The website for THE HEIR HUNTERS ORGANISATION news

LATEST NEWSLETTER

Family in a legal fight over a case of a deathbed gift of £410,000.

There has recently been an interesting case of donatio mortis causa, meaning “A gift in prospect of death. ” This, also known as a deathbed gift, is basically is a gift of personal property made by a person who expects to die in the immediate future, taking full effect only after they die.

See:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8003629/Man-battle-relatives-410K-brothers-estate-says-gave-away.html

Window cleaner, 58, fights court battle with relatives over £410,000 from dead brother's estate that included his house and Osmond Family memorabilia which he says he gave away to the poor

Peter Ivory, 58, says he gave away all money he received from brother's estate

His tube driver sibling Mick, 61, died without making a will in November 2018

Other brothers Alan and John Ivory say they are entitled to share of the fortune

Peter claims Mick made him promise on his deathbed not to give family money

Said he gave out £150K in cash to homeless people in cities such as Cambridge

Rest of estate is said to have been given to charity, a friend's holiday and school

By BRYONY JEWELL FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 10:09, 14 February 2020 UPDATED: 10:30, 14 February 2020

A window cleaner who says he gave away his dead brother's £400,000 fortune to the poor faces jail in a court war with his empty-handed relatives.

Peter Ivory, 58, claims to have travelled the UK with a bag of £150,000 in cash giving handouts to 'hard-working poor and homeless people'.

His sibling Mick Ivory, 61, died in November 2018 without a will and Peter says while on his deathbed, Mick made him promise not to let the rest of their family 'get their hands on his hard-earned money'.

The tube driver's estate, which included money from the sale of his home in Butter Hill, Wallington, Surrey, came to £414,000 and totalled £367,000 after expenses.

Peter is also said to have received his brother's beloved Lurcher dog Lady and a collection of rare Osmond Family memorabilia, accumulated by his wife Pat, an avid fan, who died four years before Mick.

Peter, who lawyers say received all the fortune, told London's High Court he passed the memorabilia on to the Osmonds fanclub and is looking after the dog himself.

But he has given away the £367,000 that was left after expenses, saying he took £150,000 out of the bank and travelled the country with a bag of cash.

Peter says he distributed this money to 'a couple of hundred people,' including strangers and the homeless.

Peter is now at war in court with his two surviving brothers, Alan and John, and his nephew Michael, who say Mick's wealth should have been split between them all.

Judge Paul Teverson heard that when Mick died without making a will, Peter handled his affairs and arranged the sale of the his house.

Under normal intestacy laws, which apply when someone dies without a will, Alan, John and Michael expected to share the money equally with Peter as Mick's surviving next of kin.

But Peter says Mick made him promise not to let the rest of his family 'get their hands on his hard-earned money'.

Peter told the judge he has splashed much of his dead brother's cash on helping out the poor and homeless, saying: 'There's no money left now'.

And he is determined that the rest of the family - including his two surviving brothers Alan and John - should inherit nothing, insisting Mick wanted it that way.

His defence to his nephew and brothers' claim to share of the estate is based on the legal concept of 'donatio mortis causa' meaning a gift given by a sick person close to death.

He says his brother's deathbed orders meant he was gifted the estate before Mick died, leaving nothing in the pot to divide.

He told the High Court: 'Mick told me to keep it all and, if I couldn't keep it, to give it away. His whole plan was to make sure they didn't get it.'

He then withdrew £150,000 in cash from the bank for this purpose, Peter added outside court, travelling from his home in Hendon as far afield as Cambridge with his wife Jackie to bail out beggars on the street.

He said: 'There were a couple of hundred people. I put £150,000 in cash in a bag. It doesn't take long to give it away.'

His wife Jackie said outside court that they also helped a friend go on holiday and gave money to a school.

She said: 'Peter took out £150,000 in cash and gave the money away over the course of one month, including to homeless people with their dogs in Cambridge.

'There are a lot of homeless people in Cambridge he was literally giving £50 notes to. There are three or four homeless people around where we live as well and he gave them a lot.

'He gave some to dog charities, as Mick and Pat loved dogs as they had no children.'

When Peter's siblings began challenging him about Mick's estate, he wrote back to his brother, Alan, in June last year, explaining Mick's alleged wishes, the court heard.

He wrote that when Mick was dying he made him promise three things: to care for his beloved dog, Lady, to ensure Pat's treasured collection of Osmond memorabilia went to a good home, and to make sure Alan did not receive a penny of his fortune.

He told Alan in the letter that Mick 'could not bear the thought' of Alan's wife having access to the money he was leaving.

Peter also wrote that Mick had also 'made me promise not to give his well-earned money (to) the rest of the family.'

'So instead I have given it to hard-working poor and homeless people, so there is no money left and you must do what you think is morally right like I have done by respecting his wishes,' the letter concluded.

'They want the money and they think I want it, but I don't give a monkey's about the money,' Peter told the court.

'Can you tell the court in writing where the money went?' asked the judge.

He replied: 'I can tell you how I distributed it. All the money has been distributed according to Mick's wishes and there is no money left.

'I was trying to do what Mick wanted me to do,' he told the judge, adding that he and his wife, Jackie, had also helped care for Mick when he was dying.

Peter said: 'He trusted me with everything. He made me promise to look after Pat's Osmond family memorabilia and I gave it all to the Osmond fan club.'

Setting out Peter's case, Judge Teverson said: 'Peter told his solicitors that the claimants (his brothers and nephew) would get what they deserved which was nothing.

