"Recent wills" published in newspapers
Sunbeam
has not been easy or pleasant and there are still matters to settle within
the family.
The Daily Telegraph published some details in its 'Recent wills' section a
few days ago.
I realise that his will is in the public domain as soon as probate is
granted but do newspapers have a legal right, or some neccessity, to
publish such details?
Also, presuming that editors can print recent wills (or details of), might
it not be courteous to request permission of the family or executors of the
deceased for permission to print such?
My apologies if these are oft asked questions.
Many thanks
Sunbeam
Bystander
"Sunbeam" wrote (snipped)
My dad passed away a while back. Probate was granted recently.
> The Daily Telegraph published some details in its 'Recent wills' section a
> few days ago.
> I realise that his will is in the public domain as soon as probate is
> granted but do newspapers have a legal right, or some neccessity, to
> publish such details?
A will is a public document, and the newspaper has every right to publish if
it chooses. This has been the case for a very long time indeed.
GB
"Sunbeam" <r...@mooz.net> wrote in message
news:2sm0i7F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Also, presuming that editors can print recent wills (or details of), might
> it not be courteous to request permission of the family or executors of
> the
> deceased for permission to print such?
>
They won't ask, because they would almost always be turned down. I would say
that a good half of the people appearing in the papers would much rather
not. If the papers asked, and abided by the replies, what would they print?
Yes, it is intrusive, and you have my sympathy.
Peter Crosland
not being discourteous at all.
Fred
"Bystander" <marl...@fsmail.net> wrote in message
news:2smtpeF...@uni-berlin.de...
I would imagine copyright may be an issue. Whilst you can view and obtain a
copy through statutory channels, I doubt if there is any right to copy it
through publishing it in a newspaper.
IANAL
Robert
> Once probate is granted it is a public record and open to all. The paper are
> not being discourteous at all.
but often the newspapers print not only the will but also the size of
the estate. How do they get that information?
Robert
Peter Crosland
> a
> copy through statutory channels, I doubt if there is any right to copy it
> through publishing it in a newspaper.
You imagine wrong. It has been going on for hundreds of years.
Peter Crosland
> the estate. How do they get that information?
It is part of the probate grant information.
Daytona
>"Sunbeam" wrote (snipped)
>
>My dad passed away a while back. Probate was granted recently.
>> The Daily Telegraph published some details in its 'Recent wills' section a
>> few days ago.
>> I realise that his will is in the public domain as soon as probate is
>> granted but do newspapers have a legal right, or some neccessity, to
>> publish such details?
The only route open to you is a complaint to Press Complaints
Commission (PCC) <URL:http://www.pcc.org.uk/> along decency lines.
They will no doubt tell you that because the paper has the right to do
this, they are behaving decently.....
>A will is a public document, and the newspaper has every right to publish if
>it chooses. This has been the case for a very long time indeed.
It may have been a good idea in times past, when there was, perhaps,
more opportunity to commit fraud, but why is it necessary today when
there is less opportunity ? How does publishing private details,
combat fraud ?
Thanks
Daytona
Bystander
> It may have been a good idea in times past, when there was, perhaps,
> more opportunity to commit fraud, but why is it necessary today when
> there is less opportunity ? How does publishing private details,
> combat fraud ?
It has nothing to do with fraud. Just like the fact of a birth death or
marriage is public information, so are the facts of a will.
Richard Miller
<ju...@junk.com> writes
>It may have been a good idea in times past, when there was, perhaps,
>more opportunity to commit fraud, but why is it necessary today when
>there is less opportunity ? How does publishing private details, combat
>fraud ?
It provides a chance for anyone who believes the Will is not the genuine
last will of the person concerned to object.
--
Richard Miller
GB
I don't think it is a matter of whether it is legal to publish these
details. We all know it is. The question is whether it *ought* to be legal?
It's clearly highly intrusive. Isn't this like some of those court cases
heard in open court, but where there are reporting restrictions? It's right
that the info is public, so that there is no question of foul play, but is
it right to publish it?
Palindr☻me
I believe that this does date back to the days of Empire and poor
communications - when those in far-off outposts would read the copy of
the Times, chained to the reading stand in their Club. The "hatched,
matched and dispatched" were often the only way of keeping in touch with
an extended family and knowing that Great Aunt Bessie had finally gone
and had actually left quite a lot was a spur to get back in touch. Of
course, the amounts aren't and were not that significant really, as
"those with the most" have made sure that it (legally) gets put where
the taxman can't get it. But large sums do indicate either a sudden
death or a dislike of the immediate kith and kin so that a "twice
removed" might be in with a chance.
Like the posting of Official Appointments to the Gazette, it is now a
quaint reminder of times now gone. It would be a shame to lose another
tradition but I do sympathise with those that would rather keep such
information out of the papers. I do read them - with a fair degree of
awe and respect for those that have managed to leave practically nothing..
--
Sue
Jeremy Barker
> has not been easy or pleasant and there are still matters to settle within
> the family.
> The Daily Telegraph published some details in its 'Recent wills' section a
> few days ago.
> I realise that his will is in the public domain as soon as probate is
> granted but do newspapers have a legal right, or some neccessity, to
> publish such details?
As the will is a public document anyone has the right to publish any
part of it. There are ways to prevent some information being public
(they are called secret trusts) if the will is drawn up appropriately
but they are a potential legal minefield and best avoided.
> Also, presuming that editors can print recent wills (or details of), might
> it not be courteous to request permission of the family or executors of the
> deceased for permission to print such?
Why? They have the legal right to publish so this would be
unnecessary expense for zero benefit.
jb
Peter Crosland
> more opportunity to commit fraud, but why is it necessary today when
> there is less opportunity ? How does publishing private details,
> combat fraud ?
About ten years ago the mother of a close friend died. When probate was
granted and the will made public it became clear that the executor who was
my friend's sister had grossly under declared the value of the assets. The
effect of this was to greatly reduce the amount my friend was entitled to.
The executor had refused point blank on several occasions to disclose the
contents of the will to her brother. Once it became public knowledge he was
able to tell the Inland Revenue chapter and verse. The end result was that
the entire estate was revalued that resulted in some duty being paid and the
executor paid a heavy penalty and narrowly escaped prosecution.
Daytona
>and the
>executor paid a heavy penalty
Good, if mal intent evident.
>and narrowly escaped prosecution.
Bad, if mal intent evident.
Thanks Peter.
But I can't help thinking that the publicising of the details is an
attempt to cure a symptom rather than the cause. A system which allows
a beneficiary to be an executor is fundamentally insecure. Perhaps a
better system would be for an independent executor to be appointed and
for details of the estate and will to be permanently available to all
beneficiaries and family members rather than being published openly.
Daytona
Cynic
>But I can't help thinking that the publicising of the details is an
>attempt to cure a symptom rather than the cause. A system which allows
>a beneficiary to be an executor is fundamentally insecure.
Why? I would have thought the opposite. Being a beneficiary, the
executor has an incentive to obtain the maximum value that s/he can
from the estate. If you are thinking of fraud, a non-beneficiary who
is executor has exactly the same opportunity.
> Perhaps a
>better system would be for an independent executor to be appointed and
>for details of the estate and will to be permanently available to all
>beneficiaries and family members rather than being published openly.
The main reason AFAIK for making the Will etc. public is so that
anyone with an interest in the estate can make a claim. The deceased
may have owed debts that not even the executor knew about.
--
Cynic
Daytona
>On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:25:06 +0100, Daytona <ju...@junk.com> wrote:
>
>>But I can't help thinking that the publicising of the details is an
>>attempt to cure a symptom rather than the cause. A system which allows
>>a beneficiary to be an executor is fundamentally insecure.
>
>Why?
Because it affords a beneficiary the opportunity to manipulate the
situation to their advantage, as raised in Peters post.
Daytona
Cynic
I do not see why his situation would be less likely if the executor
were not a beneficiary. An executor who is not a beneficiary could
also under-declare the value of the estate. Other than to avoid
inheritance tax, I see no additional benefit to the beneficiary. If
inheritance tax were successfully evaded, the *all* the inheritors
would benefit, but only the executor would take the risk of
prosecution. Both a beneficiary and a non-beneficiary would be
equally able to defraud the (other) beneficiaries by misrepresenting
what they got for the estate and pocketing the difference.
An executor who is *not* a beneficiary, but is either unpaid or paid a
fixed amount would however be far more likely to dispose of the estate
quickly and easily by selling the assets for a lower price than if
they had a vested interest.
--
Cynic