# Inheritance being asked to be paid back after 5 years



## Brummydot (20 Oct 2016)

Hi, I hope someone can help. Some very close friends had a tragic accident 10 years ago and they kindly included me in their will. I received two amounts of money, the last being just over 5 years ago. I have now received a letter from a solicitor that is apparently representing the executors advising me not to spend any of the money as it may need to be paid back. I am distraught by the fact that it has been over 5 years ago and as you can imagine I am in complete shock. 
I understand that mistakes can happen and have read other posts relating to this but none that go back 5 years. Can anyone help or give me advice. 
The letter received says that they are unable to give any further details at present but hope to do so in 3 to 6 months. This is terrible and upsetting as the money has been used to pay some of our mortgage.


----------



## Bronte (20 Oct 2016)

This makes no sense. Sounds like a scam. Where are you based?

If a solicitor made a mistake then I can't see how you'd have to pay it back, not reasonable after five years and not reasonable when you've spent the money.

How much is it?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (21 Oct 2016)

Sounds like a spurious action by the other beneficiaries. Was there acrimony when you were included in the will?


----------



## Bronco Lane (21 Oct 2016)

Is their tragic accident being investigated in any way? Maybe it's some sort of police enquiry?


----------



## Steven Barrett (21 Oct 2016)

It sounds like someone is trying to pull a fast one. If the executor and the solicitor couldn't distribute the assets properly, it's their problem. No one can be expected to not spend money they were given 5 years previously. It's their problem, let them pay their money back. 

Maybe mf1 can give us her legal opinion on this? 


Steven 
www.bluewaterfp.ie


----------



## Jim Stafford (21 Oct 2016)

You have two issues to consider here: Legal and Moral.

On the legal front, did the Executor obtain an indemnity from you at the time?  If the Executor did not, then he is in great difficulty, as my understanding is that you do not have to pay it back. Even if you did give an indemnity, you would need to investigate whether the Executor was negligent in his administration of the Estate.

The Moral issue is a matter for yourself.

Regards

Jim Stafford


----------



## Brummydot (21 Oct 2016)

Thank you all for your comments, the executors was a solicitor and a close friend of the deceased. There were no bad feelings as I know and their death was a very tragic accident 10 years ago.
I agree that how can the executors hand out substantial amounts of money without being sure that the money was there. The money changed my life and allowed me to step back from my job and take care of my parents.
I still care for my mother but work very hard. Being asked to pay the money back would be very upsetting but it is more down to the time scale that is so hard to understand.
I know my dear friends would be devistated with this outcome and stress it can cause.


----------



## mathepac (21 Oct 2016)

I suspect from your username you are UK-based. IF so, this is an Irish consumer site so laws, experiences and thus opinions may not match up with the UK legal system.


----------



## Brummydot (21 Oct 2016)

Thank you mathepac, I did not realise.


----------



## johnny1234 (21 Oct 2016)

Well there is  one thing certain ! Where there's a will, there'll be a relative. Remember this for your own sanity.


----------



## Bronte (21 Oct 2016)

Brummydot said:


> Thank you all for your comments, the executors was a solicitor and a close friend of the deceased. There were no bad feelings as I know and their death was a very tragic accident 10 years ago.
> I agree that how can the executors hand out substantial amounts of money without being sure that the money was there. The money changed my life and allowed me to step back from my job and take care of my parents.
> I still care for my mother but work very hard. Being asked to pay the money back would be very upsetting but it is more down to the time scale that is so hard to understand.
> I know my dear friends would be devistated with this outcome and stress it can cause.



You are a good person, you've done nothing wrong.

Be glad the deceased, your friend, made an effort to change your life.  You used that money destined for you to do so, how wonderful it means you can take care of your parents, I'm sure your deceased friend would not want that to change.

Do not be bullied into repaying anything that came your way legitimately, as this  money did, despite it possible being the fault of others who may have made an error.


----------



## Bronte (21 Oct 2016)

On morals, my post was deleted, so I'll go different. OP has done nothing morally wrong. 

I find it strange a professional mentioning morals.  

Are morals mentioned in court, in banks instructing solicitors and counsel etc

On what planet does a person, broke/not wealthy , doing the right thing, by their mother, get 'morals' mentioned. In a context where they have done absolutely nothing wrong.


