Order of Inheritance

[grahameb]

Actually this is easy to understand.

If there is no living spouse and no offspring then the parents of a deceased ar enext in line.

The Appeal Court was talking about at the time of the murders how Mabel Speakman was next in line BUT did not actually say she received the inheritance.

If she was still alive when the estate was settled then she would have inheritied but she was dead so instead it went to June's siste because if no parents are alive then siblings are next in line.

Since granny's will left the residuary to her Pam the result was actually the same anyway.  Had granny's will left the residuary to someoen else tha tperson might have argued they deserved it instea doof pam and that even though granny died before the estate was settled that the assets should still have flowed into her estate and been given to her heirs listed in her will.
 
So in effect both paths led to the same door so to speak.

There was another Speakman, but I'm not sure what she was in relation to Mabel Speakman? She was in a residential home where my wife works as a carer. She was mixed up mentally and someone told her about Bamber and it was her constant fear that he would get out of prison and murder her too. I forget when she died though?

[tyler]

I think I'm sure. 

Ah,Im not certain,though Colin states in his book 16 February 1986 aged 95.

[No-Bits]

Ah,Im not certain,though Colin states in his book 16 February 1986 aged 95.

I found another source that said she was 94 and died in 1986.

And then, Lomax says it was September 1985. 

Anyway, it was after the murders and before the trial.

[lookout]

By rights each will should have been probated and that is ultimately what happened.  The executor planned to give everything through June's will thus shafting Nevill's heirs but they sued and the settlement was to probate each will which is what should have happened in the first place.  Had they not settled the court likely would have ordered the same result anyway.

Since there were no alternative beneficiaries for the residuary estate (the estate left after all bequests) it would flow under the rules of intestate succession:

Since there were no living offspring that means:

1) to any living parents

2) If no living parents then to siblings and their offspring

3) If no living siblings (or sibling offspring) then to grandparents

4) If no living grandparents then to aunts/uncles or their offspring

A will isn't executed as simply as you've put it. You have per capita which is the means of dividing the estate between those who are equally related to those who are deceased, with no regard for the descendants.

[No-Bits]

Actually this is easy to understand.

If there is no living spouse and no offspring then the parents of a deceased ar enext in line.

The Appeal Court was talking about at the time of the murders how Mabel Speakman was next in line BUT did not actually say she received the inheritance.

If she was still alive when the estate was settled then she would have inheritied but she was dead so instead it went to June's siste because if no parents are alive then siblings are next in line.

Since granny's will left the residuary to her Pam the result was actually the same anyway.  Had granny's will left the residuary to someoen else tha tperson might have argued they deserved it instea doof pam and that even though granny died before the estate was settled that the assets should still have flowed into her estate and been given to her heirs listed in her will.
 
So in effect both paths led to the same door so to speak.

Yeah I get that, I just wondered why June was considered more senior than Nevill when calculating next of kin. It doesn't matter, it's relatively unimportant.

[No-Bits]

Right, okay, so the entire Bamber estate (less specific amounts given to others named in June & Nevills Will) legally bounces across to Mabel Speakman.

We then know that due to Robert Boutflours concerns over Jeremy's guilt, he seeks advice from his solicitor 'Mr Rant' (funny name) as to what can be done to remove Jeremy from Mabel Speakmans Will.

At the end of August 1985, Mabel Speakman is told about the murders and the families opinion that Jeremy was responsible.

At the start of September Mabel Speakman, in the presence of her doctor and Solicitor amends her Will to remove Jeremy.

She then passes away a few days later before the trial.

So that get's us to Mabel Speakman's Estate.

Who did her Estate go to?

Was it just Pamela Boutflour?

[No-Bits]

So that get's us to Mabel Speakman's Estate.

Who did her Estate go to?

Was it just Pamela Boutflour?

Bearing in mind it had now increased and included the Bamber Estate as well.

[lookout]

 This is why AP kicked off about having been fleeced over the will. He was a direct blood-line,being Nevilles' nephew,and if the will had been executed properly there'd have been no need for AP to bring about a legal battle with his relatives. ( I bet they no longer speak to him )  

[scipio_usmc]

If the will was drawn up in 1979, Jeremy would still have been a minor and probably still at school. Could the constraints imposed upon his inheriting at that time be enforced once he had come of age?