'Giving them money from the estate would have gone against Mick's intention and Peter would be breaching his duty if he did not carry out the deceased's wishes.

'Peter has been trying to ensure that the claimants never receive a penny from the estate, Mick's dying wishes were thus carried out by Peter. '

Judge Teverson added: 'Peter has denied retaining any money for himself. He says Mick made him promise to prevent other family members getting their hands on his hard-earned money. He would have preferred that Peter just give the money away.'

But Simon Douglas - representing Alan, John and Michael - said Peter had presented no evidence about Mick's alleged dying wishes.

'Nor is there any evidence that Peter has complied with his wishes other than his assertion in his witness statement that he has given the money away,' he said.

'If he has given it away to homeless and hard-working people, he should be in a position to give specific names of people he gave the money to, and provide receipts.

'He has done neither, all we have is a single item stating: "I gave the money away".'

Peter has admitted receiving £414,000 worth of assets from Mick's estate, said the barrister.

After a brief hearing, Judge Teverson adjourned the case, ordering that Peter Ivory give a full account of the money he has distributed.

Commenting on Peter's claims that he had given the money away: 'This is not a small sum of money, it is not the type of amount one could expect to see distributed in notes on the street to needy people.

'The claimants are entitled to know what happened to the money. The court will not be satisfied by saying that the estate has simply been given away. I want to know where the money has gone.'

The judge attached a penal notice to his order, meaning Peter Ivory could face a jail term if he fails to obey it.

Use of an heir hunter by a London Borough causes an estate to be paid to the wrong person.

A report in the Daily Telegraph (10 July 2019) highlights the drawbacks of inexperienced council officials passing exclusive information to a preferred heir hunter. Such questionable relationships will inevitably lead not only to overcharging, but also errors and disappointments. This is why a competition-based heir hunting method works best. It's fair for the beneficiaries, and helps to ensure that the right people are actually found!

The Heir Hunters Organisation supports high standards, transparency, and competitiveness, and as such is not in favour of private arrangements that never see the light of day.

According to the newspaper report, the council described the case as ‘unusual’, but HHO understands that this is far from the case, and that many more examples can be found. Watch this space for further reports.

See:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/council-gave-inheritance-someone-else/

Tower Hamlets hired an heir hunter to settle an unclaimed estate, but it backfired

Harry Brennan

10 JULY 2019

Bungling councils' use of freelance "heir hunters" has come under renewed scrutiny after a London borough gave away a pensioner’s inheritance to a complete stranger.

Christine Burn, 65, is still waiting for Tower Hamlets council to hand over what is rightfully hers following a drawn-out legal battle.

In 2013, Ms Burn’s aunt, Kathleen McPhail, died without leaving a will. The local authority employed heir hunting firm Estate Research, which identified someone it thought to be a cousin of the deceased as next of kin, but who in fact had no claim to the £5,000 estate.

Ms Burn, who is waiting for the council to release her money, said: “I don’t understand why it’s taking so long to sort it out. They’ve acknowledged their errors, but then dragged their heels over repayment. We just want this to be over.”

The council is now waiting for letters of administration from the courts so the estate can finally be released.

Philip Turvey of Anglia Research, the genealogy firm that identified Ms Burn as the correct beneficiary, said: “Ms Burn’s case is sadly common. We come across far too many cases where relatives are being denied their rightful inheritance or are being ripped off with excessive fees.”

“This scandal needs to end and the Government should act to ensure that all councils follow the correct processes.”

Councils are obliged to report intestate estates to the Treasury Solicitor if there are no known relatives to inherit.

A spokesman for Tower Hamlets said the case was “unusual” and that the council approached the heir hunters only after the Treasury Solicitor rejected the case. It said the Treasury Solicitor has previously incorrectly assumed people registering deaths of intestate estates were blood relatives, leading to cases being wrongly rejected. It said it had encountered this problem on numerous occasions.

“When another genealogy company subsequently notified us that Ms Burns was the correct beneficiary, the funds were retrieved and are now in the custody of the council,” he said.

Telegraph Money previously reported that increasing administrative demands on the Treasury Solicitor has led to local authorities taking it on themselves to track down heirs.

This means unclaimed estate do not get added to the official "bona vacantia" list, leaving individual genealogy firms with a monopoly on cases and carte blanche to charge whatever they can get away with. Firms can take a commission of the value of the estate of 15pc or more in some cases. These fees tend to be lower when heir hunters are in competition for unclaimed estates listed publicly online by the state.

A spokesman for Estate Research said: “Whilst every effort is made to guard against the misinterpretation of records, on rare occasions this can happen. Once informed, we reacted immediately to rectify the situation.”

A Government Legal Department spokesman said it could not comment on individual cases and that it only accepts cases of estates identified as "ownerless".

Court of Appeal overturns a decision to throw out a widow’s late application to claim from her late husband’s estate.

So, we know there are rules about everything these days. But common sense also needs to rule the day. Failure to follow a rule – in this case a rule in the 1975 Inheritance Act – should not be punished, but judged on its particular circumstances. The lawgazette.co.uk (1 August 2019) gives the details:

See:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/appeal-allows-stand-still-agreement-on-claim-17-months-out-of-time/5071213.article

Appeal allows stand-still agreement on claim 17 months out of time

By John Hyde 1 August 2019

The Court of Appeal has overturned a decision to throw out a widow’s delayed application to claim from her late husband’s estate.

In Cowan v Foreman, Lady Justice Asplin said Mr Justice Mostyn was ‘plainly wrong’ to disregard the application as it was made 17 months after the six-month period, set out by the 1975 Inheritance Act, had expired.