----------



## odyssey06 (22 Oct 2016)

I think, if we are dealing with large sums here and it has the potential to cause serious disturbance to your life, the time has come to seek a professional independent UK opinion on this one i.e. not the solicitor who dealt with the original will. I am astonished at the possibility you could be asked to repay sums from five years ago that you accepted in good faith and about which there seems to have been no controversy at the time. I think you need now to defend your position to the full extent that the law (UK) permits.


----------



## johnny1234 (22 Oct 2016)

I think all seem to be missing the point on this case. Universally worldwide. the purpose of a will, is to issue instructions of the last wishes of those deceased. The job and purpose of an executor is to pay out and administer the estate to the beneficiaries of the will. Personally, I wouldn't take too much notice of what the letters say.  If me, I'd love to know who is behind such a claim. If you know them keep a wide berth away from them. Greed and jealousy are both diseases. What's yours is yours. Take care.


----------



## DirectDevil (22 Oct 2016)

Bronte said:


> On morals, my post was deleted, so I'll go different. OP has done nothing morally wrong.
> 
> I find it strange a professional mentioning morals.
> 
> ...



Sometimes, in the sense of judging if an act was conscionable / unconscionable.


----------



## john luc (22 Oct 2016)

Nothing to do with the op question but just wondering what happens to an estate that has being dispersed and sometime later evidence comes up to change matters.


----------



## mathepac (22 Oct 2016)

Change matters in what way? The executor was a crook and pilfered the assets? A "new" beneficiary emerges, back from the dead so to speak? A tax-bill appears? Questions about strings and tape-measures emerge. The answer is it all depends.


----------



## john luc (23 Oct 2016)

To put my question more precise, is there any legal way that can reopen the distribution of an estate that has happened a time back. Example would be if a person is declared dead and turns up years later alive. I recall a Tom hanks film based on a true story of a person presumed dead from a plane crash only to turn up alive years later.


----------



## noproblem (23 Oct 2016)

john luc said:


> To put my question more precise, is there any legal way that can reopen the distribution of an estate that has happened a time back. Example would be if a person is declared dead and turns up years later alive. I recall a Tom hanks film based on a true story of a person presumed dead from a plane crash only to turn up alive years later.



So where did they get the death cert for probate if the person wasn't dead?


----------



## Galway21 (25 Oct 2016)

There is obviously a moral issue around mistakes in wills.  When my mother died my elder brother acted as executor and quickly sold our family home and distributed the proceeds among the 5 of us.  Shortly after we received the money AIB made a claim on our mother's estate for €200,000 relating to a personal guarantee that she had given on behalf a very good friend back in 2002. We were shocked, angry and so upset about the guarantee, which my mother had never told anyone about.  There was no mention of it in the papers that my brother went through. We took legal advice on it, and the solicitors advice was that it was validly given. The only good thing about it was that we had not  yet spent the money which we had received.  We could not let our brother, who had acted in good faith, become personally liable for the €200,000, so  we all paid back €50,000 each.  The guarantee will always rankle me.


----------



## john luc (25 Oct 2016)

That's a sad case and sorry to hear that. I presume the friend does not have the capacity to honour the AIB debt or make restitution to ye


----------



## sunnydonkey (11 Nov 2016)

mathepac said:


> Change matters in what way?



What if a later will turned up?


----------



## noproblem (12 Nov 2016)

Galway21 said:


> There is obviously a moral issue around mistakes in wills.  When my mother died my elder brother acted as executor and quickly sold our family home and distributed the proceeds among the 5 of us.  Shortly after we received the money AIB made a claim on our mother's estate for €200,000 relating to a personal guarantee that she had given on behalf a very good friend back in 2002. We were shocked, angry and so upset about the guarantee, which my mother had never told anyone about.  There was no mention of it in the papers that my brother went through. We took legal advice on it, and the solicitors advice was that it was validly given. The only good thing about it was that we had not  yet spent the money which we had received.  We could not let our brother, who had acted in good faith, become personally liable for the €200,000, so  we all paid back €50,000 each.  The guarantee will always rankle me.



I'm not dishonest or a bad person but if I had been given the money along with my other siblings I personally would find it very difficult to give it back and so would all of my siblings. What could they do about it?


----------



## Gordon Gekko (12 Nov 2016)

noproblem said:


> I'm not dishonest or a bad person but if I had been given the money along with my other siblings I personally would find it very difficult to give it back and so would all of my siblings. What could they do about it?



As per the post, they could go after the Executor (who was a sibling).


