Desmond pops his clogs. He leaves the entire estate to Daisy & Douglas. £10k, comprised of two small pension pots. There is a will stating such. Legally signed. Daisy & Douglas are named beneficiaries. Daisy is also named as executor. Funds are delivered to Daisy. She doesn't call a reading of the will. The £10k goes to her account, on the basis she believes she deserves it more. Douglas isn't informed of this. When finding out, what is Douglas' course of action? On the face of it, it is theft. But is there a more legal term for it? Failure to carry out last wishes of Desmond? Failure to execute a legal document? And if there is a term / crime, how would Douglas pursue it without remembering the name of the solicitor? I get that in Daisy's twisted mind she thinks she has more of a right, but my understanding is that it is the wishes of the deceased that counts, not the wishes of the executor? And if the executor (Daisy) thought that she had a genuine grievance, then the process is to challenge the will? Through legal channels? Thank you, learned minds of the BBS
It’s at times like these I’m glad I stuck to prosecuting murderers. Best advice is to report to police and see a probate solicitor.
Echo what BarTyke says - Douglas should instruct his solicitor to write to Daisy pointing out that her duty as Executor is to administer what the Will states - that is to divide Desmond's assets between herself and Douglas. Douglas doesn't need to remember the name of the solicitor and there is no reason to challenge the Will. (don't think it's a police matter??)
Its not necessarily a police matter, but a solicitor needs to be involved - and Daisy is likely going to end up liable for the costs for both sides.
It's executor misconduct, and can be a crime if it is found to be fraudulent. Doug should write to Daisy stating as above and if she does not comply then a solicitor will be instructed to seek remedy through the courts.
This reminds me of a friend, her dad died a few years back. He lived somewhere down Hertfordshire, she lived near me in South Derbyshire and her brother lived near Newcastle. So as the elder of the two and living much nearer she went down to tidy up the house and in the process sold her dad's car, ride-on lawn mower and lots of other stuff and kept all the proceeds for herself. The will was otherwise followed properly. She never even told her brother what she'd sold and how much she made on it. I told her at the time that she should have given her brother something but she was adamant that he didn't deserve it because he stayed away and didn't help her. Just for context, her brother still worked while she had retired many years earlier at a very young age on her deceased husband's pension.
If Daisy is named as executrix in the will, and then upon Desmond's death goes on to accept that role by dealing with aspects of the administration of his estate, then she is bound to so administer in accordance with the terms of the will, and would be in breach of her executrix/trustee duty if she failed to do so. In order to be paid the 10k it seems that she must have represented herself as the administrator of the estate. So there's little doubt she'd be in breach if failing to administer in accordance with the terms of the will, having demonstrated that she has been willing to take on the job. Can we presume that she arranged the funeral, and dealt with other aspects of the administration of the estate? If so it needs to be remembered that there may well have been liabilities for Daisy to pay off, which may eat into the 10k, if that's all there was. The "pension pots" aspect needs to be looked at first though, as pensions generally pass to a "beneficiary" by virtue of the rules of the relevant pension scheme, rather than by the terms of someone's will. It may be that these small pots are indeed part of the residue of Desmond's death, either by default or specific mention in the will. But they may not actually be part of the deceased's estate and may pass instead by virtue of the rules of the pension scheme. The police are unlikely to be interested as far as "theft" is concerned. It'd be a "civil" matter to them. Too many problems over whether Daisy fits the definition of having " dishonestly taken property that belongs to someone else with the intention of depriving them of it permanently". The absence of the name of the solicitor is a red herring (as is the absence of a "reading") - Douglas must have a copy of the will or else he wouldn't know he was due half of the estate. If he has a copy of the will, that's all he needs. There'll be no probate to the will, one would imagine, because of the value of the estate. So, if the facts as presented are essentially correct, Douglas has an action for breach of executor duty. The small claims court limit is 10k so this case will be a small claim and therefore legal costs run up most probably wouldn't be recoverable. Daisy could possibly challenge the terms of the will or come up with another reason for keeping the money. It would be a guess as to what her grounds might be. That she was already owed money by the deceased? I doubt that she'd get too far with anything that she might come up with, but you never know. Daisy needs a rocket up her arse (a well used technical legal term), probably by way of solicitor's letter, which ought to do the trick. If not, some sort of mediation might arise. Employing a solicitor to go all the way to a contested hearing with a job like this is however going to cost nearly as much as Douglas will get to recover at the end of the day. And if Daisy is skint by then he might not recover anything at all. So he needs to know Daisy is good for the dosh before he kicks off with court proceedings.