The appeal judge said the time limit was not intended to have a disciplinary element and the judge was wrong to seek ‘good reason’ to justify a delay.

Mostyn J’s decision had also called into question the validity of so-called ‘stand-still’ agreements where parties come to an informal arrangement about not meeting deadlines. The appeal judgment appears to endorse these agreements.

The claimant had brought a claim against the £16m estate of her deceased husband, who had not made outright provision for her but made her the principal beneficiary of two discretionary trusts.

Mostyn J accepted that the relevant delay was 13 months, but concluded there was no justification for it and that the ‘in the modern era of civil ligation the limit of excusable delay should be measured in weeks, or, at most, a few months’.

That conclusion was muddied around the time of the judgment when, in another case about inheritance claim delays, a 25-year wait to make a claim was allowed by the court. In Bhusate, Chief Master Marsh had criticised the joint application of Inheritance Act claims with the sanctions regime characterised in the Denton judgment, saying that approach involved ‘conflating issues that, if they are related, are at best distant cousins’.

In her judgment on the Cowan appeal, Asplin LJ backed that view, stressing that unlike the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules, the six-month time limit was not to be enforced for its own sake. She added it was necessary to decide whether an applicant’s claims has a real prospect of success rather than a fanciful one.

On stand-still agreements, Asplin LJ said that without prejudice negotiations between parties, rather than the issue of proceedings, should be encouraged.

‘Although the potential claimant will have to take a risk if an application is made subsequently to extend time in circumstances where negotiations have failed, if both parties have been legally represented, it seems to me that it would be unlikely that the court would refuse to endorse the approach.'

Lady Justice King, agreeing the claimant’s appeal should be allowed, distanced herself from the comments of Mostyn J, who had said the practice of stand-still arrangements should be ended.

But she added: ‘I should stress however, that if parties choose the ‘stand-still’ route, there should be clear written agreement setting out the terms/duration of such an agreement and each of the potential parties should be included in the agreement.’

Solicitor with five decades of experience struck off for overcharging.

We all know Solicitors are not the cheapest people in the world to employ. Crazy prices most of the time for ordinary people. But you at least hope to get what you pay for, and you do expect the charges to be reasonable, and agreed in advance. There are cases where some clients have had to pay greater fees than agreed with little evidence of the work carried out. The lawgazette.co.uk (23 August 2019) gives an account of a particular case.

See:

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/overcharging-solicitor-struck-off-after-more-than-50-years-in-practice/5101216.article

Overcharging solicitor struck off after more than 50 years in practice

By Monidipa Fouzder 23 August 2019

A solicitor practising for more than five decades has been struck off after significantly overcharging clients in probate cases. Harold Anthony Newell, born in 1938, was admitted to the roll in November 1963.

The Solicitors Regulation Authority claimed that, as a sole practitioner at TS Barkes & Son, Newell made fee-related transfers from client to office account without providing written notification of the costs incurred and in excess of what was agreed, fair or reasonable. He subsequently failed to comply with decisions of the Legal Ombudsman, adjudications of the SRA and/or the court and to disclose material information to his professional indemnity insurer.

Newell told investigators that on probate matters his standard practice was to charge the lower of £150 per hour or 1% of the gross estate. The firm charged £175 per hour (plus VAT) for complex matters. However, the tribunal was told of cases where the settled invoices represented overcharges as high as 228%.

Newell said 'he had always tried to comply with the spirit of the rules but would often be under too much pressure of work to deal with the formalities'. In 2008 he had three heart attacks in four days. 'Ill health and physical ailments' continued for eight years. He had open heart surgery in 2015. With probate matters Newell 'always made it his practice to make payments on account to beneficiaries during the administration period. The beneficiaries who had complained would have had as much as 95% of their share and there had been minimal impact on them'.

Newell said he had 'not knowingly ignored' any decisions or other matters from the ombudsman, and had not deliberately attempted to not disclose material information to his insurer.

However, the tribunal said Newell's actions 'resulted in his clients paying without prior notification greater fees than had been agreed and/or were fair and reasonable. None of the files showed any evidence of the work actually carried out and no attendance notes and his clients, whether they were exeucutors or his co-executors, would have had any information on the true costs of his work'.

The tribunal said a solicitor acting with integrity 'would have actively managed his workload, engaged effective assistance and prioritised his dealings with the LeO and county court. On his own account he had let the papers build up on his desk and then sought to shift the responsibility to junior staff for not adequately bringing them to his attention'.

Newell did not attend the hearing and was unrepresented. In a letter to the tribunal, he said: 'I do not wish to show any disrespect to the members of the tribunal but in my present state of mind and my heart problems I could not face three days before the tribunal and run the risk of collapsing in the process.'

Newell was struck off the roll and ordered to pay £44,118.10 costs.

Filipino bride loses fight for a share of husband's fortune.

Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, so they say, and here is a case where it certainly caused the greedy person to miss out, totally. Not happy with something, she got nothing.

See this article from the Mirror (3 July 2019):

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/bride-offered-one-way-ticket-17376103

Bride offered 'one way ticket home' is refused share of late husband's £220k fortune

By Paul Keogh

3 JUL 2019

The couple were in the process of divorcing when Michael Hendry died- so his kids offered their stepmum cash and a flight home to the Philippines

A Filipino bride who was offered '£10,000 and a one-way ticket home' by her step-kids after her husband died has lost a fight for a share of his fortune.

Rosita Hendry, now 52, married Michael Hendry, who was 20 years her senior, after they met in the Philippines in 2001.

