Court Case

[jess131]

I will keep this as brief as poss. I am taking to my brother to court as he has been using my late mother and step fathers ATM card. Stepfather died leaving everything to me, probate all done and dusted. (he left mum well provided for) Mum died intestate.
Brother has filed his defence for the second time as the judge said the first defence did not answer the questions as to how the money came to be taken from the accounts. His defence is, he was given permission from both mum and step dad to use their cards to withdraw money to use for their daily needs. Even if this was true then where is the money? I know he opened a joint account with mother as I have Grant of Probate and requested a copy statement. It shows quite a number of deposits, plus a deposit of £10k being transferred in and out on the same day. Bearing in mind my brother is of ill health and not worked for 20 years then where has all this money come from.
I am fuming he can blatantly lie like this. I know its down to me to prove that he got permission. If my dad had given him permission to take his money then would he not have made brother POA instead of me. I can also prove that brother never visited dad when he was in a nursing home for the last year of his life, and rather than visit him in the home on dads birthday, he withdrew from his bank account and opened a joint account in the town where dads nursing home was.
He was withdrawing on average £300 a day from both accounts over a 10 month period, from a high street bank and a post office. The post office was a card which could only be used at the cashier desk. Which is making us ask the question why did the PO not suspect anything when a male uses a female named card!
Please can you tell me that judges can see through lies?

[bednobs]

are you saying he has taken 180k?
Its not up to you to prove he had permission to withdraw the money.

[bednobs]

sorry, answer cut off befor

[jess131]

sorry no, not every day, in total around £30k

[themas]

Put your evidence to the Court. He must put his case for himself. The judge will decide whether to believe him. In my view he will need to convince the judge that the money he took was genuinely needed and used for your parents daily needs. If he had £30K in 10 months this seems very unlikely to me.

Incidentally, I think he would have had difficulty opening a joint account with your Dad without your Dad having to sign something. Have you asked the bank about this?

[jess131]

Hi he opened a joint account with my mum. I have a copy of the bank statement given me when I got the grant of representation. when mum died the account when in his sole name. Around £8k was taken when dad was in hospital and around the same when mum was in hospital, how anyone can spend that whilst in hosp is beyond me. In his first defence he refutes 100% that he took any money he only acted as chauffeur but his new statement he admits to taking some money but he had the account holders permission.

[Barmaid]

I wouldnt worry too much. Just remember the Judge is the most experienced lawyer in the Court room and there will be nothing he/she hasnt seen.

Your brother's credibility is a bit stuffed anyway - particularly if he signed a statement of truth on both defences.

[jess131]

I have scrutinised both parents bank statements and the monies withdrawn were regimental and you can also see on the joint account he opened with mother that a lot of the withdrawals match the deposits he made in the joint account to the penny!

[jess131]

Thanks Barmaid, so does the judge keep both of his defences?

[fiction-factory]

Are you using a solicitor or doing this yourself? Are the police involved? I'm not sure if this is a criminal case or a civil claim

[fiction-factory]

Barmaid seems to know what's happening here so follow what she says

[jess131]

Im using a solicitor, police were involved first but at the time they said there wasnt enough evidence to persue. Now though more evidence has come to light

[Barmaid]

Judge will see anything filed by either party. As you have a solicitor no doubt he or the counsel he instructs will cross examine your brother on the differences on each defence. He's got nowhere to go. ONE of them is a lie.

[jess131]

Thanks Barmaid, much appreciated. We asked on our claim what happened to the money withdrawn, he does not answer the question, apart from saying he spent £small amount on her bills. He also withdrew money from the account received from a private pension which was still being paid 4 months after her death, the pension company wrote to him to get it back and they never heard back from him so he still owes them £2500.

[jess131]

He is representing himself

[Peter Pedant]

// Thanks Barmaid, so does the judge keep both of his defences?//

oops BM isnt around so I will answer

yes which means that you can cross examine on the inconsistencies in the two accounts = draw attention to the judge that there are two things both sworn to be true that cant be ( both true at the same time )

[jess131]

Great, thanks Peter, much appreciated.