Re: Executor's behaviour
Peter Crosland
> are executors of her estate. In her will the estate was to be divided
> equally. My mother left a list of items separately in her house to be
> given to her children and grandchildren. Items which had sentimental
> value not monetary value, eg, dolls house, vases, photos and clocks. I
> have 2 situations that have emerged surrounding 1 executor.
> 1. She has taken all my mother's jewellery and is wearing it. It was
> not mentioned in either her will or the gift list.
> 2. The clocks which were left to me are missing, when I asked about
> them I was told that the home help stole them, probably and yet other
> people saw them in the house prior to her death.
> 3. The items left in the wish list for this particular executor were
> not at mother's house when I arrived so presumably she had already
> taken them
>
> Nothing has been itemised except the bank accounts and shares yet I
> feel all the estate should have been recorded. The house and her car
> are to be sold but everything else has been 'divied up' by this
> particular executor who turns very nasty and agressive when questioned.
> She has also demanded that the other executor sign over rights to the
> bank accounts with her as the sole signatory.
>
> How do I go about making sure that things are being carried out
> properly and what should be done about the jewellery and clocks?
>
> I need some sort of advice on who to approach about it all?
Whatever you do is going to cause trouble within the family. If you are
prepared for that then you must take firm action. Taking the executors to
court is expensive and time consuming. I would suggest you register a
caution with the Probate Registry. As for the jewellery this amounts to
theft and should be reported to the police. One executor has no power to ask
for sole control and the other needs to be advised of her responsibilities.
These actions might bring the rogue executor to their senses.
Peter Crosland
steve robinson
>
> sparky51;661880 Wrote:
> > Executors have a legal duty to act together on behalf of all
> > beneficiaries
> > 1. Remind the quiet one s/he is equally liable for the misdeeds of the
> > other
> > otherwise the non-executor beneficiaries may take legal action against
> > both
> > Non-allocated jewellery is part of the main estate and should be
> > divided/sold with equal shares to all, unless 1 beneficiary buys it for
> > a mutually acceptable amount which is then divied between the remaining
> > 3, or for an independent market valuation, then divided 4 ways or
> > similar compromise
> > 2. Whereabouts of clocks, hard to prove.
> > 3. Bank accounts should require both executor signatures (jointl
> > account)
> >
> > Your case demonstrates the adage that beneficiaries should not be
> > executors in a family will
>
> Many thanks for that reply, sadly it is exactly as I thought.
>
> One further question in this matter. Would the removal of jewellery
> and other items be sufficient reason to have that executor removed from
> the position and if so how to go about it?
No , he she could argue that its been removed for safe keeping , what they should do
is itemise anything that has been removed giving copies to all the executors and the
beneficaries
GB
>
> Whatever you do is going to cause trouble within the family. If you
> are prepared for that then you must take firm action. Taking the
> executors to court is expensive and time consuming. I would suggest
> you register a caution with the Probate Registry. As for the
> jewellery this amounts to theft and should be reported to the police.
> One executor has no power to ask for sole control and the other needs
> to be advised of her responsibilities. These actions might bring the
> rogue executor to their senses.
Whilst this is probably correct legally (I am a bit doubtful about the theft
bit), I think some of the advice is a bit "gung ho". People are
understandably upset at these times, and some allowances should be made.
On a practical basis, unless these are the crown jewels, any legal dispute
about the jewellery is going to cost much more than it is worth. Involving
judges and lawyers in a dispute between siblings is just plain daft in my
view. If you can't sort it out at a family meeting, that's rather sad, but
having a stranger sort it out for you in court is even sadder. Equally,
knowing what the legal position is and raising that at a meeting with the
executors is one thing, but actually involving the Police or courts is not a
great idea.
tim.....
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4a5e79e8$0$2539$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>
>> Whatever you do is going to cause trouble within the family. If you
>> are prepared for that then you must take firm action. Taking the
>> executors to court is expensive and time consuming. I would suggest
>> you register a caution with the Probate Registry. As for the
>> jewellery this amounts to theft and should be reported to the police.