When both the father-in-law and my wifes uncle died, their relatives were round quicker than you can say "Who're you?" and taking stuff from the house left, right and centre. We probably didn't want it, but that didn't mean they could just take it
My financial advisor advised me that a will doesn't govern decisions for pensions & that an expression of wishes document needs to have been completed for the trustees to consider/agree to it - didnt advise anything in the absence of such doc
I'm not a probate lawyer but it would seem to me that the cause of action would be breach of fiduciary duty.
Chatgpt replying to your post... "Yes, you're absolutely right in your understanding of how this situation should be handled legally. In the UK, an executor’s role is to carry out the wishes of the deceased as stated in the will, not to override those wishes based on personal beliefs. If Daisy takes all the money and disregards the will, she may be liable for a breach of her duties as an executor. Legal Issues 1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty: An executor has a legal duty to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries and to distribute the estate according to the will. If Daisy has kept the funds for herself instead of dividing them with Douglas as instructed by Desmond’s will, she has breached this fiduciary duty. 2. Theft/Fraud: While this might feel like theft, the legal framework often looks at this as a breach of trust rather than pure theft, given that Daisy is in a position of authority over the estate. If she misappropriates funds she was meant to distribute, this could potentially be considered fraud. 3. Failure to Administer the Estate: Daisy has a legal responsibility to administer Desmond’s estate correctly. Failure to do so is called maladministration. If proven, she could face personal financial liability, where the court may require her to reimburse the estate or Douglas directly. Douglas’ Course of Action 1. Request a Copy of the Will: Douglas is legally entitled to see the will as a beneficiary. He can request a copy from the executor or, if necessary, from the Probate Registry if the will has gone through probate. 2. Challenge the Executor’s Actions in Probate Court: Douglas can apply to the court to remove Daisy as executor for failing to fulfil her duties. The court can appoint a new executor or co-executor if necessary. 3. Demand Accounting: Douglas can demand that Daisy provide an accounting of the estate’s assets and how they’ve been distributed. If she refuses or provides misleading information, this strengthens his case for removal or legal action. 4. Seek Legal Assistance: Even without remembering the name of the solicitor who handled the will, Douglas can find another solicitor who specializes in probate disputes. They will help him locate the will if it’s gone through probate and guide him through legal steps to pursue Daisy. Potential Legal Consequences for Daisy Personal liability: If a court finds Daisy guilty of mismanaging the estate or misappropriating funds, she could be personally liable to repay Douglas his rightful share. Removal as Executor: Daisy can be removed from her role as executor if she is found to have acted improperly. You are right that if Daisy had genuine concerns about the will’s fairness, the correct process would have been to challenge the will through legal channels, not unilaterally act on her own beliefs. In summary, Douglas would likely proceed by seeking a legal remedy for Daisy's breach of fiduciary duty and ensuring the estate is distributed according to Desmond’s wishes.
They'll be ones that show up to the funeral for the snap and drink. Death always brings people out of the woodwork..
Yea technically speaking the pension is in trust and forms outside the estate. As stated this will pay the beneficiary/ beneficiaries..... After that (if there isn't anyone) the executors or trustees of the plan still will try to find someone, if there is no nomination to a family member before it eventually ends up in the estate.
Absolutely D. Fortunately we've never had any issues. But am aware of 2/3 unsavoury incidents with distant relatives. We have 2 sons. Both executors of our wills. And I know they wouldn't dream of causing issues over money. A will though is a must for me and lots leave it too late.