----------



## PMU (12 Nov 2016)

Galway21 said:


> When my mother died my elder brother acted as executor and quickly sold our family home and distributed the proceeds among the 5 of us.  Shortly after we received the money AIB made a claim on our mother's estate for €200,000 relating to a personal guarantee that she had given on behalf a very good friend back in 2002. We were shocked, angry and so upset about the guarantee, which my mother had never told anyone about.  There was no mention of it in the papers that my brother went through. We took legal advice on it, and the solicitors advice was that it was validly given. The guarantee will always rankle me.


This is a bit of a shocker, and is there anything an executor can do to protect themselves from such events, e.g. a debt, such as a personal guarantee, arising years after probate has been granted?  I've acted as a executor twice. The Law Society's Administration of Estates document says that an executor's duties include 'Finding out what debts have to be paid', but does not go into further details. I would think most executors take this is to include  bank debts, mortgages, liens, taxation and related, etc. but a personal guarantee?   I've since read that an executor should publish a creditor's notice asking for creditors to present details of claims against the estate, but nobody I know who acted as an executor has published such a notice. Is this a legal requirement or just good practice? And if there is no response to a creditor's notice can creditors just turn up years later and claim against the estate or the executor?


----------



## noproblem (12 Nov 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> As per the post, they could go after the Executor (who was a sibling).



I know that but he could have spent the money or whatever, had nothing in his name of value and the other siblings likewise. Seems to me that giving back something like this in a very mannerly and civic way is not the proper way to go about it and just felt there's other avenues one could use.


----------



## Thirsty (12 Nov 2016)

You should get legal advice; however I am reasonably sure that the beneficiaries and the executor can claim that the debt is statute barred.

Banks have 2 years after date of death to file a claim for repayment.

I'd challenged the claim coming in this late.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (12 Nov 2016)

noproblem said:


> I know that but he could have spent the money or whatever, had nothing in his name of value and the other siblings likewise. Seems to me that giving back something like this in a very mannerly and civic way is not the proper way to go about it and just felt there's other avenues one could use.



Eh, not at all. Giving the cash back is the normal and moral thing to do. If they hadn't, the Executor would be on the hook personally for the error.


----------



## noproblem (13 Nov 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> Eh, not at all. Giving the cash back is the normal and moral thing to do. If they hadn't, the Executor would be on the hook personally for the error.



 We've all read the original post and understand what might happen. Sometimes trying to impose one's own morals on a situation just doesn't cut ice, this is one of those times. Thanks for telling us what's normal and moral for you, it's not for everyone though.


----------



## Gordon Gekko (13 Nov 2016)

noproblem said:


> We've all read the original post and understand what might happen. Sometimes trying to impose one's own morals on a situation just doesn't cut ice, this is one of those times. Thanks for telling us what's normal and moral for you, it's not for everyone though.



There is such a thing as "objective morality". Not my moral code or yours, a general code of what's right and wrong. You for example may think that it would be okay to keep money that's accidentally transferred into your account. Objective morality would say otherwise.


----------



## cremeegg (13 Nov 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> There is such a thing as "objective morality". Not my moral code or yours, a general code of what's right and wrong. You for example may think that it would be okay to keep money that's accidentally transferred into your account. Objective morality would say otherwise.



Gordon that is just your understanding of what is objective morality.

The point about relativism is not that there is no such thing as objective morality, but that there are only subjective, and changing, views of that objective morality.


----------



## noproblem (13 Nov 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> There is such a thing as "objective morality". Not my moral code or yours, a general code of what's right and wrong. You for example may think that it would be okay to keep money that's accidentally transferred into your account. Objective morality would say otherwise.



This "objective morality" guy can say whatever he wants,  but i'll go with my own conscience on this particular one. Hope that's ok and you have no problem with it. You carry on with your guy, i've no problem at all with that.


----------



## Galway21 (14 Nov 2016)

noproblem said:


> I'm not dishonest or a bad person but if I had been given the money along with my other siblings I personally would find it very difficult to give it back and so would all of my siblings. What could they do about it?



You are missing the point here.

My siblings and I were very angry about the guarantee that my mother had given to AIB. We did find it difficult to have to hand the money back, but it was the correct moral thing to do, as it would have been immoral and unjust for my brother to be stuck with the whole liability.

If you were in a similar situation would your conscience allow you to let your brother pick up the full liability?


