Order of Inheritance

[lookout]

Are you suggesting that had Jeremy known about a lease he would not have done it?  He did it for the ultimate value of the estate.  If he thought the estate was even bigger that is a greater reason to kill in a sense but it was big enough anyway to be worth killing over.  Some people kill for a $25,000 insurance policy though that is hardly enough to live off of for long.

You should know as well as anyone that nobody receives the full value of an estate,nor does it happen overnight. It might have looked a lot---on paper--but that's where it ends.
Jeremy knew that there was inheritance tax/probate/bills/funeral costs,inc.flowers,,,all of which takes a large slice out of the estate before you begin finding out what remains.

This is why he began gathering stuff from the farmhouse in which to sell to offset the huge bill that he'd receive,,and for that I don't blame him. It wasn't his fault if he wasn't sentimental nor materialistic,a lot of people aren't and prefer to be realistic at a time like that.

However,because Jeremy DIDN'T kill anyone,the fact about who owned what wouldn't,and didn't enter his head,,but it worried one man--------RWB as it was HE who'd asked about orders of death,to his pal Carr who worked for the Met and who kept him updated every step of the way,even though Carr had NOTHING to do with the case.

[Patti]

A will is only invalid if it was not executed properly. [color=navy]Correct[/color]  There is no need at all to ever update a will for it to remain valid. It is important that you correct a will if there has been a major change of circumstance. Possibly with a new will revoking the last one, but it must say this in the new will and the old will destroyed.

I assume you intended to say the residuary bequeth in the will failed and thus that intestate rules apply because the will failed to dispose of all property of the estate. What I am saying is that most of the beneficiaries stated in the will died and the only one left to inherit the majority of the estate was Jeremy. Since he was convicted of the murders and is a whole term lifer he cannot inherit.  Therefore the rule will apply. The court would have decided who would inherit. June's sister and Neville's nephew and Niece would inherit the majority of the estate. Which in my opinion is correct and anything that is left is divided up between the rest of the relatives.

If a will is properly drafted the only time you need to update it is if you want to add a new beneficiary or want to change things around in some other way including deleting a beneficiary. Or a divorce, adoption or a civil marriage.

If properly drafted itl will list enough alternate beneficiaries so that death doesn't require any changes and the only change could be a result of changing your mind.  Some lawyers don't like that because then they lose future business but that is the ethical thing to do. One must not be forced to change a will either

This is from the most recent will I drafted  (I edited the names to initials to protect the people involved):

I give, devise, and bequeath all of the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate, of whatever kind and character, and wherever located, to my Spouse.  If my Spouse predeceases me then my sons DJK and HJK shall inherit in equal shares.  If either of my children predeceases my Spouse, his share shall pass to his issue in equal shares.  If either of my children predeceases my Spouse and does not have any living issue to inherit his share, then his share shall go to his spouse.  In the event either of my sons predeceases my Spouse and has no issue or spouse to inherit his share then my remaining son’s side shall inherit the entire remainder.  If none of these beneficiaries survives me, then the rest and residue of my estate shall pass in equal amounts to the following charitable trusts;"

You can list as many alternative beneficiaries as you want.  They decided to leave the money to charity instead of more extended family if their sons, grandchildren, great granchildren or the wives of their children are all dead.  But you could list all the beneficiaries you want before finally listing a charity. If a will is drafted up correctly and it states they wish to leave all the money to the dog home then it will go to the dogs home. However, one can contest that.

Instead of intestacy law kicking in they wanted it to go to Indian (India Indian) charities. I have no idea why they don't want it to go to siblings and cousins they did not say why not and I didn't ask snce it is not my place.

Note the complete absence of legalese (save for the word "issue"so that anyone reading it could understand it, that is the perferred method today so that those signing and wtinessing it can understand it as can any executor instead of needing legal help.   

I have no idea if the UK has similarly gotten rid of the legalese or not in their modern wills but the principle is the same where you can list all the alternative beneficiares you want so that you never need a new will unless you want to remove/add a beneficiary or change amounts.

What I am saying is that most of the beneficiaries stated in the will died and the only one left to inherit the majority of the estate was Jeremy. Since he was convicted of the murders and is a whole term lifer he cannot inherit.  Therefore the rule will apply. The court would have decided who would inherit. June's sister and Neville's nephew and Niece would inherit the majority of the estate. Which in my opinion is correct and anything that is left is divided up between the rest of the relatives.

If a will is properly drafted the only time you need to update it is if you want to add a new beneficiary or want to change things around in some other way including deleting a beneficiary. Or a divorce, adoption or a civil marriage.

 It is important that you correct a will if there has been a major change of circumstance. Possibly with a new will revoking the last one, but it must say this in the new will and the old will destroyed.

 If a will is drafted up correctly and it states they wish to leave all the money to the dog home then it will go to the dogs home. However, one can contest that. [/color]

Not knowing the full circumstances of how the Bamber estate was finally executed it is of my opinion that it was administrated and letter of grant of administrations was applied for. 

Sorry the highlighting has not worked....