She flew to the UK to wed him in 2003 and the couple lived together in Surrey.

But amid accusations of boozing and adultery, the marriage collapsed and they were in the process of divorcing when Mr Hendry died, aged 70, in 2017.

By then, he had already cut her out of his will, leaving everything - including his home near Hampton Court Palace - to two of his children from a previous relationship.

And when Rosita went to her stepchildren to ask for a share, she was told she could have £10,000 in cash and a one-way flight home.

She rejected that offer and later more generous ones, demanding a £110,000 half-share of his £220,000 estate.

But the widow has now ended up with nothing, after losing a court fight with her dead husband's kids.

London's High Court heard that Mr Hendry already had kids Michael junior, Dorothy and their older sister, Melanie, who lives in the United States, when he met his future wife in the Philippines.

Together with young Michael, the couple lived in Mr Hendry's home in Hampton Court Parade, East Molesey, and were regulars in their local pub.

When they wed, the couple signed a pre-nuptial agreement, under which Rosita would get only a flight home and £10,000 if they split.

After Mr Hendry's death, Michael junior and Dorothy offered her the same deal as she agreed to in the pre-nup, given that the relationship had unravelled

Judge Karen Shuman said Rosita claimed the breakup came when Mr Hendry began drinking heavily and became violent, obliging her to move out and in with a friend who supported her.

But Dorothy claimed that was not true, that Rosita had an affair and the revelation had driven her dad to drink.

The judge did not make any findings in relation to any of the allegations.

Rosita petitioned for divorce in November 2016 and said she was seeking a 50-50 split of her husband's money.

But the divorce never came, because Mr Hendry passed away the following February.

After she was widowed, Rosita insisted she was now due half, in spite of the pre-nup.

She had been left with very little, receiving only £63 a month from her husband's pension plan, the judge said, adding that she had also rejected a later offer by Mr Henry's children to split everything three ways.

It was not until April 2018 that Rosita finally lodged a claim for "reasonable financial provision" from her husband's estate.

But Judge Shuman has now ruled that her claim was made too late and must fail.

The judge said she had known that there was a time limit and missed it

"I give full weight to the fact that Rosita has an arguable case, albeit it not a strong one as contended for, and that the estate has not been distributed," she said.

"However, I do not consider that Rosita acted promptly when the circumstances are fully analysed."

The decision means the money will be split equally between Mr Hendry's two younger children, Michael Hendry, 21, and Dorothy Pertiwi, 30.

"It was the testamentary wish of the deceased that Michael and Dorothy should each receive an equal half share of his estate," said the judge.

"It is a modest estate and the principal asset is the property, which has a value of approximately £220,000.

"Michael is only 21 years old and his outgoings exceed his income

"Dorothy is in a precarious financial position and has been using her savings to support her brother."

She added: "They have yet to receive their inheritance."

Lawyers for Rosita had accepted that the time limit - six months from grant of probate - for filing a claim had been missed, but argued that she should be allowed to go ahead anyway, since negotiations were ongoing and everyone knew a claim was in the offing.

The judge, rejecting that argument, commented that whilst Rosita will now get nothing from her late husband's estate, she could attempt to sue her solicitors for missing the time limit to file her claim.

Tycoon's widow loses battle to have complete control of his fortune!

Greed again raises its ugly head in this case, as it did in article four. Not content with what she had been given in a generous Will, she tried to wrestle complete control of her late husband's fortune.

See this article from the Telegraph (16 March 2019).

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/16/bin-liner-tycoons-widow-loses-court-battle-wrestle-control-16million/

Bin-liner tycoon's widow loses court battle to wrestle control of his £16million fortune

By Nic Brunetti

16 MARCH 2019

The widow of a ‘genius’ black bin liner tycoon has lost a landmark court fight to gain total control of his £16million fortune, after a judge ruled her £20,000 a month income was ‘generous’.

Michael Cowan, who died from a brain tumour aged 78 in April 2016, built up his wealth from humble beginnings - making his fortune by introducing the humble black bin-bag into British households as an everyday item - at one point selling 200 million a year.

But In his final few months he married his lover of 25 years, Mary Jane Cowan, who became his second wife.

Mr Cowan, who was 'devoted to' Mary Jane, left her with hundreds of thousands of pounds in ready cash and also used his will to set up a structure of 'generous' trust funds, 'designed to meet her every reasonable need for the rest of her life'.

But his 77-year-old widow was not happy with the arrangement and this week brought a groundbreaking bid to persuade the High Court to grant her 'outright control' of her late husband's millions.

Her case was effectively a bid to establish a right for wives to have direct control over their husbands' riches after death, the High Court heard.

But Mr Justice Mostyn ruled she cannot go beyond her husband's will - which provided her with £435,000 in the first year after he died and now a regular monthly payout from the trust funds, amounting to around £240,000 a year (£20,000 a month).

Mr Cowan set aside £1million to support his children, stepchildren and grandchildren, but made Mary Jane the 'principle beneficiary' of one of the funds for her lifetime.

Her barrister, Penelope Reed QC, had argued that the tycoon did not make 'reasonable provision' for her from his estate, because she has been left 'very little by way of assets in her own name'.

Giving his ruling, Justice Mostyn said: "The argument of Miss Reed QC is that because Mary Jane does not have outright ownership of the assets and therefore absolute control of them, she is - as she put it - 'at the mercy of the trustees', who could cut her adrift with no access to money at all,' he said.

"I have to say that I completely disagree...

