Case Commentary: #ItsAllWeDo
IDR Associate Solicitor Kate Lister breaks down the cases she’s been working on this month and how she expects the outcome will affect our clients:
This month has seen the almost end to a dispute that has been ongoing for well over three years and unfortunately for our clients, acts somewhat as a cautionary tale to appointed executors, who wish they had renounced at the outset.
The claim involves two parties, who were well entrenched in their positions in relation to a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the “1975 Act”) from one of them. Our clients, quite rightly, took a neutral stance in relation to the incoming claim and ongoing dispute from the outset. One of the parties was particularly hostile towards our clients and at one stage threatened to commence proceedings for an Order for Sale of the (only) estate property, which the claimant was living in, and/or make a Part 64 application to the Court seeking directions in relation to the distribution of the estate. At this stage, our clients were on notice of the claimant’s 1975 Act claim and had been informed by the parties that they were engaged in settlement discussions. It was our advice that whilst on notice of the claim and ongoing settlement discussions, it would be unreasonable for our clients to seek to administer the estate and we suggested that the parties instead turn their focus to settlement discussions, rather than threatening our clients with formal proceedings.
The parties have now reached a settlement, which includes our clients being able to recover their (reasonable) costs from the estate. Unfortunately, the same hostile party now appears to suggest that our client be deprived of their usual indemnity to recover their costs from the estate. We are therefore attempting to reach an agreement with the parties which will see our clients’ costs being paid from the estate (as would be the usual position) and without them being left with ‘out of pocket expenses’. We remain hopeful that an agreement can be reached, and a formal costs assessment avoided, which would only lead to all parties incurring further distress and legal costs.
Our clients are naturally disappointed at the turn of events and certainly would not wish to be executors again!