I've recently been the main beneficiary of an estate where the sole Executor was a solicitor. It's been quite a tortuous process but the Estate has just been fully wound up, and I've been sent the final cheque along with a receipt form to sign. However, the wording of the receipt also states "I hereby discharge the executor Mr xxxxxxxx and indemnify him from and against any claims or demands in respect of my share in the Estate.
Is this normal practice? If something has gone wrong with how the Will was executed, etc or if someone were to appear out of the woodwork to contest it, why should I have to cover this? Doesn't seem quite right to me?
(I should add that two years ago, when the executor announced the death in the local paper, a tradesman came forward with what was considered to be a spurious claim for an unpaid bill of around £1000; this was rejected and nothing has been heard from him since; but since he still has another 3 years(?) to being a legal claim, it was suggested that the beneficiaries signed a Deed indemnifying the Executor in the unlikely event that happened, which enabled the Estate to be fully wound up - we agreed to this; however as far as I can see that's for a specific circumstance and I can't see why I would now need to grant the overarching indemnity as well?)
Would be grateful for any knowledgeable thoughts on this
Is this normal practice? If something has gone wrong with how the Will was executed, etc or if someone were to appear out of the woodwork to contest it, why should I have to cover this? Doesn't seem quite right to me?
(I should add that two years ago, when the executor announced the death in the local paper, a tradesman came forward with what was considered to be a spurious claim for an unpaid bill of around £1000; this was rejected and nothing has been heard from him since; but since he still has another 3 years(?) to being a legal claim, it was suggested that the beneficiaries signed a Deed indemnifying the Executor in the unlikely event that happened, which enabled the Estate to be fully wound up - we agreed to this; however as far as I can see that's for a specific circumstance and I can't see why I would now need to grant the overarching indemnity as well?)
Would be grateful for any knowledgeable thoughts on this
Comment