>> One executor has no power to ask for sole control and the other needs
>> to be advised of her responsibilities. These actions might bring the
>> rogue executor to their senses.
>
> Whilst this is probably correct legally (I am a bit doubtful about the
> theft
> bit), I think some of the advice is a bit "gung ho". People are
> understandably upset at these times, and some allowances should be made.
>
> On a practical basis, unless these are the crown jewels, any legal dispute
> about the jewellery is going to cost much more than it is worth. Involving
> judges and lawyers in a dispute between siblings is just plain daft in my
> view. If you can't sort it out at a family meeting, that's rather sad, but
> having a stranger sort it out for you in court is even sadder.
It is, isn't it. Especially as it seems likely that the value of these
chattels is insignificant compared to the value of the house, which as its
sale will be a matter of public record will be impossible to hide.
tim
Peter Crosland
You have no way of knowing what the worth of the jewellery is but it could
easily be a few hundred or more. Past experience suggests to me that it at
this sort of time the dishonest have a field day which is quite despicable.
My experience also suggests that the jewellery is probably the tip of the
iceberg and unless firm action is taken the abuse of the executorship will
continue. Why should a thief get away with it just because they have been
bereaved?
Peter Crosland
Walt
news:Dolly.Dood...@legalbanter.co.uk:
>
> I am one of 4 children who's mother died recently. 2 of the children
> are executors of her estate. In her will the estate was to be divided
> equally. My mother left a list of items separately in her house to be
> given to her children and grandchildren. Items which had sentimental
> value not monetary value, eg, dolls house, vases, photos and clocks. I
> have 2 situations that have emerged surrounding 1 executor.
I don't think the "list" has any legal standing. All items of any
monetary must be valued and sold and the proceeds divided equally as per
the will. To act otherwise could put the executors in jeopardy of being
personally liable. Inform the other executor of this.
> 1. She has taken all my mother's jewellery and is wearing it. It was
> not mentioned in either her will or the gift list.
This is THEFT, pure and simple. If she doesn't return it to be placed
into the estate, then the police should be informed. Tell her this!
> 2. The clocks which were left to me are missing, when I asked about
> them I was told that the home help stole them, probably and yet other
> people saw them in the house prior to her death.
>
Tell her you are informing the police that she said the home help stole
them and they will want to question her. This again is THEFT.
3. The items left in the wish list for this particular executor were
> not at mother's house when I arrived so presumably she had already
> taken them
>
Again, this is probably theft until the joint executor has agreed she may
take them.
> Nothing has been itemised except the bank accounts and shares yet I
> feel all the estate should have been recorded. The house and her car
> are to be sold but everything else has been 'divied up' by this
> particular executor who turns very nasty and agressive when questioned.
> She has also demanded that the other executor sign over rights to the
> bank accounts with her as the sole signatory.
>
Inform the other executor that this MUST not happen - the job has to be
done properly by BOTH executors. The other executor could be personally
liable for any "missing" monies.
> How do I go about making sure that things are being carried out
> properly and what should be done about the jewellery and clocks?
>
> I need some sort of advice on who to approach about it all?
>
>
Tell her that she is breaking the law and could go to prison unless she
returns all the property to the estate and, together with the other
executor, the estate is divided up as per the will.
If she doesn't cooperate - go to the police.
I am not a lawyer.
Walt
GB
> You have no way of knowing what the worth of the jewellery is but it
> could easily be a few hundred or more.
Oh, I assumed at least that. However, to contemplate a court case over this,
I would have thought that maybe a few tens of thousands might be worth it.
Even if you don't get on wonderfully with your siblings, the 'worth' of the
relationship is a lot more than a few hundred. That's even if the
relationship involves a bit of bullying, etc.
> Past experience suggests to me
> that it at this sort of time the dishonest have a field day which is
> quite despicable.
It was pretty clear from your response that you had had, or seen at close
hand, a problem over this. However, in a family, whilst you might regard the
executorship as a closed entity (and of course it is) there are other
factors to take into account, such as who had the better Xmas presents, who
got first use of the clothes, who had more pocket money, who was loved more
(!!!!). If families fall out at these times, it's likely to be due to these
resentments building up over time.
