# Father's estate not distributed by executor after year..



## blath_dubh

My Father passed away in March 2007. Both my parents were separated and he had a long term partner. He appointed his partner as executor to his Will, in which he left both his share of his property and the business to her in her lifetime and thereafter to myself, with anything that was held in his own name to be left only to me. As of yet she has not distributed any of his estate in accordance with his will. She also decided after the reading of the Will that she wanted to sell the company. I was working for him at the time and therefore lost my job without even a day notice of her decision, communication between both she and I broke down thereafter.
I did seek legal advise in relation to this, but they have been unable to get any information whatsoever in relation to where I stand from his partner, the executor, or from her solicitor, who the Will was made with and who was also a friend of my Father. It is almost a year now since my Father passed away and last month I was told that his partner has pulled out from her solicitors without transferring the matter to a new one. I was just wondering if anybody has had a similar situation or could please advise me if there is anything I can do to find out what is going on? Any help would be appreciated as these things are hard enough without all the hassle on top of it!! Thanks.


----------



## csirl

This is a complex probate matter and the best advice is for you to seek advice from your own solicitor, not any of the solicitors representing either your fathers estate and/or his partner.

As your father was separated, then you and your siblings (if any) are legally speaking his next of kin. A long term partner has zero rights in Irish law as next of kin. There are inheritance laws which dictate that certain % of an estate must be left to various next of kin. Also according to Irish Law, a parent must make proper provision for their children in their Will and a Will can be challenged on this basis. These are things you will need a solicitor to examine having looked at the full facts of the case.

Also, there may be questions over the validity of the Will. Personally, though I'm open to correction by a solicitor, I have doubts over the validity of dictating where assets can go at sometime in the future after already having been distributed i.e. can someone will something on condition that they must Will it onto someone else in the future?


----------



## csirl

P.S. the terms of your parents separation may also be a factor particularly if there are provisions for the upkeep of your mother in the separation.


----------



## putsch

A small correction to the previous post. Where there is a will the next of kin has no automatic entitlement to a share in the estate - that only applies in intestacy. (there are some provisons whereby a child could make a claim where there is a will but the provisions are complex and not relevant here). 

If an executor has not distributed after a year (that is assuming there are assets over and above those you have a remainder interest in) you can threaten to charge interest. If there are legitimate reasons for delay you won't succeed but since the executor would be personally liable for the interest it'll certainly help you get a response.


----------



## truthseeker

putsch said:


> A small correction to the previous post. Where there is a will the next of kin has no automatic entitlement to a share in the estate - that only applies in intestacy. (there are some provisons whereby a child could make a claim where there is a will but the provisions are complex and not relevant here).
> 
> If an executor has not distributed after a year (that is assuming there are assets over and above those you have a remainder interest in) you can threaten to charge interest. If there are legitimate reasons for delay you won't succeed but since the executor would be personally liable for the interest it'll certainly help you get a response.



Putsch - could you go into some more details about charging in interest please? I also have a dodgy executor who seems no closer to sorting out the estate and now 14 months have passed.


----------



## putsch

I want to be very careful here not to give a bum steer. In anything other than a very simple case, one year and even 18 months, is reasonable in terms of finalising an administration. Where there are complications regarding intestacy, social welfare or tax liabilities, missing beneficiaries, arguing beneficiares, difficulty identifying assets etc etc even those timescales are likely to be exceeded for good reason. 
There is a school of thought that in a case where an executor is seriously out of line then interest can be charged after one year. I have not seen this done in practice (because there is usually good reason for delay) but a threat can produce results. You'd need to get your own solicitor to pusue this.


----------



## truthseeker

putsch said:


> I want to be very careful here not to give a bum steer. In anything other than a very simple case, one year and even 18 months, is reasonable in terms of finalising an administration. Where there are complications regarding intestacy, social welfare or tax liabilities, missing beneficiaries, arguing beneficiares, difficulty identifying assets etc etc even those timescales are likely to be exceeded for good reason.
> There is a school of thought that in a case where an executor is seriously out of line then interest can be charged after one year. I have not seen this done in practice (because there is usually good reason for delay) but a threat can produce results. You'd need to get your own solicitor to pusue this.



ok - thank you


----------



## murphaph

csirl said:


> As your father was separated, then you and your siblings (if any) are legally speaking his next of kin.


