Tweet
Hi all,
Looking for some advice please on behalf of my husband.
For context: six beneficiaries are named in the Will of his father (each to receive an equal 1/6 share) - three children and three stepchildren (one of whom is the executor). The executor instructed a solicitor to review her disbursement calculations and the solicitor provided these at the end of May inviting comments and/or acceptance. My husband and his two siblings disputed the calculations as my husband had a considerable sum deducted from his share in order to recover a loan agreed with his father, which he and his siblings consider was waived (by a 'parol agreement made for valuable consideration' as per the Inheritance Tax Manual). After providing evidence and representations the solicitor, has doubled down on the loan still being valid and recoverable, but my husband and his siblings remain unsatisfied with the reasoning given for this position and don't feel their argument has been addressed (having failed to even refer to the parol agreement).
The question I have is: the solicitor considers the matter resolved and claims that a decision has been made, and is once again asking the beneficiaries for their agreement to disburse. Three of the beneficiaries (my father in law's children) still consider the matter to be in dispute, but the solicitor has said that the executor may nonetheless go forward with a partial disbursement to those who have given their consent. My husband is concerned that this is being treated as a done deal when 50% of the beneficiaries are not in agreement and have unanswered questions, and concerned that partial disbursement would remove a large part of the incentive for the executor to resolve the matter.
Can the executor proceed with partial disbursement despite considerable opposition to the proposed split of funds (as half of the beneficiaries are still unsatisfied with the solicitor's reasoning) and, if so, is there anything that those opposed can do to prevent this, or at least ensure that those who do receive funds are liable to return any surplus should it later be determined that they have received more than they are entitled to?
I hope this provides enough context and would appreciate any advice that can be provided.
Many thanks in advance,
Lorraine
Looking for some advice please on behalf of my husband.
For context: six beneficiaries are named in the Will of his father (each to receive an equal 1/6 share) - three children and three stepchildren (one of whom is the executor). The executor instructed a solicitor to review her disbursement calculations and the solicitor provided these at the end of May inviting comments and/or acceptance. My husband and his two siblings disputed the calculations as my husband had a considerable sum deducted from his share in order to recover a loan agreed with his father, which he and his siblings consider was waived (by a 'parol agreement made for valuable consideration' as per the Inheritance Tax Manual). After providing evidence and representations the solicitor, has doubled down on the loan still being valid and recoverable, but my husband and his siblings remain unsatisfied with the reasoning given for this position and don't feel their argument has been addressed (having failed to even refer to the parol agreement).
The question I have is: the solicitor considers the matter resolved and claims that a decision has been made, and is once again asking the beneficiaries for their agreement to disburse. Three of the beneficiaries (my father in law's children) still consider the matter to be in dispute, but the solicitor has said that the executor may nonetheless go forward with a partial disbursement to those who have given their consent. My husband is concerned that this is being treated as a done deal when 50% of the beneficiaries are not in agreement and have unanswered questions, and concerned that partial disbursement would remove a large part of the incentive for the executor to resolve the matter.
Can the executor proceed with partial disbursement despite considerable opposition to the proposed split of funds (as half of the beneficiaries are still unsatisfied with the solicitor's reasoning) and, if so, is there anything that those opposed can do to prevent this, or at least ensure that those who do receive funds are liable to return any surplus should it later be determined that they have received more than they are entitled to?
I hope this provides enough context and would appreciate any advice that can be provided.
Many thanks in advance,
Lorraine
Comment