How can I force the rules of intestacy to be followed

[johnuk]

My father died without making a will, (I think he did make a will but my mother destroyed it) and my mother is not following the governments laid down rules of intestacy as laid down by statute in law. Is there any way I can legally force her to do as the law states without having to take very expensive High Court Action. I know contentious probate and the like is only dealt with by the high courts, but can I do anything via the magistrates or county court to get them to order her to do as the law states. Seems so unfair that the government draws up laws, but someone can just ignore them unless they are taking to the high court, which for most people would be out of the question due to the expense, and in my case would probably cost more than the small amount I am entitled to by law.

[Catso]

I don't know the specific answer to your question, but as a suggestion, what about getting your solicitor to write to her and point out the above facts, that you are already aware of all this, and if she persists in her behaviour, you will be taking further legal action.

Just a 'shot across the bows', so to speak.

If there was a will, there may well have been a copy stored safely elsewhere. Common sense, surely? Do you know your late father's solicitor and/or financial advisor? They are the two most likely places.

(JudgeJ will know, surely!)

[Loosehead]

Can you claify, if your mum is the wife of your late father then she get's the lot anyway.

[johnuk]

Thanks for your replies.
What I wanted to know is if I can take any action without involving solicitors, as I spoke to one the other day and just to start looking into this and sending one letter would cost about �600.
And my mother does not get everything if the value of the estate exceeds �125,000. When someone dies without a will, the rules of intestacy must be followed which is a will that the government has laid down as being fair in these circumstances, but as I say my mother is refusing to follow them and is denying me my rightful inheritance. I have been researching this for almost 2 years now, so there isnt much I dont know, but the one thing I wasnt sure of and couldnt find any information about is what I asked, and that is can I take any legal action without it going to the high court, which is the ONLY court that deals with probate and inheritance disbutes, but as all I want is what the law clearing states I wondered if there is something else I could do at my local court. I suspect there isnt, but just wondered if anyone here knows.
Thanks to everyone for trying to help.

John

[Ethel]

John - don't forget that any assets in joint names are excluded from the limits.

Only personal assets count.

[johnuk]

Thanks Ethel, but as I said I have researched this for almost 2 years, so not a lot I dont know about this, but thanks anyway.
My father had property in his sole name, specifically so it wouldnt all go to my mother which would increase the inheritance liability on her death, and he also wanted others to benefit, but as I say my mother probably destroyed any will as she thought like most people that she would get the lot, but she doesnt. Its a very long story, and I asked here in case anyone knew if there is any other way to force anyone to follow the law as stated in the Administration of Estate Act 1925 specifically in relation to intestacy WITHOUT having to spend tens of thousands in high court litigation.
Its insane but my mother is happy to give the taxman �40,000 instead of giving me �30,000, which is what she is attempting to do, and it would seem there is nothing I can do about it other than start litigation under section 75 of the Administration of Justice Act to have her removed as administrator and have the probate revoked. She also lied to the probate and Inland Revenue, but they are not interested in taking action, as even with the amount she didn't declare it still would not have brought the estate into the inheritance bracket.
Thanks again

John

PS. I am joint administrator btw.

[Catso]

Surely intestacy dictates that property in your late father's sole name would go to your mother?

And you aren't willing to spend �600 (which in itself seems ridiculously high to me - get a different solicitor) to get a letter sent that might gain your �30,000?

If you spend �1000s, and win, wouldn't costs be awarded?

If you are joint administrator (I was, for my mother) you have to sign all the documents jointly (I did), don't you? So your mother can't do anything without your signature?

[johnuk]

Just so nobody else posts about me being wrong in what I say about the law:

Pasted from <http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200 203/cmhansrd/vo030915/debtext/30915-36.htm>
When a person dies intestate�without leaving a will�his or her estate is distributed according to a scheme laid down by the section 26 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, as amended. Entitlement under this scheme, which is designed to reflect the wishes of the average person, varies according to which relatives, if any, survive the deceased. The estate is distributed in a strict order of priority: to the spouse; to children of the deceased and the issue of any who has predeceased that person; if none, to the parents of the deceased; if none, to the brothers or sisters of the deceased; if none, to the grandparents; and if none, to uncles or aunts. When there are no relatives, or none can be found, the estate passes to the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duchy of Cornwall.


