Where there's a Will ...

[Clitheroekid]

... there's a relative!

If you have the time to read it this is an interesting, though rather sad tale of a man whose family was, in his own words, dysfunctional, and their squabble as to whether a Will that was found was genuine or not - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2020/3119.html

As the judge expressed it: If the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, or his worthy modern-day successor Mr Anthony Horowitz, were to write up the events which have led to this present, unhappy litigation, they would no doubt have titled the resulting chronicle "The Case of the Missing Original Will".

It serves as a warning of how important it is, particularly in a family like this, to make a proper Will, but I also have great sympathy for the solicitor who did everything in his power to ensure this happened.

I know from personal experience how it's the people who most need to make a Will who are least likely to do so. Yet an elderly person with a few thousand pounds in their estate will make a new Will every few months, according to who's in or out of favour!

It's quite a long read, so for those with neither the time nor the inclination there's an executive summary here - https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/warri ... 08.article

[AleisterCrowley]

Crikey. I skimmed through the long version. There's a whole novel in there, trying to get out

[Lootman]

Crikey. I skimmed through the long version. There's a whole novel in there, trying to get out

I can only say what i have said here a million times before: NEVER let yourself be in the position where any court of law or judge or probate officer has any say on how you dispose your assets. And that is before all the IHT consequences.

Dispose when you can and not when you have to.

[AsleepInYorkshire]

Crikey. I skimmed through the long version. There's a whole novel in there, trying to get out

I can only say what i have said here a million times before: NEVER let yourself be in the position where any court of law or judge or probate officer has any say on how you dispose your assets. And that is before all the IHT consequences.

Dispose when you can and not when you have to.

This is true ... Me and the missus went out on Monday 29th October 1990 with my Mum and Dad. The pub was literally next door. We got smashed. I can't recall much of the evening. Just as usual playing pool and enjoying myself. The following day Dad passed away.

And to this day I always remember one of his "casual throw away comments". When asked what his ambition was ... well it was simple ... he wanted to max his Barclaycard and snuff it owing them the lot.

Dad never achieved his ambition. There was well over a thousand pound in cash in a sock in his draw, which remarkably paid for most of his funeral expenses. I don't know precisely but my best guess is that over 200 people were at his funeral. The numbers were both staggering and overwhelming.

Planning to die isn't difficult. And CTK's link clearly shows some don't understand that.

My Dad passed away intestate. I shall never forget the good times we had. My Dad never left me a penny. But that never made me feel poor or slighted. Dad left me with exactly what I needed.

AiY

[stewamax]

I read it all.
a. I have sympathy for the judge
b. It is very well written and cogent

[Dod101]

It is such a shame that people spend time and money on this sort of thing (and waste the time of the Court) Of course I suspect we have all seen this sort of thing or variations of it many times as money seems to corrupt people. I hope that I have a foolproof Will in place.

Dod

[terminal7]

Jarndyce v Jarndyce V2 - some read. Thanks CK for bringing this to our attention - could be a Netflix series based on the plotline. One can only be astonished at the wasted time and expense involved for the parties involved. Some of the parties appear to have been consumed by subterfuge for decades.

T7

[Clitheroekid]

One can only be astonished at the wasted time and expense involved for the parties involved.

Indeed. But not just a waste of time and expense. For the Claimant, Rebeca with one `c', it has been an unmitigated disaster.

Her blood must have run cold when she heard the judge say (para 18):

I am satisfied so as to be sure that between 23rd July 2018 (the date of Mr Neal's social media posting) and 10th August 2018 (the date Rebeca allegedly discovered the copy 2017 will at True Blue) Rebeca and Mr Neal conspired together with Mr Humphreys and Miss McKenna to seek to pervert the course of justice by producing a forged will which they falsely and knowingly represented to be the last will of Mr Face.

In my eventual order I will direct that a transcript of this judgment is to be procured at public expense and referred to the Crown Prosecution Service.

So she's now looking at the prospect of a serious criminal conviction and quite probably a jail sentence.

And the final nail in her coffin was at the end:

Having dismissed the claim, and said that it was totally without merit, the costs must fall to be paid by the claimant to the defendants. Having regard to the claimant's conduct, I am entirely satisfied that they should fall to be assessed on the indemnity, rather than the usual standard, basis.

A word of explanation is needed. Normally, when a court orders a losing party to pay the winning party's costs it does not mean that they have to pay their legal bill in its entirety. If the two sides can't reach agreement as to the costs there's a procedure called `detailed assessment', whereby a formal bill has to be prepared by the winning party showing every item claimed by them.

That bill is then the subject of a truly soul-destroying court hearing in which the costs judge will go through the bill item by item, either allowing or disallowing it for payment. If he's in any doubt as to whether an item is payable he must give the benefit of the doubt to the paying party.

This is the procedure where costs are awarded on the standard basis (which is the vast majority of cases) and it usually ends up with the winning party recovering around 70% of his actual bill - he has to pay the balance himself.

However, where a party has behaved particularly badly the court can - as here - award costs to be paid on the indemnity basis. The difference is that the judge must then give the benefit of any doubt to the receiving party, and in practice this means that the receiving party can expect to receive around 95% of his actual bill. In practice it usually means 100%, as most solicitors would write off any balance.

The costs in a case like this are likely to be at least £50k, so these would have to come out of Rebeca's share of the estate.

All in all, it's a remarkably satisfying illustration that - at least in some cases - crime really doesn't pay!

[bluedonkey]

It is such a shame that people spend time and money on this sort of thing (and waste the time of the Court) Of course I suspect we have all seen this sort of thing or variations of it many times as money seems to corrupt people. I hope that I have a foolproof Will in place.

Dod

That will become clear in due course ...

[UncleEbenezer]

The costs in a case like this are likely to be at least £50k,

That doesn't sound like a very big case at all.

Someone mentioned Jarndyce, which consumed the whole of a very large estate without ever reaching resolution. Surely to be comparable, costs today would have to have run - at the very least - to tens of millions!