Probate/In Trust Bank Accounts?

Hi all

I'm not sure if this should be posted here or in Banking?

Scenario: A relative (1) opened a new Building Society account for a family member (2), 20 years ago.

The account was in both persons names and the monies in account is "held in trust" by person 1 until person 2 reaches adult age.

At the time person (1) opening the account sent the Account Book to the benefactors (person 2) parents for safe keeping.

Person (1) passed away 3 years ago.

Family person (2) reaches age of 21, and parents give Account Book.

Building Society is contacted to ask how to access monies in account.

Building Society advises that the account has been closed and suggested that the Solicitors who managed the Probate process should be contacted. Probate for person (1) has been settled for 2 years.

Any advice?

Thanks

coylemj

The building society is effectively telling you that the solicitor who executed probate for person 1 withdrew the money. That money will have been distributed according to the provisions of the will.

What you chose to do next will probably depend on how much money is involved. But you may have run out of time to take a case against the executor.

Thanks Coylemj.

I won't be making an issue out of it at all, not worth it. I had just told the benefactor that they were in for a good few quid, so I'll be footing that bill myself, willingly.

I was also interested in the "In Trust Joint Account".

Is there no legal entitlement or protection for the person for whom the money was held in an account in joint names? From a banking point of view, that seems strange/unfair?

Thanks again

ohnonotgmail

quick explanation here that might be useful.

http://www.thomaswenright.ie/blog/what-happens-to-a-joint-account-when-one-of-the-co-owners-dies

Many thanks. Good to see that there is a clear procedure for the event.

I'd say if I wished to challenge the situation this is what I'd be basing it on, (see below) if time still allowed, but I wont be chasing it up. But good to know. its been a costly learning experience.

The account book sat in my office drawer for 20 years, so its disappointment as well. If I'd have known about it at the time of the death, I would have made it known to the executors, but it totally inappropriate to flag it up now. Its only money.


1. If there is clear evidence that the account was put into joint names with the intention of making a gift to the surviving co-owner, then the surviving co-owner will be entitled to the funds.

Marcusm

Adrienne Gifted Pacemaker wrote: »

Many thanks. Good to see that there is a clear procedure for the event.

I'd say if I wished to challenge the situation this is what I'd be basing it on, (see below) if time still allowed, but I wont be chasing it up. But good to know. its been a costly learning experience.

The account book sat in my office drawer for 20 years, so its disappointment as well. If I'd have known about it at the time of the death, I would have made it known to the executors, but it totally inappropriate to flag it up now. Its only money.


1. If there is clear evidence that the account was put into joint names with the intention of making a gift to the surviving co-owner, then the surviving co-owner will be entitled to the funds.

The financial institution is potentially at fault and you should take it up formally via their procedures. If it is clear that the account was in joint names then they should not have released the funds to the personal representatives of only one of the account holders without making reasonable attempts to trace the names account holder. The bank has an obligation to each account holder which stands independent of any involvement if the executor/solicitor of the deceased person.

Do you have sufficient documentary evidence to establish that the account was in joint names. If yes then I recommend that the names person, who is presumably now an adult, make contact with the bank seeking the funds. If they were withdrawn prior to the death of the other account holder I suspect there will be no recourse. If released subsequently then that is not the bank discharging its obligation to its customer. No point in being at a loss if unnecessary.

Thanks for that Marcusm:

I appreciate your advice (and Coylemj's and ohnonotgmail) so just letting you guys know the current situation:

I checked with the branch that held the account:

The savings account had a unique and separate account number and sort code.

On the pass book the account was named as:

Name(s)

Miss ****** ****** ******

IN RE OF Miss ******* *******

So the Building Society advise that there was only one name on the account and when it was handed over to Solicitors handling the Probate, only one name would have been given/shown on account details.

I think its unfortunate thats the way that the account was set up, but it looks like a done deal. And I'm happy enough to get clarification on that.

Thanks again for your help.

Marcusm

Adrienne Gifted Pacemaker wrote: »

Thanks for that Marcusm:

I appreciate your advice (and Coylemj's and ohnonotgmail) so just letting you guys know the current situation:

I checked with the branch that held the account:

The savings account had a unique and separate account number and sort code.

On the pass book the account was named as:

Name(s)

Miss ****** ****** ******

IN RE OF Miss ******* *******

So the Building Society advise that there was only one name on the account and when it was handed over to Solicitors handling the Probate, only one name would have been given/shown on account details.

I think its unfortunate thats the way that the account was set up, but it looks like a done deal. And I'm happy enough to get clarification on that.

Thanks again for your help.

You have “Miss” as the ante-nominal in both cases but have different numbers of blanked out words. We’re those names different, if they were the bank was clearly on notice as to the various interests in the account and seems to have failed to pass these on to the solicitor which would, I expect, be a breach of its duty to the account holders. Ie the bank should be pressed to reimburse. It’s not the account holders fault if the bank has failed to include the endorsement “in re Miss xxx” on its computer records as well as the passbook.

Many thanks MarcusM.

Yes, totally different names and different surnames. Although both surnames are close family names.

The second name is both my surname and my daughters surname.

Your advice makes perfect sense and its would be what I would have expected as common sense, standard practice.

I will contact them in writing along the lines you have suggested and see how they respond.

I'm absolutely confident that if the Executor of the will had any idea of our joints aunts intentions that they would have been carried out, so it's very unfortunate that the Bank appear to not have made the arrangements for that to be made clear.

Many thanks for your very helpful advice.