"I have to make the...assessment as to whether the trustees will honour Michael's wishes and ensure that every reasonable need of Mary Jane is met until her death."

Dismissing the widow's claim, the judge added that if the trustees took the path of denying her money for her reasonable needs, they would be liable to be sued by her for breach of trust.

Mr Cowan grew his successful plastics company, Hanmere Polythene Ltd, until he was a multimillionaire with a country estate in Hertfordshire, a pad in the Caribbean and homes in Santa Barbara, California, and London.

His divorce from his first, Jacqueline, in 2001, hit the news when they fought in the Appeal Court over money. Jaqueline had been awarded a £3.1million slice of his then £12million fortune but this was upped to £4.4million.

Councils' are allowing their heir hunters to charge high fees

This really follows on from article one. It's why a competitive market rather than a monopoly is so important. Left to their own devices, a dominant company has free reign to charge more or less what they want. If, however, they are in competition, they have to be fairer and more realistic in their pricing in order to get the work. If two identical window companies want to install the exact same window, and one charges £1,000 and the other £2,000, who do you go for?

See this article from localgov.co.uk (13 August):

https://www.localgov.co.uk/Councils-enabling-heir-hunters-to-charge-high-fees/47970

Councils ‘enabling’ heir hunters to charge high fees

William Eichler 13 August 2019

Researchers have accused local authorities of ‘enabling’ heir hunting firms to rip-off families by charging excessive fees for tracking down inheritance claims.

New Freedom of Information figures acquired by probate genealogy firm Anglia Research show that 58% of councils are making exclusive deals with heir hunting firms to identify relatives when someone dies without leaving a will or any obvious next of kin.

Anglia Research argues this enables the firms involved to charge what they want with no safeguards in place.

Government guidance indicates that where a person dies without leaving a will and with no apparent next of kin, the case should be referred to the Treasury Solicitor where the details are made publicly available on a website.

Heir hunter firms scan this list of unclaimed estates daily and race to identify entitled relatives. Where a successful claim for inheritance is made, the firm charges a fee for their service.

With firms competing against each other relatives are identified quickly and fees are kept low, generally between 2%-10%, depending on the complexity of the case.

However, according to Anglia Research, the number of councils choosing to bypass this process has increased by 14% over two years. They are instead referring details exclusively to a preferred heir hunting firm.

The result is that next of kin are paying more in fees to claim their rightful inheritance than otherwise need be the case. In one case, an heir hunter charged £114,000 from an inheritance of £285,000, a fee of 40%.

Fewer than 4% of councils who said they used an heir hunter directly had a written contract in place, meaning that the relationship remained informal and not subject to scrutiny.

‘This is fast becoming a major consumer protection issue,’ said Philip Turvey, executive director of Anglia Research.

‘Over two thirds of councils who responded, 141 authorities, admit that they would welcome clearer guidance or regulation around this issue.

‘The needs to respond to this urgently before other families are ripped-off. Competition is the only way to prevent overcharging.’

A Local Government Association spokesperson said: 'Government guidance requires councils to check whether someone, who has left no will, has any relatives before the case can be referred to the Treasury Solicitor. This happens even if the relatives are difficult to trace or do not wish to deal with the estate.

'Councils do not have the expertise to carry out this work themselves, so often hire specialist heir hunter firms to do so on their behalf as it is the most cost effective way of meeting the requirements.

'However there needs to be a review of the guidance so councils can all follow the same level of investigation before the case is referred to the Treasury Secretary. As would making sure the genealogy firms are quality assured, as they are currently are not formally regulated.'

Solicitor fined for paying £1.5 million out to a widow despite knowing she was in a dispute with the children of the deceased.

Here is a situation where a solicitor made errors of judgement and paid out money out on an estate even though the parties involved were in a legal dispute over it! There was no malign intent, but common sense should surely prevail!

See this article from legalfutures.co.uk (19 Jul 2019):

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/partner-fined-for-paying-1-5m-to-widow-in-probate-dispute

Partner fined for paying £1.5m to widow in probate dispute

19 July 2019

Posted by Nick Hilborne

The former head of private client at London firm Kingsley Napley has been fined £15,000 for transferring over £1.5m from the estate of a wealthy foreign national to his widow, despite knowing she was in a dispute with the deceased’s children.

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) found that Matthew Duncan also knew that the limited grant of representation obtained by the widow as administratrix of the estate did not permit her to request payments.

However, the tribunal said Mr Duncan’s misconduct “arose from errors he made” and there was “no malign motive”.

He had nevertheless jeopardised the position of the widow, referred to as Client A, in circumstances where he had not fully advised her of the risks.

Matthew Neil Richard Duncan was born in 1973 and qualified in 1998. The events that led to disciplinary action meant he had to leave Kingsley Napley and he said he has “suffered significant financial loss as a result”.

Approving an agreed outcome between Mr Duncan and the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), the SDT heard that from March 2010 to October 2017 Mr Duncan was an equity partner at Kingsley Napley and head of the private client department.

Client A was involved in a dispute with the children of her late husband, described as “an ultra-high net-worth foreign national”, including over the extent of their respective shares in the estate under the local laws of the husband’s country of domicile.

Client A was granted administration of the English estate of her husband in July 2014, but the grant was limited to getting in the assets and preserving them, and not doing anything more without a further grant of probate or permission of the court.

The tribunal heard that notwithstanding this, Mr Duncan paid £750,000 from the estate to Client A in October 2015, “by way of an interim distribution at her request”, doing so “in the knowledge that Client A was not entitled to make that distribution”.

