And they're quite easy too. Print the declaration, have all the beneficiaries sign it, and stick it in a drawer. The Revenue aren't interested one way or the other unless the total IHT liability is affected.
It's a shame, and slightly illogical, that the executor can't be removed if all the beneficiaries agree.
It's also a shame that there isn't a later will lying around somewhere naming a different executor....:-)
And most of it is donkey work that anyone can do, like sending off certificates to all and sundry
I did all the probate work myself for the father inlaws estate , simple estate just a few investments , about 8 hours timewise in total
It all depends on the size of the estate though and how complecated it is
No it isn't. For whatever reason, it was the testator's wish that the named executor should act, and it's his estate that's being distributed.
What if all the beneficiaries agreed that they shouldn't pay any tax on the estate? Would you then say they should be allowed to do that?
Hang on, ... you may have a point.
People think it will save the beneficiaries the trouble, but it would be more considerate to give them the choice as to whether to employ a solicitor. I doubt if 1.5% would be mentioned if they didn't think they had you by the balls. IMO sorting out the details is kind of therapeutic, and a necessary part of the grieving process.
It's not, you know. Let's say (as a fictional situation) that the decedent made the will 25 years ago, when someone he trusted ran a local solicitors' chambers. That firm is now run by someone regarded locally as somewhat of a charlatan, certainly not someone the decedent would remotely have trusted with his estate. Because he didn't update his will in time, the original PR arrangements stand.
The beneficiaries, including the testator's surviving spouse, and the joint-named PR, now agree that the law firm is not acceptable as a PR. Why should they not be able to contest or decline the firm's appointment as joint PR?
That's not a relevant comparison.
Jon
Surely the best way to give your family some choice is to not appoint a solicitor, bank, etc., as executors in the first place. They can appoint one of their choosing when it becomes neccessary.
MBQ
Seconded.
MBQ
Are you comparing the fees or saying doing it yourself is more than a few hours work? It certainly isn't in many, many cases.
MBQ
But the beneficiaries can agree to change who gets what, thereby changing the will, and not complying with the deceased's wishes.
Very difficult to not pay the tax when you don't get probate at all until a hefty chunk of it is paid
Having handed over an eye-watering amount in IHT on behalf of a relative, I still regard it as essentially a voluntary tax, paid mostly by those who don't trust their children to take care of the money.
Because in case where the soicitors have been sued for such, the law society reccomends that they get a schedule of charges deemed fair and reasonable (and this is exactly at the maximum) to be presented.
To be an executor is one thing: to actually process probate, is another.
If you rely on the length of time since making the Will as an indication that it's not what he really wanted when he died, then you should also accept that the named beneficiaries of his estate may not be what he really wanted either. I don't think you can adopt a pick 'n' mix approach, accepting everything you like and rejecting anything you don't.
If he wanted to change his Will or merely negate the old one, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. Since he didn't, it's perfectly reasonable to assume that he thought it perfectly satisfactory. The law will assume that anyway, regardless of what you think. It's the only practical way the law can work.
Because it's his estate and his expressed will that the solicitor should handle it. The beneficiaries have no status whatever in the matter other than to hold the executor to account in the event that he gets it wrong..
Since the solicitor has been appointed by the Will, he can act if he wants, and he probably will because it's work and money. All you can do is ask the solicitor if he would be willing to renounce his authority to act in favour of the next-of-kin or whoever you all agree should act instead.
The executors position can be challenged if you feel that they are inappropriate or that a conflict of duty may occur.
I was in a similar position as co-executor with a solicitor for my mother in law (no jokes please ;=) ) When she died I simply asked the solicitor for her will and informed them that I would be dealing with the estate. I had to obtain probate as there was her share of the house we jointly owned involved but there were no problems IIRC all that probate invoved was finding out the assets and liabilities and listing them on the form (copius notes accompanied it). There was then a trip to the County Court to swear on oath that what was declared on the form was correct. After a suitable fee changed hands Probate was granted. If you can work carefully and logically it is easy. The solicitor will be asking you about the assets and liabilities anyway.
Malcolm
I appreciate those points, but we do have a conflict of interest, without a means of resolving it. The decendent's Personal Representative is just that, and should have the final say on who acts as executor. Unfortunately, because the two are one and the same, if everyone touched by the Will (including all but the contested PR) believes that the PR is not appropriate, there has to be a higher authority that can step in and rule.
What shocks me is that there appears to be none such. The Court Service ought to be able to hear appeals against appointment of PR, but I can't see evidence of the statutory authority. It seems to me that this is somewhat of a hole in the Probate provisions.
I disagree. A quarter of a century (in our fictional example) is a long time, and many things change. In that time, he may have forgotten that he had made out a Will, or with whom he'd lodged it. He may have had the intention of changing it, but went under a car before he could. He may not have been aware of who is running the Chambers now, and their reputation. More children may have arrived, with valid claims on the Estate.
Furthermore, it is not usually possible for the beneficiaries or the other PRs to know what was said in the solicitor's Chambers between the testator and the solicitor. It's entirely feasible that a wily lawyer could have misled the testator into believing that it was necessary to have a professional named as PR - we just can't tell if that appointment was based on sound advice or mis-selling.
It's another conflict of interest: the solicitor helping draft the Will is in a position to influence its contents in their favour.
It is possible to appeal to an impartial arbiter in respect of clear omissions in a Will, or for variation of provision, or indeed to have the whole Will invalidated in some circumstances. It goes against the grain for there to be no recourse to replace a PR or to force their removal, and I find it hard to believe there is not. Someone _impartial_ has to be able to speak on behalf of the decedent!
If there is such an appeal, though, the danger is of course that the court or arbitration costs could easily outweigh the losses incurred if the dratted PR had been appointed anyway. I guess it's a balance of benefits - or an expression of principle.
So -- what if TNP declines to sign the appointment papers, as the solicitor is so keen (desperate, even) for him to do?
Jon
In one of mine, it was. Lots and lots of small shareholdings. I filled a filing cabinet drawer (and then some) with folders on each company, and there was a _lot_ of correspondence. Mind you, I didn't mind too much: if I'd paid a lawyer to do it, I'd have been charged a ton an hour or more for an unarticled clerk to do the same. No thanks!
Jon
If you think about it, as soon as any beneficiary receives anything, he can pass it on to whoever he likes, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. There's a limit to how far the deceased's wishes can extend. If you're talking about a Deed of Variation, that's no different, but just comes with the possibility of a tax break.
Yup, but it's his money to spend as he wishes, not theirs. And it may be that he was quite right not to trust them.
Anyway, look on the bright side. Your IHT payments have helped reduce the tax burden on the rest of us!
Err. no they can't. They can exchange things amongst themselves afterwards. That's different, by that stage it's their property. Any liabilities etc., associated with a bequest, for example, will reside with who it is legally left to, not who they decide to give it to.
Indeed and ditto. £40k in our case, when not a penny need have been paid. Moral, don't use the friendly family solicitor to draw up a will, use someone who understands IHT.
I have no issues with any of that, I have no issues with the solicitors don it all for us and making a couple of grand : I do object to nearly
20 grand though.
# Can anyone justify why it is reasonable to charge a percentage of the value of the estate. Unless the estate is very significantly enormous or complex (in which case very careful arrangements will have been made in advance by those who can afford to make them), surely the amount of work in processing an estate does not vary significantly with its value?
Whether I die with 500 in my bank account or 500000, surely the solicitor does essentially the same amount of work. Why should he be getting away with ripping my descendants off for an extra 7000 for doing b-all?
Chris
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.