Tweet
Hi.
The situation is that, following the passing of the testator, a person gained entry to their house, and removed some very important documents. There is no question that they have these documents - they have been upfront about it. Possibly/probably these initial actions were well-intentioned, but their subsequent behaviour has not been.
The problem is, there are three different parties with seemingly 'equal' entitlement to view these documents in order to arrive at the correct legal outcome for the estate. 'Equal', because all three could rightly determine the outcome of the estate, depending on the uncovered facts. There is the estranged, non-beneficiary family, hoping to claim 'intestacy' and pocket it all. Then there's the executor and part-beneficiary of a possibly-valid last Will that was destroyed. And finally there's the executor of an earlier Will who would stand to inherit should the second Will be deemed not properly executed.
The removed documents would almost certainly resolve the issue very quickly indeed. However, the party holding them - the exec of the second Will - is refusing to allow one other party - the exec of the first Will - to view them, and is now seemingly working with the family in order to try and justify proceeding with a Grant of Letters of Administration. Why they are doing this, since being intestate would mean they'd no longer be a beneficiary, one can only speculate. The exec of the first Will is seeking access in order to quickly resolve the issue in the correct legal manner.
Questions:
1) These items clearly belong to the deceased's estate. Who has the right to hold them? What powers do they (the exec of the second Will) have over these items, in terms of controlling who has access? Currently, it appears to be a case of "I got there first, so I decide. No, you can't see them" Should they be passed to the Probate Office (which I have been told would happen if subpoenaed)? Does the holder have the right to determine who has sight of these vital documents? The exec of the second Will (E2W) has shared them extensively with the estranged family.
2) The E2W, in order to 'prove' that the second Will was properly executed so that its destruction could now be deemed 'intestacy', spoke to the two witnesses, and related this conversation to the exec of the earlier Will (E1W). The problem here is, the exec of the earlier Will has subsequently also spoken to the witnesses - clearly decent folk wishing to do the right thing - and they have related a completely different account of both what happened at the time of the 'witnessing', but also in what they described to the E2W when they made earlier contact. The difference in these accounts is very significant. Assuming that what the witnesses told the E1W was accurate - and zero reason to believe it wasn't - then what the E2W initially told the E1W was, how shall I put this, misleading. Intentionally so? No idea. Could this be considered 'false representation'?
3) We cannot fathom why the E2W should seemingly be assisting the family in their pursuit of 'intestacy', when (a) they have made it clear their own personal feelings that the family meant nothing to the testator and deserved now't, and (b) by being declared intestate, the E2W would no longer be a beneficiary. Yet, they are quite intentionally preventing the E1W from having access to these documents. Ok, it has to be asked, so I can understand the implication; if the family have offered or suggested an inducement to the E2W - say to make up what they'll have 'lost' out from 'their' Will - in order to keep on helping their 'intestate' cause, would this be considered improper? Incitement? Bribery?
Does anything in the above suggest a possible chat with the police is in order?
Thanks.
The situation is that, following the passing of the testator, a person gained entry to their house, and removed some very important documents. There is no question that they have these documents - they have been upfront about it. Possibly/probably these initial actions were well-intentioned, but their subsequent behaviour has not been.
The problem is, there are three different parties with seemingly 'equal' entitlement to view these documents in order to arrive at the correct legal outcome for the estate. 'Equal', because all three could rightly determine the outcome of the estate, depending on the uncovered facts. There is the estranged, non-beneficiary family, hoping to claim 'intestacy' and pocket it all. Then there's the executor and part-beneficiary of a possibly-valid last Will that was destroyed. And finally there's the executor of an earlier Will who would stand to inherit should the second Will be deemed not properly executed.
The removed documents would almost certainly resolve the issue very quickly indeed. However, the party holding them - the exec of the second Will - is refusing to allow one other party - the exec of the first Will - to view them, and is now seemingly working with the family in order to try and justify proceeding with a Grant of Letters of Administration. Why they are doing this, since being intestate would mean they'd no longer be a beneficiary, one can only speculate. The exec of the first Will is seeking access in order to quickly resolve the issue in the correct legal manner.
Questions:
1) These items clearly belong to the deceased's estate. Who has the right to hold them? What powers do they (the exec of the second Will) have over these items, in terms of controlling who has access? Currently, it appears to be a case of "I got there first, so I decide. No, you can't see them" Should they be passed to the Probate Office (which I have been told would happen if subpoenaed)? Does the holder have the right to determine who has sight of these vital documents? The exec of the second Will (E2W) has shared them extensively with the estranged family.
2) The E2W, in order to 'prove' that the second Will was properly executed so that its destruction could now be deemed 'intestacy', spoke to the two witnesses, and related this conversation to the exec of the earlier Will (E1W). The problem here is, the exec of the earlier Will has subsequently also spoken to the witnesses - clearly decent folk wishing to do the right thing - and they have related a completely different account of both what happened at the time of the 'witnessing', but also in what they described to the E2W when they made earlier contact. The difference in these accounts is very significant. Assuming that what the witnesses told the E1W was accurate - and zero reason to believe it wasn't - then what the E2W initially told the E1W was, how shall I put this, misleading. Intentionally so? No idea. Could this be considered 'false representation'?
3) We cannot fathom why the E2W should seemingly be assisting the family in their pursuit of 'intestacy', when (a) they have made it clear their own personal feelings that the family meant nothing to the testator and deserved now't, and (b) by being declared intestate, the E2W would no longer be a beneficiary. Yet, they are quite intentionally preventing the E1W from having access to these documents. Ok, it has to be asked, so I can understand the implication; if the family have offered or suggested an inducement to the E2W - say to make up what they'll have 'lost' out from 'their' Will - in order to keep on helping their 'intestate' cause, would this be considered improper? Incitement? Bribery?
Does anything in the above suggest a possible chat with the police is in order?
Thanks.
Comment