The SDT said that since Mr Duncan knew that the English estate of Client A’s husband was worth over £9m and he owned “valuable assets in other jurisdictions”, the solicitor “believed he was justified in making the distribution because it was ultimately a small proportion of what she would receive”.

Mr Duncan followed this up by making six payments to Client A between October 2015 and May 2016 totalling over £825,000 – payments which were made “on account of expenses incurred by Client A as administratrix of the estate”.

The SDT heard that the law was “unclear” whether Client A was entitled to receive the expenses payments.

In making the £750,000 payment, Mr Duncan admitted that he “fully advised” Client A that her grant of representation was limited and “did not confer authority upon Client A to direct the making of that payment”.

In relation to all the payments, Mr Duncan did not advise Client A that the making of them might be relied upon by the children in support of an application to replace her as administrator, that they might trigger other claims by beneficiaries of her husband’s estate, and that, if a claim was brought, Client A could be liable for costs.

The tribunal also heard that, in a separate incident, Mr Duncan was given a sum of £500 in cash by a second client, Client B, in March 2015, “which was then lost”.

Mr Duncan said in mitigation that the payment of £750,000 was made because Client A was “without income” following her husband’s death and he “honestly believed he was doing the right thing for the client, having regard to the terms of the grant”.

The solicitor said he “honestly believed” the further payments of £825,000 were permitted by section 31 of the Trustee Act 2000.

Mr Duncan said he provided “some advice” to Client A on the payments of £825,000 for expenses, warning her that some or all of the money might have to be repaid.

Although he accepted that he was ultimately responsible for ensuring the £500 was paid into Kingsley Napley’s client account, he insisted that he did not deal with the money “in an improper manner”.

He was fined £15,000 and ordered to pay costs of £7,500.

Solicitor takes 15 years to finish distributing an estate!

So, we all know legal processes can take a while, and that some cases are more involved and less straightforward than others. A complicated heir hunt in some far flung country might be forgiven, but when cases are simply put to one side and effectively forgotten about one surely must object!

See this article from legalfutures.co.uk (2 Dec 2019):

https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-news/solicitor-took-15-years-to-finish-distributing-estate

Solicitor took 15 years to finish distributing estate

2 December 2019

Posted by Neil Rose

A veteran solicitor who failed to complete several probate matters promptly – with one taking 15 years – has been fined by a tribunal.

Robin Edward Stubbings told the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) that it had been a case of “out of sight out of mind”.

Mr Stubbings, born in 1948, was admitted as a solicitor in 1975. Until 2009 he was in partnership and thereafter practised on his own account as CC Bell & Son in Bedford.

The SRA identified at least five probate matters that the solicitor did not deal with promptly – in the most egregious, probate was obtained in May 2000, with £159,000 distributed to the four residuary beneficiaries four months later.

But in July 2001, a further £36,000 was received, which Mr Stubbings did not attempt to distribute until 2014 and even then he did not succeed in doing so for a further two years. Two of the beneficiaries had died by then and the money was distributed in accordance with their wills.

Asked to account for the delay, Mr Stubbings told the SRA: “When you’re dealing with a load of other stuff as well, you’re not being chased for anything [it] just lapses into the background I suppose.”

As well as admitting that he failed to progress probates and return client monies promptly, Mr Stubbings admitted failing to co-operate with the Legal Ombudsman in relation to complaints by a probate client and a conveyancing client, and also with the SRA’s investigation.

In mitigation, Mr Stubbings told the tribunal that this was not his “finest hour” – the cases represented “a very small number of the hundreds of cases that he dealt with each year and the thousands he had handled in his career of over 40 years”.

The SDT recorded: “[He] told the tribunal that he was fully conscious that his standard fell below what would be expected. He had not acted expeditiously enough and could have done more. Some of the cases were difficult in that he did not know where to distribute the funds.

“[Mr Stubbings] told the tribunal that he was looking to retire and was in discussion with another firm with matters a view to a merger. He hoped this could be achieved over the coming year. He did not particularly enjoy being a sole practitioner.”

In the meantime, he was keeping a closer eye on which funds were being held and why.

The SDT found that the harm caused had been significant. “In some instances beneficiaries had died before receiving the funds due to them. In other cases property sales were delayed and [Mr Stubbings] had to be chased by clients to progress matters.

“At the heart of it was a delay in meeting the wishes of the deceased and this was a very serious matter which considerably undermined the reputation of the profession.”

However, the SDT said that, in light of the solicitor’s “admissions and the level of insight shown”, a fine of £15,000 was sufficient. He was ordered to pay a similar sum in costs.

Two bodies. Who died first? The law of Property Act 1925 is used to decide!

While it may not quite be Agatha Christie material, here is a case where there are two bodies and where a lot stood on the question of which one died first. Medically it could not be proven either way, so here a law made nearly 100 years ago was used to decide the issue! The BBC reports the case (13 Aug 2019):

See:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-49337332

Judge rules in 'extraordinary' Essex inheritance case

13 August 2019

A judge has ended an "extraordinary" court battle between two stepsisters by applying a 95-year-old law.

John and Marjorie Ann Scarle were found dead in their bungalow in Leigh-on-Sea, Essex, in 2016, triggering a dispute over their £300,000 assets.

Mr Scarle's daughter Anna Winter and Mrs Scarle's daughter Deborah Cutler took their fight to the High Court.

Judge Philip Kramer ruled the Law of Property Act 1925 meant Ms Cutler should receive the whole estate.

Ms Winter's case was that forensic evidence suggested Mrs Scarle, 69, died first, resulting in her father inheriting their assets - which would then pass to her.

