are not part of the estate.
>
>It's the executor's job to sort out what belongs to the estate and what
>doesn't. It's not for all and sundry to go in, have a rummage around,
>decide for themselves, and pocket whatever they want

No-one but you is suggesting they might (run off with "whatever they
want"). Just things they believe are not part of the estate, or in
extreme cases, things which are a liability to the estate.

Where would an overdue library book fit in your framework?

>without even a by-your-leave.

--
Roland Perry

[Norman Wells]

It should be stopped, obviously. Someone should do something about it.

>>> Is that theft?  Should the police be called?
>>
>> It would be theft if the executor intended to permanently deprive BOC
>> of them, but not otherwise.
>
> I doubt if the idea crossed the executor's mind.

In that case, as I said, it's not theft.