[Patti]

There are two inheritances to be considered.

• The first is the Speakman Estate.
  
  The second is the Bamber estate.

Let's put the Speakman Estate to one side for a moment and consider the Estate of Nevill and June Bamber in isolation.

The notion of the inheritance bouncing down the line depending on order of death was dismissed, i.e bouncing from say June, to Nevill, to Sheila, to the twins and then even to Collin. That's a dead end as order of death could not be ascertained.

Following on from that, I think we are all in agreement, that Jeremy would have inherited the lot, had he not been convicted for their murders. Right?

So, rightly or wrongly in different peoples view, Jeremy was convicted and the inheritance got passed on again.

Now for the question, it's two fold, who do people think the inheritance actually went to, and who do people think the inheritance should have gone to?

It all depends on whether the will from June and Nevile was a valid one.  The only son and heir would have inherited given the validation of the will. But, just because he was the son, does not mean that he would have been entitled to everything even if the will was invalid, and I suspect given the circumstance of that will not to be. Meaning that Jeremy could not inherit due to his conviction therefore it had to have gone to probate.  Probate is the first step in evaluating the will, invalid or not.

Under intestacy rules it is clear that the wills were invalid, thus meaning that the closet relative will receive any monies that are held in the said estate.

Because no one knows the order of death it should have divided up to June and Nevile's next of kin. Pam and AP and his sister. 

Sadly Colin would get nothing as his children did not make a will and he was divorced from Sheila, so he did not inherit.

So it is correct that Pam and AP and his sister were rightful heir to the estate. But,m I hear that AP had to fight for his share....which is a disgrace under the law of intestacy. He should have been entitled from the onset along with his sister. 

just saying;   

[lookout]

 Patti,where you state that the closest relative receives monies from the estate,refers to BLOOD relatives outside a husband and wifes' consideration. This is if it was intestacy. Millions of people must have got the shock of their lives when say,a sister dies,leaving the brother who's looked after her,but-----------because her elder brother had already died,his children would be the beneficiaries,enabling them to have half of the estate,the other half going to the surviving brother.

The language used is " per serpes " and " per capita ",which refers,as well to remaining siblings of the deceaseds' dead brother.
Why on earth it's so complicated,God only knows,but lots of people must have had a shock if a person dies without making a will,when the so-called next of kin naturally assumed that the money would go to them.

Even if the Bambers had died naturally,without leaving a will,the relatives WOULD and COULD have contested,regardless of Sheila and Jeremy being the siblings. Whether or not the relatives would have won the battle,remains to be seen.
Some bitter battles have been fought through the courts involving intestacy.

[lookout]

 There was NOTHING sinister in Jeremy asking about the orders in which the family died. His father would have already told him about any forthcoming complications that could exist,and to be prepared for the unexpected.

Somehow,the fact that Neville wasn't exactly overly generous towards the relatives as regards monies left,it was by no means any sort of a motive for Jeremy to have slain his family. Even if Neville had left everything to the church or dogs home,I still can't see that it would have given Jeremy cause to kill them all.

Imagine seeing a will where someone who was worth thousands,left but a couple of hundred,oh dear.
No wonder Jeremy was hated and detested.

[Jan]

There was NOTHING sinister in Jeremy asking about the orders in which the family died. His father would have already told him about any forthcoming complications that could exist,and to be prepared for the unexpected.

Somehow,the fact that Neville wasn't exactly overly generous towards the relatives as regards monies left,it was by no means any sort of a motive for Jeremy to have slain his family. Even if Neville had left everything to the church or dogs home,I still can't see that it would have given Jeremy cause to kill them all.

Imagine seeing a will where someone who was worth thousands,left but a couple of hundred,oh dear.
No wonder Jeremy was hated and detested.

I think it was Basil Cook who asked him to find out anyway . He was in and sorting all sorts of things very quickly.

[lookout]

I think it was Basil Cook who asked him to find out anyway . He was in and sorting all sorts of things very quickly.

They certainly didn't get very far.   Sorted too quickly it would have seemed seeing as AP was initially fleeced out of what should have been his.

[Patti]

Patti,where you state that the closest relative receives monies from the estate,refers to BLOOD relatives outside a husband and wifes' consideration. This is if it was intestacy. Millions of people must have got the shock of their lives when say,a sister dies,leaving the brother who's looked after her,but-----------because her elder brother had already died,his children would be the beneficiaries,enabling them to have half of the estate,the other half going to the surviving brother.

The language used is " per serpes " and " per capita ",which refers,as well to remaining siblings of the deceaseds' dead brother.
Why on earth it's so complicated,God only knows,but lots of people must have had a shock if a person dies without making a will,when the so-called next of kin naturally assumed that the money would go to them.

Even if the Bambers had died naturally,without leaving a will,the relatives WOULD and COULD have contested,regardless of Sheila and Jeremy being the siblings. Whether or not the relatives would have won the battle,remains to be seen.
Some bitter battles have been fought through the courts involving intestacy.