But Ms Cutler relied on the 1925 Act which creates a "presumption" that, as the elder of the two, Mr Scarle, 79, had died first - meaning she would inherit the assets through her mother.

Mr and Mrs Scarle were found dead from hypothermia by police on 11 October 2016.

The court heard Ms Cutler had made a number of attempts to settle the case by dividing assets equally - at one point offering a 60-40 split in Ms Winter's favour, as well as mediation.

All were rejected by Ms Winter, the hearing was told.

Delivering his ruling, Judge Kramer said rates of decomposition could be explained by the different "micro-climates" in the toilet, where Mrs Scarle's body was found, and the lounge, where her husband was discovered.

He said the presumption in favour of the older person dying first, enshrined in the 1925 Act, would therefore apply.

'Stubborn intransigence'

Ms Cutler now stands to receive the entire estate. Judge Kramer ordered Ms Winter to pay £179,000 in legal costs.

James Weale, representing her, said his client could not have done any more to resolve the dispute.

"This claim should never have got to trial," he told the judge.

"She was met with stubborn intransigence on the part of (Ms Winter) who refused to make any reasonable attempt to engage in settlement negotiations at any stage."

What is causing the probate delays?

Anyone trying to use the probate service recently may have experienced significant delays. In life there is often more than one cause for something, but the “experts” do not seem to be able to agree in this case. It's said the online system will help...

See this article from the lawgazette.co.uk (2 Sep 2019):

https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/clash-over-cause-of-probate-delays/5101288.article

Clash over cause of probate delays

By Jemma Slingo 2 September 2019

The Ministry of Justice is under-reporting probate delays, according to a Law Society committee chair – but the government has implied that faulty applications from solicitors are driving up waiting times.

Edward Argar MP, parliamentary under secretary of state at the MoJ, told parliament at the beginning of August that average waiting times for grants in April, May and June were two, six and nine weeks respectively.

But Ian Bond, chair of the Law Society’s wills and equity committee, described the figures as ‘disingenuous to say the least’. They did not account for the entire waiting process, he said. ‘They don’t include the wait for the registrar to come to that registry to sign (or the application to be sent to another registry where the registrar will be). Nor do they include the time taken to print and send.’

Meanwhile, an HM Courts & Tribunals Service director said a reason for delays of more than six to eight weeks is the need to correct inaccurate or incomplete probate applications.

Jonathan Wood, national services director, wrote in a blog: ‘A considerable number of applications for probate have to be stopped because we need further information or assurance before we can issue a grant of probate.

‘We don’t count the time from stopping until we get the responses back… But it is clear that when applications are stopped it adds to the time it takes us to process.’

Referring to the original cause of the delays, Wood wrote: ‘When we first migrated work to one of our new back-office systems we hit teething problems… In the normal run of things it would not have significantly affected our service times for an extended period. But volumes [of applications] soared in the spring – more than a 50% increase during March and April compared with usual monthly volumes.’

Wood apologised for the delays and said the online system would make the application process ‘clearer and simpler’.

Dispute between heir hunters.

HHO received the following press release:

Heir Hunters firm pays £40,000 libel damages to rival

Finders International made series of false allegations against Anglia Research’s directors

Shamed boss Danny Curran’s botched bid to cover up and delete evidence exposed

Settlement marks second time Finders defamed Anglia Research after 2016 payout

London, December 2019 –

A firm which featured on the BBC’s Heir Hunters show has paid £40,000 in libel damages for making false claims against competitor Anglia Research’s directors.

The Queen’s Bench Division in the High Court of Justice heard a statement in open court read by William McCormick QC, leading counsel for Anglia Research’s directors, which outlined the defamatory allegations made by Finders International and Daniel Curran.

The statement also revealed how Finders International’s managing director Danny Curran tried to cover up how the libels were spread.

Philip Turvey and his father Peter – directors of Anglia Research, a prominent genealogical research firm which has appeared on the BBC’s popular Who Do You Think You Are? series – brought the action in 2016 after they were provided with copies of emails seemingly sent by or on Curran’s behalf to various third parties. The Turveys were provided with the emails by an anonymous whistleblower who was concerned about Finders’ and Curran’s behaviour.

The emails falsely claimed, among other things, that the Turveys had run an abusive Twitter account which posted pictures taken unlawfully from the social media accounts of Finders’ staff. They suggested the account had “followed” Curran’s daughter’s primary school Twitter feed in order to stalk her.

The emails also falsely claimed that Anglia Research had made a fraudulent claim for an estate of about £1m.

When contacted by the Turveys’ lawyers, Curran admitted writing the emails, but he said they had never actually been sent out to the recipients. He said they were only ever in draft form either for checking by his assistant, or sent to himself as a reminder to send at some later time. Finders’ IT department produced an IT report which purported to support Curran’s claim that the emails hadn’t in fact ever left Finders’ system.

Understandably given Curran’s track record, the Turveys were highly suspicious of Curran’s explanation, so they secured a Court-ordered forensic examination of Finders’ IT systems. Astonishingly, and despite Curran having earlier given assurances that they would preserve all evidence, it then transpired that he and Finders had allowed the purging (deletion) of their IT back-up, thwarting any chances of finding the evidence on their system. The cover-up seemed to have worked.

But in 2018, Anglia received another anonymous tip-off and package of emails, which finally proved that Curran’s explanation was simply untrue and that the offending emails had been sent to third parties.