Pasted from: http://www.netprobate.co.uk/ProbateGuide/stage 4.htm>
Under the rules of intestacy, if a surviving spouse has children and the Estate is valued as greater than �125,000 then the spouse is entitled to the first �125,000, all of the personal belongings, and a life interest in half of the remainder.
The Executors must invest that half share in Trust, in which the surviving spouse has a life interest, which means that the income from this Trust will be paid to the spouse until his/her death.
On the death of the spouse the capital (i.e. the original half share) will be divided equally between the children.
The other half share of the Estate will be split equally between the children
- end of quotes -

[johnuk]

And any letter from a solicitor would probably make no difference anyway, and my mother has a solicitor who is advising her, but he is a Jehovahs Witness just as my mother is, and my mum is possibly being unduly influenced, and I think the reason my mother will not sell the property and distribute the estate is because there are Jehovahs Witnesses in my fathers property, although their tenancy would have run out, and my mother obviously wants to keep them there.
As I say this is a long story, and if anyone is really interested I do have more of the story on a web site to expose my mother at http://myjehovahswitnessmother.org.uk but I have not made it public, and is currently password protected. But if anyone is particularly interested mail me personally and I will give you the login details, but please don't pass them on though
My email is [email protected]

Oh, just in response to another reply above, if I win a case which I would of course as I want no more than what the law states, I would get about 75% of the costs back, not all of them, or so I am told. And trouble is this is all causing me a lot of stress, and my family is concerned, so I dont want to persue this through the high courts, but was hoping there is some other way of getting a court order to enforce the intestacy rules.

[Catso]

Isn't it a criminal offence to lie to the Inland Revenue and Probate Office? Have you spoken with the police about this?

[johnuk]

I have spoken to both the Inland Revenue and the Probate Office about this.
Its only a criminal offence if you defrauded the Inland Revenue by lying, but if you lie and they are not losing out hence not being defrauded they are not interested, and it would be a civil matter. And the probate office isnt interested once probate is given, its up to a beneficiary or other administrator to take civil action.
All very unfair

[munchhausen]

If it causing you grief just leave it. after all your mother can't live forever and presumably can't write a will that contravenes the tennants of the goverment scheme for intestacy, particularly as she's not following the rules. You'll get the inheritence in the end.

[Catso]

Not neccessarily. I would say there is a definite risk that once she has legal possession she will write a will that leaves it (or at least her share) to someone else - I'd guess to another JW or JW organisation. I'd imagine with the JW's advice, it will be very difficult to contest that will; they are generally very good at that sort of thing. (They managed to legally disposses a householder of their cellar in the village I live in - how clever is that?)

Disputing either will will be even more complicated and expensive than now.

[johnuk]

munchhausen, that is the advice from my family, as its just not worth it, but I am the sort of person that just hates injustice of ANY sort, and its the principle more than the money aspect to be honest.

Catso, that is what I think also, she intends to leave it to the JW's, so I am not expecting anything when she dies. I will wait and see what reply I get from my last letter to her, in response to her letter saying I am being uncooperative with the finalisation of the estate in accordance with the law of intestacy, which FYI here is a snippet.
-start quote-
You do have a nerve telling ME that I am not co-operating with the administration of my father�s estate in accordance with the law of intestacy, as that is all I want to do and as one of the administrators of the estate it is my legal duty to do so. And the rules of intestacy are quite clear which are laid down by the Administration of Estate Act 1925.
As a Personal Representative I must act with due diligence otherwise I could be personally liable for any loss which may be suffered as a result.
I am personally responsible for making sure that the estate is administered correctly according to the law.
And the law states that when there is no will this is what should happen:

1. To sell the estate and convert it into money.
2. To distribute the proceeds of the estate in accordance with the rules of intestacy which are:
Spouse gets the deceases personal chattels and �125,000 plus interest as set down by statute.
Spouse also gets a life interest in half of the rest to take income but NOT to spend the capital. After the spouses death the capital goes to the children of the deceased.
Children get half the amount over �125,000

And the above is the ONLY thing I will agree to, exactly what the law states.

-end quote-

Thanks to everyone that has contributed to this thread, I only