If the elder brother had died before the deceased then its their issue, issue being the children of the elder brother.  However, if that elder brother died after the deceased and left a will leaving his estate to his wife who is a none relative to the deceased then she will inherit and the elder brothers children will not.

In the Bamber case the problem was that the sole heir was convicted thus meaning that his right to claim from the estate became void. 

So the next step of probate was to determine who was next inline to inherit. In this case intestacy rules would have been applied. 

If Jeremy was not convicted he would have been the sole heir under the terms and conditions of the wills. If the wills were invalid under probate and intestacy rules,  Jeremy would only receive the first 250k the rest of the money would have been divided up between Pam and Nevile's next of kin.

Its very complicated. I had a case who was a cousin a very close cousin and she was the only surviving relative the deceased had. One would automatically think that she would be the sole heir to her cousins estate.  Not so. The complication was that although she was a cousin, her deceased cousin did not leave a will which meant that the rules of intestacy applied and ruled her out.  In the UK apart from the Duchy of Cornwall and Lancashire and Scotland you can only relate a relative going back to the grandparents and not the grandparents siblings. Sadly the cousin was a direct descendant to one of the grandparents siblings which ruled her out under those rules.  However, the living cousin could make a valid claim to court for a discretionary payment from the estate, but she does not want to bother, so the high value estate will go to the crown. 

[lookout]

 It is complicated Patti,and certainly not easy for those on the receiving end to understand fully,unless it's in plain English and not the jargon which is used by solicitors.

[lookout]

Because Sheila was the last one to die,and if that will, and all the legalities were in place,then it should have been left to her parents to inherit ?

[lebaleb]

If Jeremy had seen Neville's will he would realise that he didn't need to kill Sheila and the twins. Provided he kept on farming, Sheila's share would have been only 10,000 out of nearly half a million... peanuts.

[scipio_usmc]

Because Sheila was the last one to die,and if that will, and all the legalities were in place,then it should have been left to her parents to inherit ?

Sheila's biological parents would have no rights. In the eyes of the law her parents were June and Nevill.

Sheila's heirs would have been her kids.  If her kids could be established to have died after her then the inheritance would go to their heirs which means their father.

At the time of the murders it was custom with spouses to consider the older spouse to have died first if there is no evidence to establish which died first. That is what Basil COck did even though there was evidence to suggest June died before Nevill. That is why the parties settled with Nevill's family getting his estate and June's family getting hers, the court could have awarded Nevill's side everything if it held he died last.

Most wills include a provision which tells how long a beneficary must survive in order to inherit. I typically put 45 days in my wills. If a beneficiary dies within 45 days of the decedent then the will treats such person as predeceasing the decedent instead of passing to the beneficiary's estate.

So for example suppose 2 parents die and leave their estates to their 2 kids. If one dies within 30 days of his/her parents instead of his/her inheritance going to his/her spouse it would treat such child as dead and the inheritance would pass to his/her kids or grandkids or if he/she has no issue then the entire share would go to his/her sibling (or if the sibling is dead too then to the siblings issue)   

So what this does is ensures the money stays within the family. Only specific bequests will result in the contrary. It also means the order of deaths do not matter if their is a tragedy that kills a number of people but one survives a little longer.  Sometimes there can be a car accident or other multivictim tragedy where one victim will outlive the others by several days. The 45 day requirement will suffice to make sure that doesn't screw up things and result in something like Colin Caffell getting things through dead kids.

In the UK a law was passed after the WHF murders which in the case of intestacy requires a beneficiary to survive the decedent by 28 days or is treated as predeceasing the decedent.

So under modern law the order of deaths would not matter. Colin Caffell would not get anything even if the kids were killed last, Nevill's side would get his estate and June's side would get hers. So the result would have been the same as their settlement.

[Jane]

Because Sheila was the last one to die,and if that will, and all the legalities were in place,then it should have been left to her parents to inherit ?

Absolutely not, Lookout!!!! The biological parent/parents give up all legal rights to their child when they sign the adoption papers. Whilst I feel certain that you can't see it from my perspective, The thought that having given me away my biological mother would then be able to cash in on my untimely death is anathema to me.

[Jan]

"Sheila's heirs would have been her kids.  If her kids could be established to have died after her then the inheritance would go to their heirs which means their father."



Colin was very aware of that because he mentions in his book that he was worried he would be a suspect at times.

[Patti]

It was a very complex case and this is why it went to court.  No one could say who died last or who died first.

Under normal rules if the children died last then Colin would have inherited their share under a valid will. But, because the will became invalid due to the circumstances, it went to court.

Naturally the heirs would be Pam and the next of kin to Neville which would be AP and KP....If memory serves me right AP had to contest and was awarded his share in court for himself and his sister.

The soul living heir would have been Jeremy, but he would not have gained everything under the terms and conditions of the will...

It was and still is complicated.

Regarding adoption. When you have been adopted legally the birth parents have no rights.  The adopted children are equally entitled to inherit from the adopted parents as much as their boilogical children. If there is not proof of a legal adoption then that is different.