Evidence also emerged that through his senior staff, Curran had instructed the firm’s external sales representatives (and the recipients of the offending emails) to delete all their emails received from Finders before May 2018. Curran and Finders did so on the spurious pretext of data protection requirements at a time when Curran no doubt knew Anglia were in the process of contacting the third parties to ask about the emails.

As the court heard today, without the assistance of the unknown whistleblower in 2018, the Turveys may never have discovered conduct which bore, as the statement in open Court put it, “all the hallmarks of a serious attempt to pervert the course of justice.”

Curran and Finders have still not been willing to admit their wrongdoing and have continued to deny liability for the emails. But they have agreed to pay very substantial damages – and what will be a significant six figure sum in costs – over the publication of emails they say they never sent. They have also given an undertaking to the Court, under penalty of committal for contempt of court, not to repeat the libels of which the Turveys complained.

This is the second time Finders and Curran have had to pay out very substantial sums to settle a libel claim. In October 2016, they made a payment to a charity of Philip Turvey’s choosing in lieu of damages. They also apologised to Mr Turvey and paid costs.

Philip Turvey said: “We are pleased that the proceedings are concluded with today’s statement in open Court and that a settlement has been reached. This was never about just the emails – it was about Curran’s serial misconduct and sense that he is above the law. As ethical practitioners, Anglia, my father and I could not simply allow Curran and Finders to get away with treating us, the court system and justice with such contempt. We’re glad this matter has finally been resolved.”

This has already led to several newspaper reports and articles, such as the Daily Mail item of 9 December 2019 below:

See:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7772041/Finders-Genealogists-stars-BBC-Heir-Hunters-pay-rival-firm-40-000-High-Court-libel-case.html

Ancestry company featured on BBC's Heir Hunters agrees to pay Who Do You Think You Are rival £40,000 in libel damages after a bitter legal wrangle ended at the High Court

Who Do You Think You Are? Genealogy firm Anglia Research legal fight with rival

Philip and Peter Turvey accused Heir Hunters star Daniel Curran of defamation

High Court told Mr Curran falsely accused father & son of stalking his daughter

Turveys helped BBC trace ancestral lines of Sebastian Coe and Sheridan Smith

By LARA KEAY FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 12:55, 9 December 2019

An ancestry company featured on BBC Heir Hunters has agreed to pay their Who Do You Think You Are? rivals £40,000 in libel damages after a bitter legal fight ended at the High Court today.

Philip and Peter Turvey, the brains behind Who Do You Think You Are? and directors of firm Anglia Research, have been at loggerheads with their Heir Hunters star rival Daniel Curran, of Finders Genealogists Ltd.

Father and son duo Philip and Peter Turvey accused Mr Curran of making libelous claims in a series of damaging emails, London's High Court heard.

The court was told Mr Curran falsely claimed the Turveys stalked his young daughter and made a fake claim for a £1million estate.

Mr Curran, the former brother-in-law of actress Liz Hurley, today agreed to pay £40,000 in damages.

The Turveys helped the BBC trace the ancestral lines of double Olympic champion Sebastian Coe and actress Sheridan Smith on Who Do You Think You Are?

Mr Curran is the former brother-in-law of actress Liz Hurley, who was bridesmaid when he married her sister Kate in 1993. The couple divorced 10 years later.

Philip Turvey said after the court ruling today: 'We are pleased that the proceedings are concluded with today's statement in open Court and that a settlement has been reached.

'This was never about just the emails - it was about Curran's serial misconduct and sense that he is above the law.

'As ethical practitioners, Anglia, my father and I could not simply allow Curran and Finders to get away with treating us, the court system and justice with such contempt. We're glad this matter has finally been resolved.'

Directors of Ipswich-based Anglia Research Philip and Peter Turvey were targeted by Finders International's managing director Daniel Curran, the star of Heir Hunters, in a series of damaging emails, the hearing was told.

William McCormick, QC, for Anglia Research's directors, outlined the defamatory allegations made by Finders International and Mr Curran.

Philip and his father Peter brought the action in 2016 after they were provided with copies of the libelous emails.

It was also claimed that Finders International's managing director Mr Curran tried to cover up how the libels were spread.

The Turveys were provided with the emails by an anonymous whistleblower who was concerned about Finders' and Mr Curran's behaviour.

The emails falsely claimed, among other things, that the Turveys had run an abusive Twitter account which posted pictures taken unlawfully from the social media accounts of Finders' staff.

They suggested the account had 'followed' Mr Curran's daughter's primary school Twitter feed in order to stalk her.

The emails also falsely claimed that Anglia Research had made a fraudulent claim for an estate of about £1million.

When contacted by the Turveys' lawyers, the court heard that Mr Curran admitted writing the emails, but he said they had never actually been sent out to the recipients.

He said they were only ever in draft form either for checking by his assistant or sent to himself as a reminder to send at some later time.

Finders' IT department produced an IT report which purported to support Mr Curran's claim that the emails hadn't in fact ever left Finders' system.

The Turveys secured a court-ordered forensic examination of Finders' IT systems.

In 2018, Anglia received another anonymous tip-off and package of emails, which showed they had been sent to third parties.

Mr Curran and Finders have still not been willing to admit their wrongdoing and have continued to deny liability for the emails.

But they have agreed to pay substantial damages and have also given an undertaking to the Court, under penalty of committal for contempt of court, not to repeat the libels.

This is the second time Finders and Mr Curran have had to pay out very substantial sums to settle a libel claim.

In October 2016, they made a payment to a charity of Philip Turvey's choosing in lieu of damages. They also apologised to Mr Turvey and paid costs.