Does a Solicitor need an Instruction to Administer an Estate
Discussion
Scenario (it's real, but the names have been changed)
Mrs Smith dies. She has three children, Fred, Freda, and an estranged son, George. Fred had PTSD and lived with his mum, Freda had moved away, but was in weekly contact with mum and Fred. George lived nearby, but has not been in contact with any of the family for 20 years.
Freda was told by Fred that his mum had told him to take care of everything. Freda believed that her mum had died without a will and that everything would be shared between the three children. She also doubted that Fred was capable of dealing with the arrangements. George lived in the area and rumours were that he didn't care that his mum had died.
A week after his mum died, Fred committed suicide.
Freda takes over the arrangements.
She manages to contact George, and it turns out that the rumours were false. Freda and George get on very well, and both arrange the funerals. They clear the house and find all the usual documents and bank statements, and go to the bank to make the bank aware of the deaths. They did not find any wills, not even Fred's military wills from his time on operations.
Surprisingly, the bank tells them that they had already been informed by a solicitor (Qwerty's - not their real name). They assume that Fred had instructed Qwerty's to act for him.
They visit Qwerty's who tell Freda and George that neither Mrs Smith nor Fred are their clients.
Freda and George go to a different solicitors (Uiop's) and instruct them to act on their behalfs. They believe that Mrs Smith died without a will and that Fred may have had a military will.
Uiop's do a search and discover that Qwerty's were representing Fred, and that Mrs Smith had a will.
Uiop's sent Freda and George a copy of Qwerty's letter. It states that Fred was the exectutor to Mrs Smith and that Fred may have had two children. Fred had never mentioned the children to either Freda nor George. It also appears that Qwerty's are administering Fred's estate, despite nobody having instructed them to do so.
Now, the questions...
As the executor has died, who takes over the administration of Mrs Smith's will? It is suspected that Fred may have been the only beneficiary.
Who takes over the administration of Fred's estate if the two children cannot be found?
Are Qwerty's allowed to administer an estate without instruction?
Mrs Smith dies. She has three children, Fred, Freda, and an estranged son, George. Fred had PTSD and lived with his mum, Freda had moved away, but was in weekly contact with mum and Fred. George lived nearby, but has not been in contact with any of the family for 20 years.
Freda was told by Fred that his mum had told him to take care of everything. Freda believed that her mum had died without a will and that everything would be shared between the three children. She also doubted that Fred was capable of dealing with the arrangements. George lived in the area and rumours were that he didn't care that his mum had died.
A week after his mum died, Fred committed suicide.
Freda takes over the arrangements.
She manages to contact George, and it turns out that the rumours were false. Freda and George get on very well, and both arrange the funerals. They clear the house and find all the usual documents and bank statements, and go to the bank to make the bank aware of the deaths. They did not find any wills, not even Fred's military wills from his time on operations.
Surprisingly, the bank tells them that they had already been informed by a solicitor (Qwerty's - not their real name). They assume that Fred had instructed Qwerty's to act for him.
They visit Qwerty's who tell Freda and George that neither Mrs Smith nor Fred are their clients.
Freda and George go to a different solicitors (Uiop's) and instruct them to act on their behalfs. They believe that Mrs Smith died without a will and that Fred may have had a military will.
Uiop's do a search and discover that Qwerty's were representing Fred, and that Mrs Smith had a will.
Uiop's sent Freda and George a copy of Qwerty's letter. It states that Fred was the exectutor to Mrs Smith and that Fred may have had two children. Fred had never mentioned the children to either Freda nor George. It also appears that Qwerty's are administering Fred's estate, despite nobody having instructed them to do so.
Now, the questions...
As the executor has died, who takes over the administration of Mrs Smith's will? It is suspected that Fred may have been the only beneficiary.
Who takes over the administration of Fred's estate if the two children cannot be found?
Are Qwerty's allowed to administer an estate without instruction?
pingu393 said:
Scenario (it's real, but the names have been changed)
Mrs Smith dies. She has three children, Fred, Freda, and an estranged son, George. Fred had PTSD and lived with his mum, Freda had moved away, but was in weekly contact with mum and Fred. George lived nearby, but has not been in contact with any of the family for 20 years.
Freda was told by Fred that his mum had told him to take care of everything. Freda believed that her mum had died without a will and that everything would be shared between the three children. She also doubted that Fred was capable of dealing with the arrangements. George lived in the area and rumours were that he didn't care that his mum had died.
