My mother died last year. My sisters administered her affairs.
There are two issues now arising:
1. Money in her account and from a trust fund were sort of handled
correctly. They took £600 from her account to give to the care
home, plus another £100 for death certificate expenses, without
my knowledge. However they also took jewellery (not mentioned in
her will) for themselves without any compensation to me. They
said it was promised to them, which is quite probable.
My question is: should these items (and the gifts up to seven
years) be taken into account for the valuation of her estate and
distribution "... in equal shares absolutely"?
2. My sister's, point blank, refused to invest any money in the
trust fund. As a result money was lost. Is this claimable by
me?
I have asked if they want to go to mediation over these but they
consider the matters closed.
Thanks
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> Wrote in message:r
On 05/03/2025 16:35, Iain wrote:
My mother died last year. My sisters administered her affairs.
There are two issues now arising:
1. Money in her account and from a trust fund were sort of handled
correctly. They took £600 from her account to give to the care
home, plus another £100 for death certificate expenses, without
my knowledge. However they also took jewellery (not mentioned in
her will) for themselves without any compensation to me. They
said it was promised to them, which is quite probable
My question is: should these items (and the gifts up to seven
years) be taken into account for the valuation of her estate and
distribution "... in equal shares absolutely"?
2. My sister's, point blank, refused to invest any money in the
trust fund. As a result money was lost. Is this claimable by
me?
You can make a claim if there's been a breach of trust, but it's not at all obvious there has been.
How much money was left uninvested, and over how long a period?
How do you believe it should have been invested?
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> Wrote in message:r
On 05/03/2025 16:35, Iain wrote:
My mother died last year. My sisters administered her affairs.
There are two issues now arising:
1. Money in her account and from a trust fund were sort of handled
correctly. They took £600 from her account to give to the care
home, plus another £100 for death certificate expenses, without
my knowledge. However they also took jewellery (not mentioned in
her will) for themselves without any compensation to me. They
said it was promised to them, which is quite probable
My question is: should these items (and the gifts up to seven
years) be taken into account for the valuation of her estate and
distribution "... in equal shares absolutely"?
2. My sister's, point blank, refused to invest any money in the
trust fund. As a result money was lost. Is this claimable by
me?
You can make a claim if there's been a breach of trust, but it's not at all obvious there has been.
How much money was left uninvested, and over how long a period?
How do you believe it should have been invested?
Total £250,000, of which at least half should have been invested -
and over a period of 6+ years.
I would have thought that as trustees (and beneficiaries), we
would have an obligation to manage the trust fund in a proper
way, and "act exclusively in the best interests of the trust",
regardless of differences of opinion.
On 05/03/2025 18:35, Iain wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> Wrote in message:r
On 05/03/2025 16:35, Iain wrote:
My mother died last year. My sisters administered her affairs.
There are two issues now arising:
1. Money in her account and from a trust fund were sort of handled
correctly. They took £600 from her account to give to the care
home, plus another £100 for death certificate expenses, without
my knowledge. However they also took jewellery (not mentioned in
her will) for themselves without any compensation to me. They
said it was promised to them, which is quite probable
My question is: should these items (and the gifts up to seven
years) be taken into account for the valuation of her estate and
distribution "... in equal shares absolutely"?
2. My sister's, point blank, refused to invest any money in the
trust fund. As a result money was lost. Is this claimable by
me?
You can make a claim if there's been a breach of trust, but it's not at all >>> obvious there has been.
How much money was left uninvested, and over how long a period?
How do you believe it should have been invested?
Total £250,000, of which at least half should have been invested -
and over a period of 6+ years.
I would have thought that as trustees (and beneficiaries), we
would have an obligation to manage the trust fund in a proper
way, and "act exclusively in the best interests of the trust",
regardless of differences of opinion.
Potentially, £150k invested over the last 6 years could have grown by
50% say. Even if your share would have been a third of that, £25k is a significant amount to be wrangling about.
However, I know nothing about the trust, and there might have been a
good reason for not investing the money. Unfortunately, a full-blown
case could gobble up all the money you are arguing about, plus an awful
lot more.
As to the jewellery, you didn't say how valuable this was. Mothers tend
to want their girls to have the jewellery (at least in my family), so
you might want to go with the flow on that.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:r
On 5 Mar 2025 at 19:52:49 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 05/03/2025 18:35, Iain wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> Wrote in message:r
On 05/03/2025 16:35, Iain wrote:
My mother died last year. My sisters administered her affairs.
