What does beneficiary “sign off” of the estate accounts actually mean?

[Irina]

After spending 3 years trying to withhold pertinent estate financial records and being caught making ‘estate accounting errors’, which resulted in him having to pay significant amounts back to the estate, the executor insisted that I as a beneficiary must ‘sign off’ the estate accounts. Recently he sent me the latest version of the accounts to sign with this agreement attached:

“I the undersigned beneficiary of the estate of the late xxxxxx acknowledge that I have received from the personal representative of xxxxxx a copy of the accounts dated xxxxxx which set out the share due to me from the estate and after carefully examining these accounts I approve them and accept that the balances set out therein represent the true balance of monies due to me and I release and discharge the personal executive from all or any claims I might have or will have in relation to the estate whether contemplated or not and on the facts known or unknown and under present or future law.”

After careful consideration, I did sign the accounts, but only after I’d changed the agreement wording to this:

“I, xxxxxxx, hereby acknowledge to have received from you a copy of the estate accounts dated …………………….2022 and I confirm that I approve those accounts on the basis of the information and documentation that the executor has provided to the beneficiaries relating to the assets and finances of my late mother, the late xxxxxxxxxx deceased.”

I’m hoping this will conclude the matter and bring an end to the saga, but I’m not holding my breath.

[Sam101]

The changes you have made are good, but unless you can prove that the executors made a deliberate error in their figures, you may not have any claim. Have you personally checked the figures or are you able to do this to satisfy the beneficiaries?

[dslippy]

It is standard for an executor to ask residuary beneficiaries to approve the accounts, and standard for beneficiaries to approve them There is no legal duty to so sign, but an executor is correct to ask.

Without this the executor distributes against a risk of the accounts being challenged when there is no money leaving him ;personally liable.

If beneficiaries refuse to approve, the executor points out that his only remaining option is to get the court's approval of the accounts thus using up whatever money is left.

[Irina]

The changes you have made are good, but unless you can prove that the executors made a deliberate error in their figures, you may not have any claim. Have you personally checked the figures or are you able to do this to satisfy the beneficiaries?

It’s of course impossible for me to verify everything submitted by the executor.

I would need to call every financial organisation, every service provider etc that he’s used over 5 years (there were 8 separate solicitors for a start) to verify the numbers, copies of paperwork, receipts, statements etc and they would of course refuse to give me any information as I’m not the executor. The executor could also have easily not disclosed all the estate’s assets (inc to HMRC) or all of my late mother’s bank / Building society accounts and I would never know. There’s no reasonable way I can be expected to check the accounts and documents provided as def real or correct or to check that there’s nothing missing. I don’t know what I don’t know/ what’s not been disclosed.

However, what I have signed also includes a signed declaration by the executor stating that the accounts I’m approving are his “complete and correct” submission of the estate accounts, so I’m assuming that should I ever find out he’s committed a fraud for example, I could sue. Furthermore, he prepared the final accounts and officially signed them off as “complete and correct” under professional legal advisement paid for by the estate.

He originally told me that if I didn’t sign the accounts he would petition the court to get the court to sign off the accounts and then make me pay for the court costs. His original accounts were not signed by him as complete and correct but he still asked me to sign them as ‘correct’. He, on my insistence then signed them off but changed my proposed agreement wording, which I then subsequently changed to something more reasonable (as stated in my intro post), put it all together and signed and returned it to his solicitor.

Incidentally, the other equal share beneficiary to the estate simply signed that the accounts were ‘correct’ and she was not asked to sign the new stringent agreement wording the executor tried to impose on me.

As I’ve now signed to approve the accounts as reasonably and fairly as I can be expected to and what I’ve signed also carries his signature to verify that there are no errors or omissions, that’s an outcome I’m happy with for the time being.

[Irina]

It is standard for an executor to ask residuary beneficiaries to approve the accounts, and standard for beneficiaries to approve them There is no legal duty to so sign, but an executor is correct to ask.

Without this the executor distributes against a risk of the accounts being challenged when there is no money leaving him ;personally liable.

If beneficiaries refuse to approve, the executor points out that his only remaining option is to get the court's approval of the accounts thus using up whatever money is left.

Well yes I realise this, but I’m not going to approve the accounts by signing an unfair and unreasonable agreement that essentially says he could have committed a fraud and if I find this out later I can’t do anything about it. Or at the worst end of the scale of an interpretation of his wording, he could come to my house and stab me shouting ‘this is because of how you behaved when I was executor of my mother’s estate’ and then be immune from legal consequences…

[dslippy]

I think you have a somewhat unreasonable interpretation of what you were asked to sign.
I do not have a precedent in front of me but there are standard releases - no need to draft another - on either part.

[Irina]

I think you have a somewhat unreasonable interpretation of what you were asked to sign.
I do not have a precedent in front of me but there are standard releases - no need to draft another - on either part.

I disagree. My solicitor advised me under no circumstances to sign what the executor had drafted. My solicitor wrote the new wording - it has a standard precedent.

Additionally, the executor’s history of helping himself to estate monies and assets and other concerning often aggressive behaviours and a worrying mental health track record means I have every justification to be cautious.

[atticus]

Then take your solicitor's advice. He knows more about what has been going on, you know who he is, and he is insured.

[Irina]

Then take your solicitor's advice. He knows more about what has been going on, you know who he is, and he is insured.

I have, it’s been changed, signed and sent last week

[Con929]

Hi

I don't believe you are permitted to change wording on a document before you sign, I believe you should send the document back to be amended by the person who raised the document and request they submit to you again to sign it off.

If this is incorrect can anyone in the Legal profession comment.

[dslippy]

No rule of law to say that. Negotiated documents are usually amended by the receiving party, and returned as amended.

[Con929]

Negotiated documents.....does that mean there was prior discussion. I am not disrespecting your knowledge - I am just trying to understand the big picture. If the terms had not previously been discussed and was alien to the party receiving it, is it still considered a negotiated document.

[atticus]

what do you mean by "negotiated document"? Isn't the question whether the wording is agreed?

[dslippy]

When negotiating afor example a lease, the drafter prepares three copies, sending two to the OS. They note up proposed amendments on both copies in red and return one copy to the drafter, who annotates his own copy with the suggested amendments in red. THe drafter if he has further amendments notes up the travelling copy and his own (Blue?) and returns it to the OS and so on.

What matters is that making amendments to the travelling copy is not only not 'unlawful' but is an essential part of the process.

[atticus]

In the old days, after red came green.

Nowadays lawyers send tracked copies, often accompanied by a version showing the latest amendments only. My practice was always to use Word to create a comparison copy showing the changes since the last version I had sent out.