Surely the OP's mother is next of kin, regardless of being separated. My mother and father were separated but he died intestate and she gets 2/3 and me and my brother get 1/6 each 
according to the succession act. 



putsch said:


> Where there is a will the next of kin has no automatic entitlement to a share in the estate - that only applies in intestacy


My solicitor told me "you can disinherit your kids (but it may be challenged as you have to reasonably provide for them) but you cannot disinherit your wife in your will". 

Have I got my wires crossed-is the spouse not considered "next of kin" at all?


----------



## Pulped

Section 120 of the Succession Act 1965 makes provision for excluding spouses from claiming their legal right share or inheriting upon intestacy in certain circumstances. Separation can fall under this depending upon the circumstances. 

With regard to granting someone property for life that is certainly possible. They gain a life estate in the property and upon their death the property passes to the person specified in the will. That applies to real property, ie land. I would less sure about shares in a company, you could be getting into the area of creating trusts but without knowing details that's one for the person's solicitor to deal with.


----------



## mercman

I have seen a situation where interest was claimed and had to be paid. There were six persons concerned and five of them claimed interest and received it as there are provisions made in Irish law for this. In the case I saw, the sixth person and the solicitors and accountants acted the maggot the sixth for the purpose of making life difficult although he received the bulk of the estate. The will was for a vast amount of money, many many millions, and the five in question received a paltry amount. I never and hopefully never will again, saw such an amount of deceit and wreck less professionals deal with the matter to favour one over the rest. I am a great believer in everybody sometime having a conscience and it will come home to roost. Even though I was not involved I have the papers for interest and the rules of it. If anyone on this thread wants the full legal details PM me and I will be happy to call my papers from storage. And don't give up - greed is a disease which can only be cured by rightful retaliation.


----------



## csirl

> Have I got my wires crossed-is the spouse not considered "next of kin" at all?


 
For married people, their husband/wife is considered next of kin if not divorced etc. Partners are not considered next of kin under any circumstances.



> Where there is a will the next of kin has no automatic entitlement to a share in the estate - that only applies in intestacy.


 
No not true. Even if there is a will, certain next of kin have an automatic entitlement to a share of the estate - it is called a Right Share. The Right Share can be up to 50% of the estate meaning that the deceased is legally only allowed to Will a maximum of 50% of the estate to others.

From citizensinformation.ie
*The legal right share*

If there is a will and the spouse has never renounced his/her rights and is not "unworthy to succeed", then that spouse has a right to what is called a "legal right share" of the deceased's estate. 

If there are no children, the spouse is entitled to one-half of the estate;
if there are children, the spouse is entitled to one-third of the estate. The children are not necessarily entitled to the rest.
If you find that your spouse has made a will that does not recognise your legal right share, you may still claim your right. You do not have to go to court; the executor or administrator is obliged to grant you your share.
Your spouse is the person to whom you are legally married. Non-married partners have no legal rights to each other's estates. A church annulment has no legal status and so does not change the status of a spouse. If a partner in such an annulled marriage subsequently "remarries", this is not a legal marriage and the parties have no rights vis a vis each other. Partners may, of course, make wills in favour of each other but such wills may not negate the legal right share of a spouse.


----------



## putsch

There a bit of truth in it all. The situation is more complex than either "cannot disinherit wife" or "next of kin entitled to a fixed share".

Yes, everyone is free to dispose of property as they wish by will.

Yes, if not properly provided for by a will a spouse is entitled to claim a legal right share (one half if no kids - one third if kids) but this legal right share can be lost if the surviving spouse ceases to be a "spouse" by renunciation, divorce, separation, desertion, unworthiness to succeed....... ......many wives are left little or only life estates and do not cliam legal right share. (and that's a whole other minefield!)

In a testate situation children have no entitlement to a share in parents estate - but if the parent has failed in "moral duty" they could apply to court - its a complex area - the failure needs to be flagrant.

Joint property may go outside the will and impact on these shares.

Every case needs to be looked at on the facts of the case - relationship of spouses, extent of assets, number of children etc needs to be looked at carefully.


----------



## csirl

When you read the primary legislation, some consistant trends run through it. They are that a surviving spouse gets twice as much as surviving children and that if you have a Will and close family, you generally can only Will half your estate. And if someone who is due to inherit is deceased, their heirs get their interitance.