There's all this fuss over one executor wanting control over the bank
account. Well, look at it from her point of view. I bet she's the proactive
one, paying all the bills, seeing to the estate, and the quieter executor
may be hard to get hold of to counter-sign, etc. A reasonable compromise
would be for the second executor to pre-sign half a dozen cheques each
limited to say �100. The second executor would obviously be jointly liable
if the cheques are misused, but for a fairly modest amount, ie �600 maximum.
Nobody is taking into account the work the executors are putting in.
"The house and her car
are to be sold but everything else has been 'divied up' by this
particular executor who turns very nasty and agressive when questioned."
"Nothing has been itemised except the bank accounts and shares yet I
feel all the estate should have been recorded. "
So, one executor's done all the work so far, and then other family members
tell her to make a detailed inventory of the house. I'm not surprised she's
turned nasty. Of course, executors have a duty to do these things, but how
often have you heard of professional executors getting the house cleared and
even paying for it?
I am sorry, but I look at this sort of thing as a family matter, not a
business proposition.
> My experience also suggests that the jewellery is
> probably the tip of the iceberg and unless firm action is taken the
> abuse of the executorship will continue.
The OP makes no mention of this. So, no need to escalate the matter.
>Why should a thief get away
> with it just because they have been bereaved?
So far, the only 'thievery' is wearing the mother's jewellery. This is a
storm in a teacup.
Peter Crosland
Whilst an executor should act in as fair and reasonable manner, and have due
regard for the sensitivities of the bereaved, the bottom line is that
executorship is a position of trust and that has to take precedence.
Unfortunately, there is little or no regulation of executors who are not
solicitors and the opportunities for malfeasance are quite wide. I have seen
it on several occasions and in each case the culprits were people who were
trusted in the community, but greed got the better of them. It was only
because a family member spoke up that rogue executors were exposed, and
their fraud stopped. Furthermore in each case it was the relatively minor
fraud that exposed the bigger one. Of course it was not a pleasant
experience for anyone concerned but they felt the outcome was worth it.
Peter Crosland
GB
>
> Whilst an executor should act in as fair and reasonable manner, and
> have due regard for the sensitivities of the bereaved, the bottom
> line is that executorship is a position of trust and that has to take
> precedence.
Agreed. However, it can be taken too far. There must be a point at which
it's all de minimis, but there could easily be a clash of personalities as
to exactly where that point is. Inventorying the used toilet brush, for
example, is just plain daft.
> I have seen it on several occasions and
> in each case the culprits were people who were trusted in the
> community, but greed got the better of them.
I think you must have been extraordinarily unlucky. Or do you work in the
sort of area where you get to see these things?
> It was only because a
> family member spoke up that rogue executors were exposed, and their
> fraud stopped. Furthermore in each case it was the relatively minor
> fraud that exposed the bigger one.
That's very interesting. Of course, it's one thing to shop a non-family
member to the Police and another thing entirely to shop your own brother or
sister (even if he/she did grab your swing when your were five years old).
Peter Crosland
That is the whole point! The executor is obliged legally, and morally, to
put the interest of the estate above their own or their family. Not doing
the task in an impartial manner undermines the very basics of a position of
trust. Suggesting that what the executor is known to have done as de minimis
is absurd. As for the two cases I encountered both involved fraud by an
executor involving substantial sums of money exposed because of the
relatively petty part of the estate. I may have been unlucky but with the
lack of effective monitoring of executors means it is open to corrupt and
greedy executors if relatives stand by and do nothing. Of course it is not a
nice thing to do.
Peter Crosland
Mr X
"Peter Crosland" <g6...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jPydnWQyUKRaDMLX...@brightview.co.uk...
As for the two cases I encountered both involved fraud by an
> executor involving substantial sums of money exposed because of the
> relatively petty part of the estate. I may have been unlucky but with the
> lack of effective monitoring of executors means it is open to corrupt and
> greedy executors if relatives stand by and do nothing. Of course it is not
> a
> nice thing to do.