A week after his mum died, Fred committed suicide.
Freda takes over the arrangements.
She manages to contact George, and it turns out that the rumours were false. Freda and George get on very well, and both arrange the funerals. They clear the house and find all the usual documents and bank statements, and go to the bank to make the bank aware of the deaths. They did not find any wills, not even Fred's military wills from his time on operations.
Surprisingly, the bank tells them that they had already been informed by a solicitor (Qwerty's - not their real name). They assume that Fred had instructed Qwerty's to act for him.
They visit Qwerty's who tell Freda and George that neither Mrs Smith nor Fred are their clients.
Freda and George go to a different solicitors (Uiop's) and instruct them to act on their behalfs. They believe that Mrs Smith died without a will and that Fred may have had a military will.
Uiop's do a search and discover that Qwerty's were representing Fred, and that Mrs Smith had a will.
Uiop's sent Freda and George a copy of Qwerty's letter. It states that Fred was the exectutor to Mrs Smith and that Fred may have had two children. Fred had never mentioned the children to either Freda nor George. It also appears that Qwerty's are administering Fred's estate, despite nobody having instructed them to do so.
Now, the questions...
As the executor has died, who takes over the administration of Mrs Smith's will? It is suspected that Fred may have been the only beneficiary.
Who takes over the administration of Fred's estate if the two children cannot be found?
Are Qwerty's allowed to administer an estate without instruction?
This sounds like an exam question turning on a certain point of law, but taking it at face value: Mrs Smith dies. She has three children, Fred, Freda, and an estranged son, George. Fred had PTSD and lived with his mum, Freda had moved away, but was in weekly contact with mum and Fred. George lived nearby, but has not been in contact with any of the family for 20 years.
Freda was told by Fred that his mum had told him to take care of everything. Freda believed that her mum had died without a will and that everything would be shared between the three children. She also doubted that Fred was capable of dealing with the arrangements. George lived in the area and rumours were that he didn't care that his mum had died.
A week after his mum died, Fred committed suicide.
Freda takes over the arrangements.
She manages to contact George, and it turns out that the rumours were false. Freda and George get on very well, and both arrange the funerals. They clear the house and find all the usual documents and bank statements, and go to the bank to make the bank aware of the deaths. They did not find any wills, not even Fred's military wills from his time on operations.
Surprisingly, the bank tells them that they had already been informed by a solicitor (Qwerty's - not their real name). They assume that Fred had instructed Qwerty's to act for him.
They visit Qwerty's who tell Freda and George that neither Mrs Smith nor Fred are their clients.
Freda and George go to a different solicitors (Uiop's) and instruct them to act on their behalfs. They believe that Mrs Smith died without a will and that Fred may have had a military will.
Uiop's do a search and discover that Qwerty's were representing Fred, and that Mrs Smith had a will.
Uiop's sent Freda and George a copy of Qwerty's letter. It states that Fred was the exectutor to Mrs Smith and that Fred may have had two children. Fred had never mentioned the children to either Freda nor George. It also appears that Qwerty's are administering Fred's estate, despite nobody having instructed them to do so.
Now, the questions...
As the executor has died, who takes over the administration of Mrs Smith's will? It is suspected that Fred may have been the only beneficiary.
Who takes over the administration of Fred's estate if the two children cannot be found?
Are Qwerty's allowed to administer an estate without instruction?
Querty's initial denial is puzzling, so it is not clear whether they are representing Fred on his instructions.
If they are, then they would be authorised to deal with all his affairs including Mrs. Smith's will, and of course his own if he has one.
If he has no will, then the intestacy rules would apply.
Fred's children are immaterial, save as potential beneficiaries.
Hawkshaw said:
This sounds like an exam question turning on a certain point of law, but taking it at face value:
Querty's initial denial is puzzling, so it is not clear whether they are representing Fred on his instructions.
If they are, then they would be authorised to deal with all his affairs including Mrs. Smith's will, and of course his own if he has one.
If he has no will, then the intestacy rules would apply.
Fred's children are immaterial, save as potential beneficiaries.
It's 100% real, and not hypothetical.Querty's initial denial is puzzling, so it is not clear whether they are representing Fred on his instructions.
If they are, then they would be authorised to deal with all his affairs including Mrs. Smith's will, and of course his own if he has one.
If he has no will, then the intestacy rules would apply.
Fred's children are immaterial, save as potential beneficiaries.