I would guess that the provision for children in a Will would have to be at least 1/6th of the estate if there is a spouse and at least 1/2 if no spouse in order to be consistent with the trends in the legislation. The legislation doesnt specifically say that the children get 1/6th if spouse or 1/2 if no spouse (consistent with them getting spouses 1/3 if spouse is deceased), but it is strongly implied and would likely be used as a guide if disputed. This is also 100% consistant with the intestate rules whereby spouse and children receive the same ratio of the whole estate.

Also, when you think about it, the guideline for what would morally be the correct amount to leave to children is the legislation itself - as this is, legally, what the Irish people (as our representatives put this legislation in place) think is the correct way to distribute an estate. That moral guideline is that children should get an amount equal to half the spouses Right Share. Would be difficult to argue that any less is ok. Remember that the word "moral duty" is in the legislation in this regard and "prudence" is in the Constitution, so a conservative "prudent" outlook favouring family members over outsiders would have to be taken in Court. Also, it is in accordance with the deceased persons means NOT the childs means i.e rich father must leave something.


----------



## mercman

All these posts are very interesting and helpful. However, there are a number of past occurences which leave the OP in a very difficult and vunerable position. E.g. The business which he was due to inherit after the Partner died has been sold and moreover he is out of work.  This looks as if there is a mini-war going on between the son and the partner. Therefore, I would suggest the OP finds a solicitor specialising in Will matters to offer him guidance ASAP.As for costs, as the estate has been wrongfully handled, the proceeds of the sale of the assets should be used for the payment of the legal expenses. However the op would want to act quickly if an injunction is required to freeze the assets until all matters are dealt with correctly.


----------



## blath_dubh

mercman said:


> All these posts are very interesting and helpful. However, there are a number of past occurences which leave the OP in a very difficult and vunerable position. E.g. The business which he was due to inherit after the Partner died has been sold and moreover he is out of work.  This looks as if there is a mini-war going on between the son and the partner. Therefore, I would suggest the OP finds a solicitor specialising in Will matters to offer him guidance ASAP.As for costs, as the estate has been wrongfully handled, the proceeds of the sale of the assets should be used for the payment of the legal expenses. However the op would want to act quickly if an injunction is required to freeze the assets until all matters are dealt with correctly.



Firstly, thank you all for your advice… I think that I need to clarify a few points 
Regarding my Mother, there was a stipulation within their legal separation that neither would claim on the others property so therefore she cannot benefit. As I am an only daughter, this means that both his partner and I are the only beneficiaries from my Father’s Will. 
As far as his property is concerned, I was told (by his partner) that due to his partner and himself owning the property, his half would therefore automatically pass to her and I would not ever be able to make a claim on it and that he had no right to will it in the first place due to this, but there has never been any documentation supplied to show that this is correct. 
In relation to the company, despite my solicitor sending numerous letters regarding his estate, we are not being furnished with any details whatsoever, regarding the company, accounts which were in his sole name etc. Now that his partner has withdrawn from any legal representation whatsoever, it is unlikely that we will be. 
Due to the fact that I am a beneficiary do I have a right to know how his estate is progressing or is there any other way that I can find out? I may just be another skeptical benefactor, but as no details have been supplied I am wary that his partner may be disposing of his personal funds, particularly as anything in his own name was for my sole benefit. For example I know that he had app €15000 worth of prize bonds, but only €250 have ever been mentioned.
Mercman, in relation to the freezing of assets, do I have a right to do this? Also do you believe that the estate is being wrongfully handled as you mention above? I have already incurred several legal fees to date, but it seems to be getting me nowhere.


----------



## blath_dubh

mercman said:


> All these posts are very interesting and helpful. However, there are a number of past occurences which leave the OP in a very difficult and vunerable position. E.g. The business which he was due to inherit after the Partner died has been sold and moreover he is out of work.  This looks as if there is a mini-war going on between the son and the partner. Therefore, I would suggest the OP finds a solicitor specialising in Will matters to offer him guidance ASAP.As for costs, as the estate has been wrongfully handled, the proceeds of the sale of the assets should be used for the payment of the legal expenses. However the op would want to act quickly if an injunction is required to freeze the assets until all matters are dealt with correctly.