>
non-professional executors and requiring people to use a government service,
at a reasonable fee.
the Omrud
That would be rather harsh on the "normal" situation where two or three
children act as joint executors to split what is left on the death of
their second parent. I'm certainly expecting that will happen in my
case. I've never fallen out with my sister; why should I do so then?
Thing is, those people don't approach lawyers and don't write for advice
to ULM.
--
David
GB
> Suggesting that what the executor is
> known to have done as de minimis is absurd.
Actually, assuming we are talking about all the usual household clutter,
it's not at all absurd to say it's de minimis. The OP has not suggested that
any of this stuff has any value, just that it's been 'divied up'. That may
be rather high-handed, but to label it as theft *is* actually absurd.
"Nothing has been itemised except the bank accounts and shares .... The
house and her car are to be sold " So, the items of value have all been
recorded, and there's no suggestion that there's any fraud there. There is
the jewellery, though. On the jewellery, the executors should be confronted,
but bear in mind that the jewellery could not be left in the house anyway,
so it may not have been appropriated and merely wearing it is not theft.
What the OP asked is "How do I go about making sure that things are being
carried out properly?" If by 'done properly' the executors are supposed to
count every tea spoon and tea towel, it would be perfectly reasonable for
the executors to hire paid professional help to do the work. Even then the
books for example may be described as "collection of paperbacks in used
condition", rather than each being recorded individually. Getting all the
household clutter inventoried and valued could cost far, far more than it's
worth. What exactly do you think should be done, pray?
The OP also asked what should be done about the clocks, whilst saying these
were "Items which had sentimental value not monetary value". Would the
Police take much notice?
Peter Crosland
You have, I am afraid, missed the point again. You referred to the apparent
theft of the jewellery that you also said might well be worth several
hundred pounds as being de minimis. That value is not de minimis by any
usual meaning of the term. Appropriating the jewellery and using it, rather
than storing it in a safe place does not sound like the behaviour of a
prudent, or honest executor. Add that the other things stated by the OP it
all adds up to a situation that is at best highly suspicious, and probably
fraudulent. The OP needs to weigh up the various factors and decide on a
course of action. You have no evidence to say what the contents of the house
are worth. It is certainly not uncommon for them to amount to a considerable
sum. Any responsible executor will take a view as to the need, or otherwise,
for some, or all, of the items to be valued professionally or informally
based on the circumstances of the particular case.
Peter Crosland
GB
>>
>> Actually, assuming we are talking about all the usual household
>> clutter, it's not at all absurd to say it's de minimis. The OP has
>> not suggested that
>> any of this stuff has any value, just that it's been 'divied up'.
>> That may be rather high-handed, but to label it as theft *is*
>> actually absurd.
>>
>> "Nothing has been itemised except the bank accounts and shares ....
>> The house and her car are to be sold " So, the items of value have
>> all been recorded, and there's no suggestion that there's any fraud
>> there. There is the jewellery, though. On the jewellery, the
>> executors should be confronted,
>> but bear in mind that the jewellery could not be left in the house
>> anyway, so it may not have been appropriated and merely wearing it
>> is not theft.
>
> apparent theft of the jewellery that you also said might well be
> worth several hundred pounds as being de minimis. That value is not
> de minimis by any usual meaning of the term. Appropriating the
> jewellery and using it, rather than storing it in a safe place does
> not sound like the behaviour of a prudent, or honest executor.
First, I didn't say the jewellery is de minimis. (Perhaps you should read
what I did say.)
Second, "storing the jewellery in a safe place". So hire a safe deposit box
for jewellery worth a few hundred Pounds? Or just stick it in a locked
drawer in the executor's house? It obviously depends on the value, but the
OP did not say it's particularly valuable.
Of course it's not right for the executor to be wearing the jewellery.
However, have you considered that she's just lost her mother, and this may
be her way of feeling close to the departed? It's no proof of malfeasance.
In fact, as all the family knew about the jewellery, she can't just
appropriate it. The obvious thing is for the OP to discuss it with her
sister and find out what she's up to.
Shouting fraud/theft in these circumstances is apt to wind up the OP
unnecessarily at a time when she is already under some stress. I therefore
think it is unhelpful.