We think that Qwerty's initial denial is because one of their partners was a close friend of Fred's. We suspect that they were working off the books and using Qwerty's headed paper to contact banks, etc. We have no way to prove this.
Assuming that they are working to Fred's instructions about his mother's will, it's new knowledge to me that Qwerty can automatically start to deal with Fred's estate without further instruction. I thank you for that.
pingu393 said:
Hawkshaw said:
This sounds like an exam question turning on a certain point of law, but taking it at face value:
Querty's initial denial is puzzling, so it is not clear whether they are representing Fred on his instructions.
If they are, then they would be authorised to deal with all his affairs including Mrs. Smith's will, and of course his own if he has one.
If he has no will, then the intestacy rules would apply.
Fred's children are immaterial, save as potential beneficiaries.
It's 100% real, and not hypothetical.Querty's initial denial is puzzling, so it is not clear whether they are representing Fred on his instructions.
If they are, then they would be authorised to deal with all his affairs including Mrs. Smith's will, and of course his own if he has one.
If he has no will, then the intestacy rules would apply.
Fred's children are immaterial, save as potential beneficiaries.
We think that Qwerty's initial denial is because one of their partners was a close friend of Fred's. We suspect that they were working off the books and using Qwerty's headed paper to contact banks, etc. We have no way to prove this.
Assuming that they are working to Fred's instructions about his mother's will, it's new knowledge to me that Qwerty can automatically start to deal with Fred's estate without further instruction. I thank you for that.
pingu393 said:
It's 100% real, and not hypothetical.
We think that Qwerty's initial denial is because one of their partners was a close friend of Fred's. We suspect that they were working off the books and using Qwerty's headed paper to contact banks, etc. We have no way to prove this.
Assuming that they are working to Fred's instructions about his mother's will, it's new knowledge to me that Qwerty can automatically start to deal with Fred's estate without further instruction. I thank you for that.
OP, You may possibly have misunderstood me and I am not a lawyer but just to be clear, my point was that if Fred had appointed Querty as his executors then the unfinished business of dealing with his mother's will would form part of their job as his executors. They would of course need a grant of probate. Uiop should be asking Querty some questions.We think that Qwerty's initial denial is because one of their partners was a close friend of Fred's. We suspect that they were working off the books and using Qwerty's headed paper to contact banks, etc. We have no way to prove this.
Assuming that they are working to Fred's instructions about his mother's will, it's new knowledge to me that Qwerty can automatically start to deal with Fred's estate without further instruction. I thank you for that.
hidetheelephants said:
Very little could be achieved in a week, probate takes months, what is it you think that has been done?
We think one of Qwerty's partners offered to help Fred sort out his mum's funeral.They used Qwerty-headed paper to contact the various banks and service providers.
We don't think Qwerty knew about it. This would explain why neither Fred nor Mrs Smith were on the Qwerty client list.
Hawkshaw said:
OP, You may possibly have misunderstood me and I am not a lawyer but just to be clear, my point was that if Fred had appointed Querty as his executors then the unfinished business of dealing with his mother's will would form part of their job as his executors. They would of course need a grant of probate. Uiop should be asking Querty some questions.
We suspect that there were no formal instructions to QWERTY (see my last post), but if there were, they would only have been to deal with the estate of Mrs Smith.I agree that UIOP need to ask QWERTY some questions. That has been my advice to both George and Freda.
According to the internet, a beneficiary can take over the role of an executor if the executor dies. We don't know if either Freda or George are beneficiaries. I've advised Freda and George to instruct UIOP to contact QWERTY to obtain a copy of the will. According to the internet, a beneficiary is allowed to see a will before probate. A non-beneficiary is not.
We don't understand under whose instructions QWERTY is operating with respect to Fred's death? Again, my advice has been to instruct UIOP ask QWERTY.
It's a frustrating time for me, and a very distressing time for them, especially Freda. She doesn't want to ask the questions for fear of discovering that she was written out of her mother's will. The money is negligible, but it's the thought of the betrayal. I've tried to tell her that she needs to know, or she can't move on.
If the value of the estate is negligible, save money by not instructing solicitors as they charge like wounded rhinos; speak to Querty directly or wait for probate as the will gets published and can be read for free. Unless Freda wants to wrestle executorship away from Querty, as they may rack up enough charges to consume the whole estate. Whether it's worth the effort is probably down to sentiment; are there any of the mother's possessions that have sentimental value to Freda that are in danger of being skipped by a clearance contractor if Querty are the executor? If the mother's home is rented that's a risk anyway unless the rent is paid or the property emptied before the rent is due.