Firstly, thank you all for your advice… I think that I need to clarify a few points 
Regarding my Mother, there was a stipulation within their legal separation that neither would claim on the others property so therefore she cannot benefit. As I am an only daughter, this means that both his partner and I are the only beneficiaries from my Father’s Will. 
As far as his property is concerned, I was told (by his partner) that due to his partner and himself owning the property, his half would therefore automatically pass to her and I would not ever be able to make a claim on it and that he had no right to will it in the first place due to this, but there has never been any documentation supplied to show that this is correct. 
In relation to the company, despite my solicitor sending numerous letters regarding his estate, we are not being furnished with any details whatsoever, regarding the company, accounts which were in his sole name etc. Now that his partner has withdrawn from any legal representation whatsoever, it is unlikely that we will be. 
Due to the fact that I am a beneficiary do I have a right to know how his estate is progressing or is there any other way that I can find out? I may just be another skeptical benefactor, but as no details have been supplied I am wary that his partner may be disposing of his personal funds, particularly as anything in his own name was for my sole benefit. For example I know that he had app €15000 worth of prize bonds, but only €250 have ever been mentioned.
Mercman, in relation to the freezing of assets, do I have a right to do this? Also do you believe that the estate is being wrongfully handled as you mention above? I have already incurred several legal fees to date, but it seems to be getting me nowhere. Thank you.


----------



## mercman

Your Post is noted. In the first instance, the question is has your father's estate been granted Probate, as if it hasn't, none of the assets should have been touched in the case of disposal. You have incurred legal fees to no benefit -- did you ever think of moving solicitor as from what I am reading it appears that you late father meant well in your respect, but others appear to be having different ideas. I am not a Solicitor but have gained my knowledge on dealing with my own parents' wills and also and more importantly have in the past become involved were massive injustices were done. According to your original Post your father's partner had a lifetime interest, which in my opinion meant she could not sell the business, especially without your permission, but depending on the wording which one would have to read, would determine the exact situation. Again from what I read there is a case to freeze assets until your position is clarified and made secure in recognition of your fathr's wishes. Remember that is what a will is -- A Letter of Wishes. Send me a PM if you want any other points discussed or anything else.


----------



## putsch

Assets owned jointly will (prima facie) pass automatically to the surviving joint owner being your father's partner and do not form part of the estate. Unfortunately for you this may mean there are no assets in the estate and no need for your father's partner to take out probate.


----------



## mercman

Do not think that is right. The assets were left as Lifetime Gifts and are to pass after the partner's death to the deceased s daughter. Moreover the share of the assets owned by the deceased do form part of the estate for valuation purposes. And all estates, no matter how small have to go to probate.


----------



## Pulped

> Also, when you think about it, the guideline for what would morally be the correct amount to leave to children is the legislation itself - as this is, legally, what the Irish people (as our representatives put this legislation in place) think is the correct way to distribute an estate. That moral guideline is that children should get an amount equal to half the spouses Right Share. Would be difficult to argue that any less is ok. Remember that the word "moral duty" is in the legislation in this regard and "prudence" is in the Constitution, so a conservative "prudent" outlook favouring family members over outsiders would have to be taken in Court. Also, it is in accordance with the deceased persons means NOT the childs means i.e rich father must leave something.



While this is perhaps off the OP's topic the above quote is just simply wrong. Your analysis implies that children have some kind of automatic claim on their parent's estate. They do not. The moral duty of a parent to provide for their child is assessed not on the basis of the parent's means but on the provision that has been made for them during their lifetime and on their need as well. If a child has been well looked after by their parents and is in gainful employment and well settled in life then the courts would be unlikely to find that a parent had failed in their moral duty It is a subjective test applied by the court and not one that automatically brings benefit to the children.


----------



## mercman

Pulped - This is off the original OP. The fact that  the deceased left his personal effects to his daughter immediately and that his partner had a lifetime interest in the Home and business and then reverting to the daughter on the demise of the partner, are the important matters in this case


----------



## csirl

> While this is perhaps off the OP's topic the above quote is just simply wrong. Your analysis implies that children have some kind of automatic claim on their parent's estate. They do not. The moral duty of a parent to provide for their child is assessed not on the basis of the parent's means but on the provision that has been made for them during their lifetime and on their need as well. If a child has been well looked after by their parents and is in gainful employment and well settled in life then the courts would be unlikely to find that a parent had failed in their moral duty It is a subjective test applied by the court and not one that automatically brings benefit to the children.


 
I disagree. I think my analysis is correct - the legislation is very clear on this - the para below is Section 117 of the Succession Act. The phrase "in accordance with his means" is the important one. It is the deceased parents means, not the childs means that are taken into consideration. The childs means are not considered at all. This means that even a child who is a billionaire has to be provided for in their parents Will. Gifting a child an advance on their inheritance before dying is taken into consideration, but not raising a child correctly and them being in gainful employment. 







> *117.*—(1) Where, on application by or on behalf of a child of a testator, the court is of opinion that the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in *accordance with his means*, whether by his will or otherwise, the court may order that such provision shall be made for the child out of the estate as the court thinks just.


----------



## Pulped

the paragraph following on from the one you quoted reads as follows.



> (2) The court shall consider the application from the point of view of a prudent and just parent, taking into account the position of each of the children of the testator and any other circumstances which the court may consider of assistance in arriving at a decision that will be as fair as possible to the child to whom the application relates and to the other children.



This along with the failure in moral duty are what matter in determining an application under S117. The courts have demonstrated that where a wealthy testator leaves nothing to his children that is fine so long as he as not failed in his moral duty to them. For example the case of Re ABC: XC v RT [2003] 2 IR 250


----------



## mercman

And again I reiterate that in this Post the father has covered the Moral Ground by leaving the home and business to his daughter after the partner passes away, plus his personal valaubles. The OP has questioned the matter as to how does she secure her position.


----------



## csirl

> And again I reiterate that in this Post the father has covered the Moral Ground by leaving the home and business to his daughter after the partner passes away, plus his personal valaubles. The OP has questioned the matter as to how does she secure her position.


 
Agree - moral ground is covered by what the father intended to leave. However the intentions of the father and what actually happened appear to be poles apart in this case.


----------



## mercman

And guess what, the OP appears to have gone AWOL. This is an interesting matter for which I would dearly like to see what happens and more important that the wishes of her late father are entertained on a fair basis without greed from others including professionals who have the knack to hover around like vultures in cases of inheritance issues.


----------



## csirl

> He appointed his partner as executor to his Will, in which he left both his share of his property and the business to her in her lifetime


 
I'd be like to see the outcome of the business issue. Businesses are not static - can go bust. What checks and balances are in place to prevent the partner, through accident or design, from ruining the business thus preventing the OP from actually inheriting it?


----------



## dazza21ie

If your father left the business to his partner and then to you after she dies this would make her a life tenant. She would have the power to sell but she could only take the intetest earned on the sale proceeds. 

As a beneficiary you have the right to enquire as to the progress of the estate. You should contact the solicitors who had been dealing with the file. They have a duty to beneficaries as long as they hold the estate file. If you do not receive a response from them contact the Law Society and make a complaint.


----------



## mf1

"You should contact the solicitors who had been dealing with the file. They have a duty to beneficaries as long as they hold the estate file. If you do not receive a response from them contact the Law Society and make a complaint. "



"and last month I was told that his partner has pulled out from her solicitors without transferring the matter to a new one. "

Why would OP lodge a complaint with the Law Society? Isn't the issue with the executor?

mf


----------



## mercman

Mf1 - Maybe, but the executor is the ex partner and they are not on talking terms. From reading the post, it appears that the executor has acted contrary to the terms of the Will. This is why she needs to find a different Solicitor URGENTLY.


----------



## mf1

mercman said:


> Mf1 - Maybe, but the executor is the ex partner and they are not on talking terms. From reading the post, it appears that the executor has acted contrary to the terms of the Will. This is why she needs to find a different Solicitor URGENTLY.




Thank you but I'm simply making the point that the Estate's Solicitor does not appear to be at fault - rather the executor who has removed instructions from the solicitor. In those circumstances, there is no point in making a complaint to the Law Society about the behaviour of a solicitor who does not  appear to have done anything wrong. 

And it does appear as if the OP has had the benefit of his/her own solicitor's advices.

mf


----------



## Blueberry08

csirl said:


> This means that even a child who is a billionaire has to be provided for in their parents Will.



If you literally mean a 'child', ie under 18, then you are correct.

If you simply mean 'child' of a deceased parent, even if that 'child' is an adult, you are *100%* incorrect. 

No adult 'child' is automatically entitled to a share of their parent(s)' estate if the parent(s) chose to exclude them from their Will. They  can, however, challenge the Will under Section 117.

See [broken link removed].

Extract: "Children of the deceased do not have any fixed right to a share of the deceased's assets."

Also of interest: 2003 Section 117 High Court [broken link removed] where the judge rejected an action brought by three children against the Will of their father.

The judge's interpretation of Section 117:

1. the social policy underlying section 117 was primarily directed at protecting  children who were still of an age and situation in life that they might reasonably  expect support from their parents

2. at the time of death, the testator must be found to owe a moral obligation to his  child/children

3. there is a high onus of proof on any child making a section 117 application which  requires the establishment of a positive failure of the moral duty by the deceased  parent

4. the duty created by section 117 is not absolute

5. *section 117 does not create an obligation to leave something to each child*

6. the provision of an expensive education or the provision of gifts/settlements made   to a child during the testator’s lifetime might discharge the moral duty under  section 117

7. special circumstances may give rise to a moral duty e.g. if a child was induced to believe that by working the farm, he may become the ultimate owner of it.


----------



## Blueberry08

Pulped said:


> While this is perhaps off the OP's topic the above quote is just simply wrong. Your analysis implies that children have some kind of automatic claim on their parent's estate. They do not. The moral duty of a parent to provide for their child is assessed not on the basis of the parent's means but on the provision that has been made for them during their lifetime and on their need as well. If a child has been well looked after by their parents and is in gainful employment and well settled in life then the courts would be unlikely to find that a parent had failed in their moral duty It is a subjective test applied by the court and not one that automatically brings benefit to the children.



I think the above - which is absolutely correct - is worth re-posting considering some of the incorrect information in this thread.


----------



## csirl

> See [broken link removed].
> 
> Extract: "Children of the deceased do not have any fixed right to a share of the deceased's assets."


 
This link confirms exactly what I said earlier. And is correct, children dont have a right to a fixed share because it depends on whether they have been advanced money/gifts while the deceased was alive and if there is a spouse entitled to a right share etc.



> Also of interest: 2003 Section 117 High Court [broken link removed] where the judge rejected an action brought by three children against the Will of their father.


 
This case is deals with a different set of circumstances to the OP. There are 2 fundamental differences:

1. In the case linked to by Blueberry08, the father HAD made provision for the children during his lifetime by providing them with money to buy a house before he died - as I've said before this is taken into consideration and is, in effect, regarded as an advance on inheritance.

2. All of the assets stayed within the family - i.e wife, children & grandchildren. And so his children or their heirs ultimately get everything as they are also the wifes heirs.


There is a fundamental difference between this judgement and one where:

1. NO provision/advancement has been made by the father before death.

and 

2. The proceeds of the will are not going to the Wife or staying within the blood line i.e. the childrens mother and so will not ultimately end up with the children. 



> 6. the provision of an expensive education or the provision of gifts/settlements made to a child during the testator’s lifetime might discharge the moral duty under section 117


 
This is the important phrase in the Judgement - i.e. that the father had discharged his Section 117 obligations by gifting his children money to buy houses during their lifetime - this does not apply in the OPs case.

The other thing that is taken into account is the childs conduct with the parent. If they had a normal relationship it would be viewed differently than if the child ignored or mistreated the parent. 

In the end of the day, its a judgement call, taking into account all the circumstances, on the part of the Courts as to whether or not the child was treated fairly & this is why the legislation says no fixed amount is due. However, if there is no spouse and the child received nothing in the Will or advanced before the father died, then I it would be hard to imagine the Courts not giving a judgement in favour of the child receiving a fair share. The trust of the legislation is that there is an onus on a parent to help and assist their children in life and a prudent parent normally makes provision in his/her will for offspring in normal circumstances.


----------



## csirl

Back to the OPs original question:

We have no evidence that the OPs father has provided any substantial gifts before he passed away, so I am assuming that he didnt.

The OP did has not received anything of value from her father to date. And the OP has lost job and so is in worse position than before.

Therefore the OP has as good a case as exists for either off or both of the following:

1) the estate was not distributed along the deceased wishes

and/or

2) proper provision for child was not made. 


On one of the OPs specific concerns. The partner is cannot sell the business unless it is in her name and it cannot be in her name unless it has gone through probate.


----------



## Blueberry08

csirl said:


> This link confirms exactly what I said earlier. And is correct, children dont have a right to a fixed share....



You completely misread the relevant extract:

"Children of the deceased *do not have any fixed right to a share* of the deceased's assets."

Not, as you said, "a right to a fixed share" - there is quite a difference between the two.


----------

