Time Limit On Inheritance
Discussion
If someone dies and leaves their estate to multiple people, but one person does not collect what is theirs, is there a time limit for which they can no longer claim it.
For example:
Person A is the executor and is the main recipient. Person B has been left £5k, but is not responding to any correspondence. Intermediaries have implied that Person B has no interest. Is there a time limit in which Person B can claim their inheritance or in theory could they demand their money in 20 years time?
I have tried looking on google but I only get results regarding time limits on contesting a will.
Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide any advice.
For example:
Person A is the executor and is the main recipient. Person B has been left £5k, but is not responding to any correspondence. Intermediaries have implied that Person B has no interest. Is there a time limit in which Person B can claim their inheritance or in theory could they demand their money in 20 years time?
I have tried looking on google but I only get results regarding time limits on contesting a will.
Thanks in advance to anyone who can provide any advice.
TooMany2cvs said:
Presumably, the usual six year limit would apply.
Why doesn't the beneficiary just take the money and give it to charity?
You presume wrong. There is in any event no usual six year limit - limitation periods vary according to cause of action. For example, the limitation periods for, respectively, personal injury claims, defamation claims, and unfair dismissal claims are three years, one year, and three months. Why doesn't the beneficiary just take the money and give it to charity?
An executor who has a missing beneficiary problem can in appropriate circumstances apply to the High Court for what is called a Benjamin order. This
allows distribution of estate funds on the assumption that the missing beneficiary has died. Otherwise there is a risk, even if a theoretical one, of a claim being made by the missing beneficiary or his or her heirs years after the initial death.
Breadvan72 said:
An executor who has a missing beneficiary problem can in appropriate circumstances apply to the High Court for what is called a Benjamin order. This
allows distribution of estate funds on the assumption that the missing beneficiary has died. Otherwise there is a risk, even if a theoretical one, of a claim being made by the missing beneficiary or his or her heirs years after the initial death.
Any idea how much a Benjamin order would cost ?allows distribution of estate funds on the assumption that the missing beneficiary has died. Otherwise there is a risk, even if a theoretical one, of a claim being made by the missing beneficiary or his or her heirs years after the initial death.
Given that the missing/ non respondent beneficiary is only entitled to £5k would this be cost prohibitive or is it a relatively straightforward process ?
Red 4 said:
Breadvan72 said:
An executor who has a missing beneficiary problem can in appropriate circumstances apply to the High Court for what is called a Benjamin order. This
allows distribution of estate funds on the assumption that the missing beneficiary has died. Otherwise there is a risk, even if a theoretical one, of a claim being made by the missing beneficiary or his or her heirs years after the initial death.
Any idea how much a Benjamin order would cost ?allows distribution of estate funds on the assumption that the missing beneficiary has died. Otherwise there is a risk, even if a theoretical one, of a claim being made by the missing beneficiary or his or her heirs years after the initial death.
Given that the missing/ non respondent beneficiary is only entitled to £5k would this be cost prohibitive or is it a relatively straightforward process ?
Nampahc Niloc said:
Person B has been left £5k, but is not responding to any correspondence. Intermediaries have implied that Person B has no interest. Is there a time limit in which Person B can claim their inheritance or in theory could they demand their money in 20 years time?
Has the Executor spoken to Person B themselves? Why not ask them to agree to donate their 5k to somewhere/something else?Interesting 
So if a person had inherited 50% of a property after an approved probate but hadn't actually completed land reg in fully assigning that inheritance to themselves would they be wrong to think that that was fully 'in the bank' and all fine and dandy and can be done at leisure?
Hope i'm not hijacking
So if a person had inherited 50% of a property after an approved probate but hadn't actually completed land reg in fully assigning that inheritance to themselves would they be wrong to think that that was fully 'in the bank' and all fine and dandy and can be done at leisure?
Hope i'm not hijacking
jamei303 said:
The most common reason for beneficiaries to refuse to acknowledge an inheritance is that they believe doing so would affect their entitlement to means-tested benefits. This is a misconception because for such purposes the money is regarded as being theirs from the moment of death.
£5k wouldn't, on its own, affect MTBs. The money is also not regarded as 'theirs' until the executor has distributed it to them and it has hit their bank account. Bequests are meaningless if, for example, the estate is insolvent.Breadvan72 said:
There is always a bit of piece of string measurement with such things, but the expenses could come out of the estate (indeed the court could direct that they come out of the missing beneficiary's portion of the estate), and the thing could probably be done for a few hundred pounds by approaching a direct access barrister in a Lincoln's Inn Chambers. Court fees might be the main pain - whilst Cameron was quaffing champagne at Runnymede in 2015, his administration was busy trampling on the bit of Magna Carta about not selling justice. The civil courts operate a front-end-loaded pay (a fair bit) as you go system.
The possibility of ongoing costs make it a bit of a nightmare for an Executor trying to wrap up an estate. Presumably he'd have to hold some amount back to deal with any potential bills that might arise.kowalski655 said:
Can't person A just send B a cheque for £5k in accordance with the will. Then it's B's choice what to do with it. Leave the account open for when/if it is cashed.
I expect that the reason the question has been asked is that person A doesn’t want to do this, he wants to know that if B doesn’t want the money, can he (A) have it himself.konark said:
The money is also not regarded as 'theirs' until the executor has distributed it to them and it has hit their bank account.
This isn't true. If there is money in an estate owed to someone, they are the beneficial owner - the executors are the legal owner and hold it on trust. People on benefits or facing care fees often think they can refuse to acknowledge an inheritance to avoid it affecting their entitlements, but they are already the beneficial owner of their share of the estate, so it's too late for them to do anything about it - it's already "theirs" for the purposes of a means test.Lowtimer said:
jamei303 said:
A Benajamin order is only used where a recipient can be presumed to have died.
That's what BV72 said, but he spelled Benjamin correctly"[Person B] is not responding to any correspondence. Intermediaries have implied that Person B has no interest."
It sounds like person B is clearly alive but choosing not to respond. They aren't missing presumed dead.
The correct procedure in this case is for the executors to make every effort to pay person B the £5k, if these attempts fail and they wish to end their involvement in the matter they can pay the money into court, although this will attract fees. Then if person B claims it at a later date the executors will not be liable for it.
There's no hope that the money will be paid out to the other beneficences as if person B had died simply because person B is refusing to accept it.
Butter Face said:
kowalski655 said:
Can't person A just send B a cheque for £5k in accordance with the will. Then it's B's choice what to do with it. Leave the account open for when/if it is cashed.
I expect that the reason the question has been asked is that person A doesn’t want to do this, he wants to know that if B doesn’t want the money, can he (A) have it himself.It's not reasonable for the executor to have to keep the estate open indefinitely while B fannies around.
If B wants the money, take the money.
If B doesn't want the money, take the money and give it to charity. Or just be explicit and say "Don't want it".
If B is trying to pretend the money doesn't exist because of benefits, as has been suggested, then B is a bellend.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff