Is it possible to sue a dead person ?

[chas2008]

http://www.dailymail....-stars-lovechild.html

is it possible to sue a dead persons estate when they are not around to defend themselves ??

[guilliebrougues]

I would say the answer is yes, look at all the publicity about Jimmy Saville. They have even taken away his title.

[factor-fiction]

The claim will be on the estate. Savile's estate has already been frozen by the bank in anticipation of claims.
It won't need a criminal case to have been made- civil claims are dedided on the balance of probabilities, I recall.

[Canary42]

According to some folk on another thread we can talk to the dead, so no problem with them defending themselves.

[EDDIE51]

You can't sue a dead person but you can claim on the estate.

[guilliebrougues]

I should think that if the dead person owed someone a certain amount of money then it could be repaid once the solicitor had the details to make a claim , from the Estate. Otherwise it depends on why the person wants to sue and if they have enough evidence to go to court. I would suggest that you take legal advice rather than ask Ab's unless they have a legal background.

[chas2008]

i can understand outstanding debts etc.but a personal claim from 20-30 years ago has to be a very grey area....

[chas2008]

people are missing the point here, read the link before answering..

[factor-fiction]

Are we all missing the point, chas? A number of posters have used the word "your" but I don't think they are referring to you personally- the answers seem to me to realise you mean the Savile case

[Barmaid]

OK I've read the link

There are 2 sets of potential claimants. The first is the child of the deceased. They could make a claim on the estate for "reasonable financial provision" under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975.

The other set of claimants are the victims of assaults. They can claim damages for personal injury due to the assaults. It does not matter that the perpetrator is dead. (As an example, if you were injured in a car accident by the negligence of non insured driver who died in the accident you could still sue his estate for damages for personal injury).

So "yes" is the answer to your question.

[Peter Pedant]

.

Joll a famous thyroid surgeon was sued by a patient after his death from lung cancer 1948.
He was the one who looked at his own Chest X ray which showed the fatal cancer - and commented I hope the angels are pretty.He had told the pt that he was ill and she should go elsewhere.

BUT BUT BUT that is not why I post.

what is the position if the estate has been distributed according to the will ? Or should we all hold our breaths until the statute of limitations takes effect ?

can you really claw back the soft toy that little Polly has been left and say, I'm sorry Polly......that is Mrs so-and-so's
.

and IHT what happens to the over pay ? (if the estate later paid 50k in damages then on the face of it 20k has been overpaid in IHT, as the 50k counts as a charge against the estate and should not have been taxed)

I am thankful for people asking this,
as clearly I have been kept awake at night....

[chas2008]

Barmaid,
i totaly understand what you are saying but the 2 instances you are quoting would both have tangible evidence.
I just cant believe it would be that easy for someone to pop up after 10-20-30 years and make an assault claim against someone who is unable to answer or defend themselves, surely this would open a floodgate of dubious claims??

[Peter Pedant]

There has to be an end to the time people can wait beffore claiming.
One long stop is the statute of limitations
I think the latest one is 1980

I jsut wonder if the distribution of assets has an effect
on claims to come - obviously not on claims already made.

[jno]

I'd be surprised if anything can be clawed back, PP, once it's distributed it's the property of the beneficiary not the estate of the deceased.

But maybe there are specific exceptions eg for tracing drugs money or something.

[dzug2]

Yes, late creditors do have the right to claw back assets from beneficiaries.

In reality enforcing that right can be fraught with difficulty and not guaranted of success


As to a floodgate of dubious claims - I would hope (though not be confident) that dubious ones would be thrown out.

[Peter Pedant]

oh, the claimant to bring his case, prove it (that is not just state something and invite the defendant to disprove it) and at the level of balance of probabilities.

but these are evidential rules,

and have no efffect on whether the claim is barred in law.

Interesting recent case (reportedd in the Times a few days ago) where the Birmingham ladies claim was time barred in the Employment tribunal and the their lordships said oh well it isnt in the High Court.....so go ahead.

[jno]

dzug, would that be on the basis that the thing being clawed back was never the deceased's to give away in the first place?

[FredPuli43]

Chas, if someone was assaulted thirty years ago and made a complete recovery without subsequent consequences, hurt, which emerged later, they'd be statute barred, as beyond the limitation period, from claiming now. That's a problem which arises in these cases. But, equally, if the original cause was not apparent at the time they might. After all, if someone was exposed to asbestos or coal dust they might suffer no consequential injury at all at the time or immediately after. However, perhaps thirty years later, the effects of that exposure might suddenly become apparent in their case and set in to cause them extreme suffering and injury. Then they should be able to sue,and may, since they had no real or substantial reason for the action before.

That appears to be a difficulty here. If that is correct, then the actions will have to be based on present suffering consequent upon the assaults .The fact that the person who committed the assaults is dead is just an inconvenience for those who have to defend the action.

Executors have a duty of care. If they distributed the estate when they were aware of claims against it, and those claims proved valid, they might be held personally liable for the loss to the estate.It would be a bit tough, if the beneficiaries, in good faith, had spent all the money and the claimants found that there were no funds in the estate to satisfy judgment.