There are two issues now arising:
1. Money in her account and from a trust fund were sort of handled
correctly. They took £600 from her account to give to the care
home, plus another £100 for death certificate expenses, without
my knowledge. However they also took jewellery (not mentioned in
her will) for themselves without any compensation to me. They
said it was promised to them, which is quite probable
My question is: should these items (and the gifts up to seven
years) be taken into account for the valuation of her estate and
distribution "... in equal shares absolutely"?
2. My sister's, point blank, refused to invest any money in the>>>> trust fund. As a result money was lost. Is this claimable by
me?
You can make a claim if there's been a breach of trust, but it's not at all
obvious there has been.
How much money was left uninvested, and over how long a period?
How do you believe it should have been invested?
Total £250,000, of which at least half should have been invested ->> and over a period of 6+ years.
I would have thought that as trustees (and beneficiaries), we
would have an obligation to manage the trust fund in a proper
way, and "act exclusively in the best interests of the trust",
regardless of differences of opinion.
Potentially, £150k invested over the last 6 years could have grown by
50% say. Even if your share would have been a third of that, £25k is a
significant amount to be wrangling about.
However, I know nothing about the trust, and there might have been a
good reason for not investing the money. Unfortunately, a full-blown
case could gobble up all the money you are arguing about, plus an awful
lot more.
As to the jewellery, you didn't say how valuable this was. Mothers tend
to want their girls to have the jewellery (at least in my family), so
you might want to go with the flow on that.
Legally I think the OP could insist on the jewellery being valued, and that >value deducted from the sisters' shares; but I agree that unless it is very >valuable trying to insist on this might cost a lot more than sums involved.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:rI am aware that for IHT valuation, gifts for up to 7 years must be
On 5 Mar 2025 at 19:52:49 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>> On 05/03/2025 18:35, Iain wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> Wrote in message:r
On 05/03/2025 16:35, Iain wrote:
My mother died last year. My sisters administered her affairs.
There are two issues now arising:
1. Money in her account and from a trust fund were sort of handled >>>>>> correctly. They took £600 from her account to give to the care >>>>>> home, plus another £100 for death certificate expenses, without >>>>>> my knowledge. However they also took jewellery (not mentioned in >>>>>> her will) for themselves without any compensation to me. They
said it was promised to them, which is quite probable
My question is: should these items (and the gifts up to seven
years) be taken into account for the valuation of her estate and >>>>>> distribution "... in equal shares absolutely"?
2. My sister's, point blank, refused to invest any money in the>>>> >>>>>> trust fund. As a result money was lost. Is this claimable by
me?
You can make a claim if there's been a breach of trust, but it's not at all
obvious there has been.
How much money was left uninvested, and over how long a period?
How do you believe it should have been invested?
Total £250,000, of which at least half should have been invested ->> and >>>> over a period of 6+ years.
I would have thought that as trustees (and beneficiaries), we
would have an obligation to manage the trust fund in a proper
way, and "act exclusively in the best interests of the trust",
regardless of differences of opinion.
Potentially, £150k invested over the last 6 years could have grown by
50% say. Even if your share would have been a third of that, £25k is a
significant amount to be wrangling about.
However, I know nothing about the trust, and there might have been a
good reason for not investing the money. Unfortunately, a full-blown
case could gobble up all the money you are arguing about, plus an awful
lot more.
As to the jewellery, you didn't say how valuable this was. Mothers tend
to want their girls to have the jewellery (at least in my family), so
you might want to go with the flow on that.
Legally I think the OP could insist on the jewellery being valued, and that >> value deducted from the sisters' shares; but I agree that unless it is very >> valuable trying to insist on this might cost a lot more than sums involved. >>
included. Am I right in assuming that where there is no IHT
involved, the valuation of the estate would still include gifts
for up to 7 years? - because there are some.
No items/gifts are mentioned in the will, and in my original post,
the quote "... in equal shares absolutely" is taken from the
will.
Maybe I should also add that I am an co-executor.
Together with the trust fund issue this might well amount to a
worthy sum. If it came to it, I would probably be an LIP (as I
was last time I took them to court!).
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:r
On 5 Mar 2025 at 23:14:21 GMT, "Iain" <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:rI am aware that for IHT valuation, gifts for up to 7 years must be
On 5 Mar 2025 at 19:52:49 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: <snip>
As to the jewellery, you didn't say how valuable this was. Mothers tend >>>> to want their girls to have the jewellery (at least in my family), so
you might want to go with the flow on that.
Legally I think the OP could insist on the jewellery being valued, and that >>> value deducted from the sisters' shares; but I agree that unless it is very >>> valuable trying to insist on this might cost a lot more than sums involved. >>>
included. Am I right in assuming that where there is no IHT
involved, the valuation of the estate would still include gifts
for up to 7 years? - because there are some.
No items/gifts are mentioned in the will, and in my original post,
the quote "... in equal shares absolutely" is taken from the
will.
Maybe I should also add that I am an co-executor.
Together with the trust fund issue this might well amount to a
worthy sum. If it came to it, I would probably be an LIP (as I
was last time I took them to court!).I think that is incorrect.
The gifts do not form part of the estate. The
estate is what the testator has left, however much they have given away in >life. The IHT position only applies to the liability of the estate, and >possibly the people receiving the gifts if the estate is insufficient, to IHT. >IHT liability does not otherwise change the ownership of the gifts by the >people who received them.
On 5 Mar 2025 at 19:52:49 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 05/03/2025 18:35, Iain wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> Wrote in message:r
On 05/03/2025 16:35, Iain wrote:
My mother died last year. My sisters administered her affairs.
There are two issues now arising:
1. Money in her account and from a trust fund were sort of handled
correctly. They took £600 from her account to give to the care
home, plus another £100 for death certificate expenses, without >>>>> my knowledge. However they also took jewellery (not mentioned in >>>>> her will) for themselves without any compensation to me. They
said it was promised to them, which is quite probable
My question is: should these items (and the gifts up to seven
years) be taken into account for the valuation of her estate and >>>>> distribution "... in equal shares absolutely"?
2. My sister's, point blank, refused to invest any money in the
trust fund. As a result money was lost. Is this claimable by
me?
You can make a claim if there's been a breach of trust, but it's not at all
obvious there has been.
How much money was left uninvested, and over how long a period?
How do you believe it should have been invested?
Total £250,000, of which at least half should have been invested -
and over a period of 6+ years.
I would have thought that as trustees (and beneficiaries), we
would have an obligation to manage the trust fund in a proper
way, and "act exclusively in the best interests of the trust",
regardless of differences of opinion.
Potentially, £150k invested over the last 6 years could have grown by
50% say. Even if your share would have been a third of that, £25k is a
significant amount to be wrangling about.
However, I know nothing about the trust, and there might have been a
good reason for not investing the money. Unfortunately, a full-blown
case could gobble up all the money you are arguing about, plus an awful
lot more.
As to the jewellery, you didn't say how valuable this was. Mothers tend
to want their girls to have the jewellery (at least in my family), so
you might want to go with the flow on that.
Legally I think the OP could insist on the jewellery being valued, and that value deducted from the sisters' shares; but I agree that unless it is very valuable trying to insist on this might cost a lot more than sums involved.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:r<snip>
On 5 Mar 2025 at 23:14:21 GMT, "Iain" <spam@smaps.net> wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:r
On 5 Mar 2025 at 19:52:49 GMT, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
I am aware that for IHT valuation, gifts for up to 7 years must beAs to the jewellery, you didn't say how valuable this was. Mothers tend >>>>> to want their girls to have the jewellery (at least in my family), so >>>>> you might want to go with the flow on that.
Legally I think the OP could insist on the jewellery being valued, and that
value deducted from the sisters' shares; but I agree that unless it is very
valuable trying to insist on this might cost a lot more than sums involved.
included. Am I right in assuming that where there is no IHT
involved, the valuation of the estate would still include gifts
for up to 7 years? - because there are some.
No items/gifts are mentioned in the will, and in my original post,
the quote "... in equal shares absolutely" is taken from the
will.
Maybe I should also add that I am an co-executor.
Together with the trust fund issue this might well amount to a
worthy sum. If it came to it, I would probably be an LIP (as I
was last time I took them to court!).I think that is incorrect.
The gifts do not form part of the estate. The
estate is what the testator has left, however much they have given away in >> life. The IHT position only applies to the liability of the estate, and
possibly the people receiving the gifts if the estate is insufficient, to IHT.
IHT liability does not otherwise change the ownership of the gifts by the
people who received them.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Now what about items which have been promised, or allegedly
ear-marked, but not given. Do they (or their value) form part of
the value of the estate to be equally divided?
On 05/03/2025 18:35, Iain wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> Wrote in message:r
How do you believe it should have been invested?
Total £250,000, of which at least half should have been invested -
 and over a period of 6+ years.
I would have thought that as trustees (and beneficiaries), we
 would have an obligation to manage the trust fund in a proper
 way, and "act exclusively in the best interests of the trust",
 regardless of differences of opinion.
Potentially, £150k invested over the last 6 years could have grown by 50% say. Even if your share would have been a third of that, £25k is a significant amount to be wrangling about.
The gifts do not form part of the estate. The
estate is what the testator has left, however much they have given away in >>life. The IHT position only applies to the liability of the estate, and >>possibly the people receiving the gifts if the estate is insufficient, to IHT.
IHT liability does not otherwise change the ownership of the gifts by the >>people who received them.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Now what about items which have been promised, or allegedly
ear-marked, but not given. Do they (or their value) form part of
the value of the estate to be equally divided?
In message <m2sr16F4f38U1@mid.individual.net>, at 05:44:07 on Thu, 6 Mar 2025, Iain <spam@smaps.net> remarked:
The gifts do not form part of the estate. The
estate is what the testator has left, however much they have given away in >>> life. The IHT position only applies to the liability of the estate, and
possibly the people receiving the gifts if the estate is insufficient, to IHT.
IHT liability does not otherwise change the ownership of the gifts by the >>> people who received them.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Now what about items which have been promised, or allegedly
ear-marked, but not given. Do they (or their value) form part of
the value of the estate to be equally divided?
If the "promised" items aren't mentioned in the will, then they belong
to the estate. The will is the way you formally "promise" things to
people.
The items should be valued and in effect bought from the estate by the
people who have a sentimental attraction to them. Usually I suppose by reducing their share of the final monetary distribution.
On 6 Mar 2025 at 19:23:44 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <m2sr16F4f38U1@mid.individual.net>, at 05:44:07 on Thu, 6 Mar
2025, Iain <spam@smaps.net> remarked:
The gifts do not form part of the estate. The
estate is what the testator has left, however much they have given away in >>>> life. The IHT position only applies to the liability of the estate, and >>>> possibly the people receiving the gifts if the estate is
insufficient, to IHT.
IHT liability does not otherwise change the ownership of the gifts by the >>>> people who received them.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Now what about items which have been promised, or allegedly
ear-marked, but not given. Do they (or their value) form part of
the value of the estate to be equally divided?
If the "promised" items aren't mentioned in the will, then they belong
to the estate. The will is the way you formally "promise" things to
people.
The items should be valued and in effect bought from the estate by the
people who have a sentimental attraction to them. Usually I suppose by
reducing their share of the final monetary distribution.
I agree. It is possible to give, or sell, things to people but reserve the >right to use them during your life - it is commonly done with houses.
But there really needs to be documentation (eg Land Registry title in
the case of houses, plus a written agreement) otherwise it didn't
happen. I doubt a judge would agree on the uncorroborated word of the >recipient.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:r
On 6 Mar 2025 at 19:23:44 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <m2sr16F4f38U1@mid.individual.net>, at 05:44:07 on Thu, 6 Mar >>>> 2025, Iain <spam@smaps.net> remarked:
The gifts do not form part of the estate. The
estate is what the testator has left, however much they have given away in >>>> life. The IHT position only applies to the liability of the estate, and >>>> possibly the people receiving the gifts if the estate is insufficient, to IHT.
IHT liability does not otherwise change the ownership of the gifts by the >>>> people who received them.>> >> Thanks for clearing that up.
Now what about items which have been promised, or allegedly
ear-marked, but not given. Do they (or their value) form part of
the value of the estate to be equally divided?
If the "promised" items aren't mentioned in the will, then they belong
to the estate. The will is the way you formally "promise" things to> people. >>
The items should be valued and in effect bought from the estate by the
people who have a sentimental attraction to them. Usually I suppose by
reducing their share of the final monetary distribution.
I agree. It is possible to give, or sell, things to people but reserve the >right to use them during your life - it is commonly done with houses. But >there really needs to be documentation (eg Land Registry title in the case of >houses, plus a written agreement) otherwise it didn't happen. I doubt a judge >would agree on the uncorroborated word of the recipient.
I realise now that my mother made a list (not witnessed) of items
that either had been given, or she wanted to give. How does that
fare?
On 07/03/2025 18:26, Iain wrote:
I realise now that my mother made a list (not witnessed) of items
 that either had been given, or she wanted to give. How does that
 fare?
Assuming those items were given away, they don't form part of the estate.
Such a list is not a will, and there's no reason for it to be witnessed.
It's just some guidance for the executors that they don't have to worry
about these items.