Get hold of one of the letters from Qwerty and raise a complaint with them.
Years back I was aware of an employee faking a letter using a letterhead from a major law firm.
Person who got the letter suspected it wasn't 100% genuine so checked with said law firm. They took it extremely seriously. So much so that the employee was found, and sacked on the spot (because they admitted it)
Years back I was aware of an employee faking a letter using a letterhead from a major law firm.
Person who got the letter suspected it wasn't 100% genuine so checked with said law firm. They took it extremely seriously. So much so that the employee was found, and sacked on the spot (because they admitted it)
Sir Bagalot said:
Get hold of one of the letters from Qwerty and raise a complaint with them.
Years back I was aware of an employee faking a letter using a letterhead from a major law firm.
Person who got the letter suspected it wasn't 100% genuine so checked with said law firm. They took it extremely seriously. So much so that the employee was found, and sacked on the spot (because they admitted it)
The building society wouldn't let us see the letter, but they quoted from it, and read it verbatum to us over the counter. Believe it or not, at this point we thought "well done Fred", but then it all started to unravel.Years back I was aware of an employee faking a letter using a letterhead from a major law firm.
Person who got the letter suspected it wasn't 100% genuine so checked with said law firm. They took it extremely seriously. So much so that the employee was found, and sacked on the spot (because they admitted it)
We went over the road to the solicitors, and it got very testy when we were told that neither Fred nor his mum were clients. We asked how a letter could have been sent to the building society. Suddenly, there was nobody in the building who couild help and all the internal phones were engaged.
hidetheelephants said:
If the value of the estate is negligible, save money by not instructing solicitors as they charge like wounded rhinos; speak to Querty directly or wait for probate as the will gets published and can be read for free. Unless Freda wants to wrestle executorship away from Querty, as they may rack up enough charges to consume the whole estate. Whether it's worth the effort is probably down to sentiment; are there any of the mother's possessions that have sentimental value to Freda that are in danger of being skipped by a clearance contractor if Querty are the executor? If the mother's home is rented that's a risk anyway unless the rent is paid or the property emptied before the rent is due.
We have done the above. All sentimental stuff is safe. The money is probably about five figures to Freda and George after normal expenses, so not life changing, but life bettering (maybe).We've tried talking to QWERTY, but they refused to talk to either Freda or George. They quoted client privelege, even when it was explained that if Fred were their client, he was dead, and we believed that George was his intestate beneficiary (George is full-sibling, Freda is half-sibling). They have never admitted to us that either Fred or Mrs Smith were their client.
The first we heard of the existance of Mrs Smith's will was when UIOP sent us a copy of the letter that QWERTY had sent to UIOP telling them that they didn't believe that George had relevant authority, and that the authority lay with the children that we didn't know existed. QWERTY further stated that they were attempting to contact the children.
I think that the only way we will get any information from QWERTY will be if Freda and George instruct UIOP.
I suspect that QWERTY are well-dodgy, and they will use the opportunity to investigate finding the children as a bottomless pit of funds. How can you prove a negative?
On the assumption that Freda isn't named as an executor, she could apply to be the administrator of the estate.
hidetheelephants said:
On the assumption that Freda isn't named as an executor, she could apply to be the administrator of the estate.
Thanks for that link. It goes further than I thought. I was under the impression that you can only apply for administration if you were a beneficiary.I'll pass the news to Freda and George.
Ask for a copy of freds instructions to qwerty which should bear his signature asking them to take over as executors.
Why didn't Fred tell Freda he'd done this?
Do qwerty hold the mother's Will, the same mrs Smith who is not their client.
There certainly does seem to be something strange here but don't worry you can see the will after probate is granted as it is a public record.
Fred's possible kids do seem to be a problem, the kids might not know who their father is .
Don't worry solicitors never do anything fast so you'll have plenty of time to investigate.
Why didn't Fred tell Freda he'd done this?
Do qwerty hold the mother's Will, the same mrs Smith who is not their client.
There certainly does seem to be something strange here but don't worry you can see the will after probate is granted as it is a public record.
Fred's possible kids do seem to be a problem, the kids might not know who their father is .
Don't worry solicitors never do anything fast so you'll have plenty of time to investigate.
konark said:
Ask for a copy of freds instructions to qwerty which should bear his signature asking them to take over as executors.