> Any responsible executor will take a view as to the
> need, or otherwise, for some, or all, of the items to be valued
> professionally or informally based on the circumstances of the
> particular case.
Well, that seems to be what this particular executor has done - just taken
the view that none of them are worth valuing professionally. Presumably, the
divi-ing up process involves some sort of informal valuation.
I do a lot of work on will trusts, and I am just looking at the schedule of
assets in a recent case where a solicitor is executor. There are only seven
assets listed:
The house: �xxx,000
Contents: �nil
+ 5 bank deposits
It's not just very, very common to see that sort of thing, it's absolutely
the norm. In another recent case that was quite contentious, there was a
much more detailed list, but that was a �20m case, and it still didn't get
down to itemising the crockery. That is the only remotely detailed list I
can remember seeing, and I have dealt with hundreds of these trusts.
You only have to look on freecycle to see that the average 5 or 10 year old
piece of furniture is actually quite hard to give away.
Peter Crosland
> I do a lot of work on will trusts, and I am just looking at the schedule
> of
> assets in a recent case where a solicitor is executor. There are only
> seven
> assets listed:
> The house: �xxx,000
> Contents: �nil
> + 5 bank deposits
Sorry but I just don't believe that the true value of the contents was
actually nil. The executor may well have put that but even at car boot sale
price levels they must have been more than that. In any case your argument
has drifted so far from the OP that it seems pointless discussing it further
as it would just be repetition of two opposed viewpoints..
Peter Crosland
GB
> Sorry but I just don't believe that the true value of the contents was
> actually nil. The executor may well have put that but even at car
> boot sale price levels they must have been more than that. In any
> case your argument has drifted so far from the OP that it seems
> pointless discussing it further as it would just be repetition of two
> opposed viewpoints..
I entirely agree on that last point!
Chris R
Peter Crosland opined:
that house clearance operators now charge to clear a house: the cost of
removing and dumping the rubbish (including landfill tax etc) now exceeds
the amount they can get for the good stuff. Obviously that would be
different if there were valuable antiques etc.
Chris R
Bagwash
"Mr X" <inv...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:h3oafn$ops$1...@frank-exchange-of-views.oucs.ox.ac.uk...
been executor to several friends' estates, some substantial, it does greatly
surprise me that I've never been checked in any way once probate has been
granted. I could have filched enormous amounts (particularly sums left to
charity where, unlike relatives, there's no expectation of a bequest) and
no-one would know. Non-professional executors could and should be required
also to swear [or affirm] at the end of the process that the estate has been
distributed according to the will's directions - and be subject to random
audit. Then at least there's a threat of being charged with perjury.
steve robinson
It depends on the contents of the house age , damage , if that style of furnishing
is in vogue etc
When we got rid of my moms belongings we took the good stuff to the local charity
shop and the rubbish to the local tip , most of the furntiture was over 30 years old
apart from her suite so it had little value
Dave N
> Chris R wrote:
>> As I understand it, most house contents now have a negative net value, in
>> that house clearance operators now charge to clear a house: the cost of
>> removing and dumping the rubbish (including landfill tax etc) now exceeds
>> the amount they can get for the good stuff. Obviously that would be
>> different if there were valuable antiques etc.
>>
>> Chris R
>
> It depends on the contents of the house age , damage , if that style of furnishing
> is in vogue etc
>
> When we got rid of my moms belongings we took the good stuff to the local charity
> shop and the rubbish to the local tip , most of the furntiture was over 30 years old
> apart from her suite so it had little value
I tried last year with my late mother's dining suite. None of the
charities I approached would touch the furniture with a proverbial barge
pole without a current Fire Safety certification for the padding on the
seats of the chairs. Such things didn't exist when my mother bought the
furniture. The shops that I approached all said that the market for
second hand, good quality furniture had dried up and nobody was buying.
So, in our case not only could we not sell it but we couldn't give it
away. As Chris R commented up-thread, the final value to the estate was
negative because we had to pay a house-clearance firm to take it all
away along with the other unwanted personal effects.
--
Dave N