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> Wrote in message:r
On 6 Mar 2025 at 19:23:44 GMT, "Roland Perry" <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
In message <m2sr16F4f38U1@mid.individual.net>, at 05:44:07 on Thu, 6 Mar >>>>> 2025, Iain <spam@smaps.net> remarked:
The gifts do not form part of the estate. The
estate is what the testator has left, however much they have given away in
life. The IHT position only applies to the liability of the estate, and >>>>> possibly the people receiving the gifts if the estate is insufficient, to IHT.
IHT liability does not otherwise change the ownership of the gifts by the >>>>> people who received them.>> >> Thanks for clearing that up.
Now what about items which have been promised, or allegedly
ear-marked, but not given. Do they (or their value) form part of
the value of the estate to be equally divided?
If the "promised" items aren't mentioned in the will, then they belong
to the estate. The will is the way you formally "promise" things to> people.
The items should be valued and in effect bought from the estate by the
people who have a sentimental attraction to them. Usually I suppose by
reducing their share of the final monetary distribution.
I agree. It is possible to give, or sell, things to people but reserve the >> right to use them during your life - it is commonly done with houses. But
there really needs to be documentation (eg Land Registry title in the case of
houses, plus a written agreement) otherwise it didn't happen. I doubt a judge
would agree on the uncorroborated word of the recipient.
I realise now that my mother made a list (not witnessed) of items
that either had been given, or she wanted to give. How does that
fare?
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> Wrote in message:r
On 07/03/2025 18:33, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2025 18:26, Iain wrote:
I realise now that my mother made a list (not witnessed) of items
that either had been given, or she wanted to give. How does that
fare?
Assuming those items were given away, they don't form part of the estate.
Such a list is not a will, and there's no reason for it to be witnessed.
It's just some guidance for the executors that they don't have to worry
about these items.
Corrections: It's just some guidance for the executors that they don't
have to worry about these items - except of course for IHT purposes.
For IHT, any chattels given away like this will usually fall into the
nil rate band and be free of tax, but they may push up the tax on the
estate itself.
I realise now that my mother made a list (not witnessed) of items
that either had been given, or she wanted to give. How does that
fare?
Assuming those items were given away, they don't form part of the estate.
Such a list is not a will, and there's no reason for it to be
witnessed. It's just some guidance for the executors that they don't
have to worry about these items.
On 07/03/2025 18:33, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2025 18:26, Iain wrote:
I realise now that my mother made a list (not witnessed) of itemsAssuming those items were given away, they don't form part of the
that either had been given, or she wanted to give. How does that
fare?
estate.
Such a list is not a will, and there's no reason for it to be
witnessed. It's just some guidance for the executors that they don't
have to worry about these items.
Corrections: It's just some guidance for the executors that they don't
have to worry about these items - except of course for IHT purposes.
For IHT, any chattels given away like this will usually fall into the
nil rate band
and be free of tax,
but they may push up the tax on the estate itself.
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> Wrote in message:r
On 07/03/2025 18:33, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2025 18:26, Iain wrote:
I realise now that my mother made a list (not witnessed) of items
that either had been given, or she wanted to give. How does that
fare?
Assuming those items were given away, they don't form part of the estate. >>>
Such a list is not a will, and there's no reason for it to be witnessed. >>> It's just some guidance for the executors that they don't have to worry
about these items.
Corrections: It's just some guidance for the executors that they don't
have to worry about these items - except of course for IHT purposes.
For IHT, any chattels given away like this will usually fall into the
nil rate band and be free of tax, but they may push up the tax on the >>estate itself.
IHT is not an issue.
Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> Wrote in message:r
In message <m31jcgFqfppU1@mid.individual.net>, at 01:04:17 on Sat, 8 Mar 2025, Iain <spam@smaps.net> remarked:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> Wrote in message:r
On 07/03/2025 18:33, GB wrote:
On 07/03/2025 18:26, Iain wrote:Assuming those items were given away, they don't form part of the estate. >>>>
I realise now that my mother made a list (not witnessed) of items
that either had been given, or she wanted to give. How does that
fare?
Such a list is not a will, and there's no reason for it to be witnessed. >>>> It's just some guidance for the executors that they don't have to worry >>>> about these items.
Corrections: It's just some guidance for the executors that they don't >>>have to worry about these items - except of course for IHT purposes.
For IHT, any chattels given away like this will usually fall into the
nil rate band and be free of tax, but they may push up the tax on the >>>estate itself.
IHT is not an issue.
In this isolated case, or generally?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 07:13:08 |
| Calls: | 9,822 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,639 |