I shall advise Freda and George to do this. I would expect QWERTY to use GDPR or client privilege to refuse the request. If that happens, I will advise them to instruct UIOP to make the request.konark said:
Why didn't Fred tell Freda he'd done this?
We don't know. Fred and Freda were in regular contact before their mum's death, and daily contact after. Fred did have mental health issues, so God alone knows what he was thinking. He has told people that his real father was his uncle, and his uncle invented MI5 and MI6. Worried locals wanted his mum to section him, but they were advised that if they attempted to force him, they could be arrested for abduction.We suspect that well-meaning people tried to help him, but they weren't fully aware of his state of mind.
konark said:
Do qwerty hold the mother's Will, the same mrs Smith who is not their client.
QWERTY have a copy of Mrs Smith's will, as Fred (unknown to us) instructed them to deal with the estate. QWERTY didn't inform UIOP until eight weeks after the deaths that a will existed, and that Fred (as the executor) had instructed them to deal with his mother's estate.We still suspect that it was an informal arrangement with one of the partners, but we will probably never know, let alone prove.
I don't know if Mrs. Smith was their client. She may have instructed them to hold the will, but, as far as I know, QWERTY are not named executors in the will.
konark said:
There certainly does seem to be something strange here but don't worry you can see the will after probate is granted as it is a public record.
Agreedkonark said:
Fred's possible kids do seem to be a problem, the kids might not know who their father is.
This could be very "interesting", as some of the children that Fred had told people about were married locals. Fred was well known for his tall tales, and the first people to believe his stories are QWERTY. We don't know who told QWERTY about the "children". I use "quotes" because I don't believe they exist. If they do, it is almost certain that they don't know their "dad" isn't their father. AWKWARD 
.konark said:
Don't worry solicitors never do anything fast so you'll have plenty of time to investigate.
We know. QWERTY were aware the funeral was being arranged by us, and that we had instructed UIOP to deal with the estates. It took QWERTY a month to contact UIOP to tell them to back off, and that there was a will.Given Qwerty's activities if a probate application has been made challenging it might be worth considering, or at least speaking to Qwerty and saying that it will be challenged to see what their reaction is. IANAL, etc.
hidetheelephants said:
Given Qwerty's activities if a probate application has been made challenging it might be worth considering, or at least speaking to Qwerty and saying that it will be challenged to see what their reaction is. IANAL, etc.
I'm not sure why they would want to STOP probate.The only concern they have is that QWERTY will just eat all the money before probate is granted. Private detectives ain't cheap, and when would they report back that there is nothing to be found?
Freda says it's not the money, but the principle that QWERTY has just taken over. George says that they will do what they will do, as they are lawyers and it won't be worth fighting them just to prove a principle.
I agree with both of them.
If it were me, I'd instruct UIOP to send a letter with the relevant questions, even though it would cost me the price of a good night out.
I will contact Freda and George and ask if they want to do this.
hidetheelephants said:
Given Qwerty's activities if a probate application has been made challenging it might be worth considering, or at least speaking to Qwerty and saying that it will be challenged to see what their reaction is. IANAL, etc.
They can't apply for the grant of probate until IHT has been settled and HMRC gives approval...Edited by BrettMRC on Friday 1st September 23:04
pingu393 said:
hidetheelephants said:
Given Qwerty's activities if a probate application has been made challenging it might be worth considering, or at least speaking to Qwerty and saying that it will be challenged to see what their reaction is. IANAL, etc.
I'm not sure why they would want to STOP probate.The only concern they have is that QWERTY will just eat all the money before probate is granted. Private detectives ain't cheap, and when would they report back that there is nothing to be found?
Freda says it's not the money, but the principle that QWERTY has just taken over. George says that they will do what they will do, as they are lawyers and it won't be worth fighting them just to prove a principle.
I agree with both of them.
If it were me, I'd instruct UIOP to send a letter with the relevant questions, even though it would cost me the price of a good night out.
I will contact Freda and George and ask if they want to do this.
Solicitors surely can’t self-instruct & just dip into Fred’s funds as the see fit, can they? Who is taking decisions? Who is agreeing their invoices?
Surely if Fred has died, another family member should apply to take over dealing with Mrs Smith’s will? That then secures the Smith assets from being consumed by QWERTY.
In principle I disagree with the idea of waiting - it risks tacit approval and the dissipation of assets.
But, again, IANAL, and I definitely have no experience of probate etc. But I do have experience of lawyers
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff