Tweet
The husband ("H") died in 2017; the wife ("W") died in 2021. H's Grant of Probate is dated 20th November 2022; W's Grant of Probate is dated 19th November 2022. Obviously the executors didn't apply for probate when H died, and probate for both estates has been applied for after W died. Both H and W lived in their own home and were cared for by their unemployed daughter.
The terms of each respective will is identical: the whole estate to be put in trust for the benefit of the spouse, and if the spouse has predeceased them then ditto for their three children.
In H's Grant of Probate, his estate is valued gross at £238,755 and valued net at £231,050; in W's Grant of Probate, the gross and net value are the same — £231,374.
I can't understand the difference between the gross and net values of H's estate. It's highly unlikely that he owed £7,705 in debts: he was in his 80s, had no mortgage on his house, and had no lifestyle or expenditure that would make such debt plausible.
Could it be possible that the £7,705 difference in the gross and net value of H's estate was the cash in his bank at the time of his death (the £231,050 being the house value), and that this was withdrawn after his death without the Grant of Probate? Would it even be possible to withdraw or transfer any of H's money without the Grant of Probate?
Then W's estate, £231,374, would be the house value (worth £231,050, inherited from H) plus the cash in her own bank (£324), making the £231,374 gross and net value?
When probate isn't granted until several years after someone's death, as in H's case, how is his estate, in particular his house, retrospectively valued?
I'm aware there are multiple possibilities of how these figures would make sense, but I'm wondering whether this theory is possible.
Thanks in advance.
The terms of each respective will is identical: the whole estate to be put in trust for the benefit of the spouse, and if the spouse has predeceased them then ditto for their three children.
In H's Grant of Probate, his estate is valued gross at £238,755 and valued net at £231,050; in W's Grant of Probate, the gross and net value are the same — £231,374.
I can't understand the difference between the gross and net values of H's estate. It's highly unlikely that he owed £7,705 in debts: he was in his 80s, had no mortgage on his house, and had no lifestyle or expenditure that would make such debt plausible.
Could it be possible that the £7,705 difference in the gross and net value of H's estate was the cash in his bank at the time of his death (the £231,050 being the house value), and that this was withdrawn after his death without the Grant of Probate? Would it even be possible to withdraw or transfer any of H's money without the Grant of Probate?
Then W's estate, £231,374, would be the house value (worth £231,050, inherited from H) plus the cash in her own bank (£324), making the £231,374 gross and net value?
When probate isn't granted until several years after someone's death, as in H's case, how is his estate, in particular his house, retrospectively valued?
I'm aware there are multiple possibilities of how these figures would make sense, but I'm wondering whether this theory is possible.
Thanks in advance.