----------



## PaddyW (14 Nov 2016)

Galway21 said:


> You are missing the point here.
> 
> My siblings and I were very angry about the guarantee that my mother had given to Bank of Ireland. We did find it difficult to have to hand the money back, but it was the correct moral thing to do, as it would have been immoral and unjust for my brother to be stuck with the whole liability.
> 
> If you were in a similar situation would your conscience allow you to let your brother pick up the full liability?



In my opinion, you did the right thing. I would do it myself also. Not everyone would though. I think that's what noproblem is trying to say?


----------



## Jim Stafford (14 Nov 2016)

PMU said:


> I've since read that an executor should publish a creditor's notice asking for creditors to present details of claims against the estate, but nobody I know who acted as an executor has published such a notice. Is this a legal requirement or just good practice? And if there is no response to a creditor's notice can creditors just turn up years later and claim against the estate or the executor?



It is not a legal requirement to advertise, but it is considered good practice if the deceased was involved in running a business etc. If I was appointed as a "Professional" Executor I would insist on advertising for creditors claims, as under section 49 of the Succession Act it would provide good protection against creditors who did not notify me of a claim within one month.  Such legal adverts are expensive, as the newspapers charge a premium for them.  I would also seek indemnities from the beneficiaries.


Jim Stafford


----------



## Gordon Gekko (14 Nov 2016)

noproblem said:


> This "objective morality" guy can say whatever he wants,  but i'll go with my own conscience on this particular one. Hope that's ok and you have no problem with it. You carry on with your guy, i've no problem at all with that.



I do have a problem with it actually. Thankfully, the majority of people don't share your views.


----------



## noproblem (14 Nov 2016)

Gordon Gekko said:


> I do have a problem with it actually. Thankfully, the majority of people don't share your views.


I very much doubt the people on here represent "the majority of people".
I will continue to use my options when confronted with unusual invoices, bills, of which I consider the one mentioned as one of these. If there's any way at all I can negate its payment after consulting with qualified and experienced people then that's what I will do. Morals doesn't enter the equation at all and I never said I would leave anyone in the lurch. In fact it would be very silly of anyone to just pay on the spot when given a questionable "bill" such as the other person was given. I like to use everything in my power to avoid paying and if you really really read my post you may have taken this from it and not be so goody two shoes about what you would do. I simply do not hand over money because someone demands I do. 
To Galway 21, I was never saying you or others were wrong, I'm simply pointing out that instead of paying I would have used everything within my rights and my families rights to avoid paying, no way would I want someone like a brother or similar in trouble. Everyone's getting their lines crossed here. As a matter of interest did you and the family get proper legal and accounting advice before paying  up and what exactly was the advice? I ask that because a very good legal eagle friend of mine has said there would be no certainty that it would have to be paid.


----------



## Galway21 (14 Nov 2016)

noproblem said:


> As a matter of interest did you and the family get proper legal and accounting advice before paying up and what exactly was the advice? I



We were all so angry about it that we insisted on getting a barrister's opinion on it.  The barrister's opinion was that the guarantee was "good" i.e. AIB would win  a case on it, and that AIB were within the statute of limitations for dealing with its claim on the deceased estate.

It turned out that our mother's solicitor had "forgotten" about the guarantee when he was helping my brother with the probate. It was only when the solicitor obtained a copy of the guarantee (with his signature on it as a witness) from the bank that he remembered it.

My bother tried to get a discount.  However, AIB knew that they had us over a barrel, and insisted on full payment, otherwise the matter was going to end up in the High Court.


----------



## noproblem (14 Nov 2016)

Thanks very much Galway21 for that, I know it's personal and good of you to share. It's what I was hoping people would do and am happy that you guys did indeed seek advice on the matter but i'm feeling sorry for you on the outcome.


----------



## Seagull (15 Nov 2016)

Galway21 said:


> We were all so angry about it that we insisted on getting a barrister's opinion on it.  The barrister's opinion was that the guarantee was "good" i.e. AIB would win  a case on it, and that AIB were within the statute of limitations for dealing with its claim on the deceased estate.
> 
> It turned out that our mother's solicitor had "forgotten" about the guarantee when he was helping my brother with the probate. It was only when the solicitor obtained a copy of the guarantee (with his signature on it as a witness) from the bank that he remembered it.
> 
> My bother tried to get a discount.  However, AIB knew that they had us over a barrel, and insisted on full payment, otherwise the matter was going to end up in the High Court.



Was there a clause in the loan that it automatically became payable in full on the death of the guarantor? Do you in turn have any grounds to go after whoever had taken out the loan, and look for repayment from them?


----------

