ChatterBank8 mins ago
question of ownership
My friends mother died several years ago without leaving a will. Her mother had 5 rings which my friend shared between her sister-in-law, her half -sister and herself. She herself kept the wedding and eternity ring. Now her younger half sister is saying that the wedding/eternity rings should belong to her because her father bought them for the mother. Is there any legal issues with this does anyone know. Sorry its a bit complicated. Regards, Chrissgb
Answers
1 to 3 of 3
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chrissgb. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
(2-part post):
When someone makes a gift to another person, the giver forfeits all rights to that property. So the man who gave the wedding and eternity rings gave up his rights to the property and his daughter can't re-create such rights simply because her father made the gift.
If your friend's mother was married at the time of her death, all of her personal effects will have become the property of her husband. (There might be an exception to that rule if your mother left a very large estate, but I'm assuming that this wasn't the case). Her husband could choose to give them to various family members, at his discretion, but there would have been no obligation upon him to do so.
If your friend's mother was not married (either because of being divorced or through being widowed) at the time of her death, one of her children should have applied for a grant of letters of administration. Once they'd received the grant, they could then distribute her estate according to the intestacy rules. In practice, where someone dies owning very little, family members often don't bother with the legal formality of applying for letters of administration. However, the person distributing the property of the deceased person is still bound by the intestacy laws.
If the lady who died didn't have any children under 18 years of age (or who were otherwise directly financially dependent upon her), the person who distributed the estate should have ensured that each of her children received an equal amount. (If one of her children had died before her, but after giving her grandchildren, those grandchildren would be entitled to share whatever would otherwise have gone to their deceased parent).
When someone makes a gift to another person, the giver forfeits all rights to that property. So the man who gave the wedding and eternity rings gave up his rights to the property and his daughter can't re-create such rights simply because her father made the gift.
If your friend's mother was married at the time of her death, all of her personal effects will have become the property of her husband. (There might be an exception to that rule if your mother left a very large estate, but I'm assuming that this wasn't the case). Her husband could choose to give them to various family members, at his discretion, but there would have been no obligation upon him to do so.
If your friend's mother was not married (either because of being divorced or through being widowed) at the time of her death, one of her children should have applied for a grant of letters of administration. Once they'd received the grant, they could then distribute her estate according to the intestacy rules. In practice, where someone dies owning very little, family members often don't bother with the legal formality of applying for letters of administration. However, the person distributing the property of the deceased person is still bound by the intestacy laws.
If the lady who died didn't have any children under 18 years of age (or who were otherwise directly financially dependent upon her), the person who distributed the estate should have ensured that each of her children received an equal amount. (If one of her children had died before her, but after giving her grandchildren, those grandchildren would be entitled to share whatever would otherwise have gone to their deceased parent).
The easiest way to ensure that everyone gets a fair share is to sell the property of the deceased person and share out the proceeds. Where this doesn't happen, the person distributing the property needs to ensure that each recipient gets property of equal financial value. (Aesthetic and sentimental values are irrelevant).
So your friend should have ensured that each of her mother's children received the same amount of money or, alternatively, personal effects to the same value. You've not stated exactly how many children your friend's mother had - (perhaps your friend has brothers or half-brothers, as well as the people you've mentioned?) - but each of them should have received the same (financial) amount. Her sister-in-law had no right to receive anything.
Chris
So your friend should have ensured that each of her mother's children received the same amount of money or, alternatively, personal effects to the same value. You've not stated exactly how many children your friend's mother had - (perhaps your friend has brothers or half-brothers, as well as the people you've mentioned?) - but each of them should have received the same (financial) amount. Her sister-in-law had no right to receive anything.
Chris
1 to 3 of 3
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News84 mins ago
Film, Media & TV98 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles110 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles141 mins ago