Age has nothing to do with it, the trust is an enforcement mechanism not because of age.  There is usually no way to enforce "conditions subsequent".  Jeremy could simply decide to stop farming the day after the will is probated and thus say ha ha Sheila I got it all while all you got was a little pittance. A trust is about the only way to actually enforce a "condition subsequent".  When a trust is age based it states the age at which a trust is required and at what age (or other period of time like upon graduation)  the trust terminates.

The manner is which condition's subsequent are voided by courts is when they are too vague, impossible or violate public policy concerns like forcing you to marry or divorce a specific person or convert to some specific religion. Outright blackmail to such a specific degree is not permitted.  Saying if you are married with children you get an inheritance but if not then it goes elsewhere is one thing. Saying you have to be married to someone specific to get it and thus require you to go out and marry that person to get your inheritance is another.   

Wanting the land in trust so that it continues to be farmed but divided equally if Jeremy wants to sell it and not farm it is legally permissible so would have been enforced if he tried to fight it.

[lookout]

So that get's us to Mabel Speakman's Estate.

Who did her Estate go to?

Was it just Pamela Boutflour?

So far as I can gather it was 50% each to Jeremy and RWB.

[scipio_usmc]

I found another source that said she was 94 and died in 1986.

And then, Lomax says it was September 1985. 

Anyway, it was after the murders and before the trial.

The most relaible information I could find is she died in February 1986.

Indeed how could she have asked about Jeremy in December 1985 if she was dead?

It is not unheard of for people to say he lost the race by mere seconds when referring to 600 seconds instead of saying 10 minutes.  Technically it is true but it gives a rather false impression. 

He could have been engaging in that kind of behavior.  Since I find much of his work to be sloppy and questionable he also could simply have been wrong and did a pisspoor job of researching the issue.

EIther Lomax is purposely calling months days to try to make it sound like she died very quickly after she changed her will or he was alleging she died in September 1985 but flat out wrong.

[No-Bits]

Was it not decided that Nevill's estate go the Pargeter children,since his mother and siblings were deceased,and Junes estate passed to Mrs Speakman,which then passed to Pam B upon her death,who in turn gave it to her children as she didn't want it?

So it seems that the Nevill & June Estate, went to Mabel Speakman and then the Pamela Boutflour along with the rest of Mabel Speakmans Estate.

Then you are saying that Pamela refused to inherit the Estate (do you mean just the Bamber portion?), and then it bounced on to Pamela's children?

[No-Bits]

The most relaible information I could find is she died in February 1986.

Indeed how could she have asked about Jeremy in December 1985 if she was dead?

It is not unheard of for people to say he lost the race by mere seconds when referring to 600 seconds instead of saying 10 minutes.  Technically it is true but it gives a rather false impression. 

He could have been engaging in that kind of behavior.  Since I find much of his work to be sloppy and questionable he also could simply have been wrong and did a pisspoor job of researching the issue.

EIther Lomax is purposely calling months days to try to make it sound like she died very quickly after she changed her will or he was alleging she died in September 1985 but flat out wrong.

That does seem to be the consensus, I stand corrected. 

[scipio_usmc]

A will isn't executed as simply as you've put it. You have per capita which is the means of dividing the estate between those who are equally related to those who are deceased, with no regard for the descendants.

The default is per stripes.  Per capita must be mentioned in a will to override the default.  When intestacy rules kick in then the rules are per stripes with the exception of grandparents which is per capita.

 

[scipio_usmc]

This is why AP kicked off about having been fleeced over the will. He was a direct blood-line,being Nevilles' nephew,and if the will had been executed properly there'd have been no need for AP to bring about a legal battle with his relatives. ( I bet they no longer speak to him )

Nevill had a niece as well who got shafted initially but split the estate with AP under the settlement.

I don't know why the executor decided to filter it all into June's estate, there was never a sound explanation put forth.  You are right that such was not fair to Nevill's heirs.

The settlement agreed upon is what a court would have ordered anyway so in the end the right legal result was reached.