The Lemon Fool

staffordian wrote:As it was the daughter to whom the later probate was granted, I can quite easily imagine that perhaps a building society passbook or similar was unexpectedly unearthed, perhaps during a house move or clear out.

Presumably either because of the unusual circumstances or an overly officious policy, the organisation would not release funds without a further grant of probate.

I reckon that nice Mr Occam would agree with you there!

mc2fool wrote:

staffordian wrote:If a will is fully distributed, then four decades later a further bank account is found, could this explain a further grant of probate

Well, from a quick glance at some of the results thrown up by googling for assets found after probate the answer appears to be: probably.

I guess the most obvious way you're likely to find out the specifics behind the 47-years-later re-grant of probate is by coughing up for the Grants ... although those may still not contain any details. Still, it's only £1.50 each.....

Well, I have a copy of the document.

The relevant text is as follows:

Be it known that Cuthbert Hawley of Blythe Bridge Staffordshire who died there on the 29th day of April 1914 made and duly executed his last Will and Testament That on the 17th day of October 1914 Probate of the said Will was granted at the Principal Probate Registry to Martha Louise Hawley widow the relict of deceased and Ernest Hawley brother of deceased and James Barlow the executor named in the said Will - That the said James Barlow survived his co-executors and died on the 26th day of January 1950 intestate leaving part of the said deceased unadministered - That the said Martha Louisa Hawley was also the resuduary legatee and devisee for life named in the said Will
And it be further known that at the date hereunder written Letters of Administration with the Will (a copy whereof is hereunto annexed) of all the unadministered estate which by law devolves to and vests in the personal representative of the deceased were granted by the High Court of Justice at the Principal Probate Registry thereof to MARY ELIZABETH SCOTT ...* married woman one of the lawful children of the said deceased and as such having attained the age of twenty one years one of the residuary legatees and devisees substituted in the said Will

And it is hereby certified that an Inland Revenue affidavit has been delivered wherein it is shown that the gross value of the said unadministered estate in the United Kingdom (exclusive of what the deceased may have possessed of or entitled to as a trustee and not beneficially) amounts to £350-0-0 And it is further cerified that it appears by a certificate signed by an Inland Revenue officer on the said affidavit that £230-1-6 on account of estate duty and interest on such duty has been paid.
Dated the 26th day of April 1961

* I have omitted the address which was given.

So it confirms my belief (and brief research) that the daughter is the person involved forty seven years later, but as far as I can see it doesn't answer the key questions of what was discovered, and why it took so long to be discovered and/or dealt with i.e why the executor James Barlow left this unresolved.

Unless anyone else can read more than I can into the above?

staffordian wrote:The relevant text is as follows:

Gad ... don't solicitors have to go to primary school?!? That's where punctuation is normally taught, right?

staffordian wrote:...as far as I can see it doesn't answer the key questions of what was discovered...

This bit seems to refer to it. I take it the Letters of Administration weren't hereunto annexed?

"And it be further known that at the date hereunder written Letters of Administration with the Will (a copy whereof is hereunto annexed) of all the unadministered estate which by law devolves to and vests in the personal representative of the deceased were granted by the High Court of Justice at the Principal Probate Registry..."

Assuming not I presume official copies are available from ... somewhere?!?

So the estate duty and interest on the unadministered estate of £350 was £230 -- 66%. The moral of the story is don't leave it for 47 years!

mc2fool wrote:Gad ... don't solicitors have to go to primary school?!? That's where punctuation is normally taught, right?

and even today, as back then, why use a sentence when a long winded paragraph will do

pje16 wrote:

mc2fool wrote:Gad ... don't solicitors have to go to primary school?!? That's where punctuation is normally taught, right?

and even today, as back then, why use a sentence when a long winded paragraph will do

I think it is standard practice when writing legal documents not to use punctuation, because it increases the chances of ambiguity rather than reducing it.

@mc2fool no, nothing was attached, so there is no indication of the unadministered elements, and as the family is so far from my direct line*, I'm not looking any further.

Agreed about the duty, etc. I assumed the £350 was below the Death Duty (or whatever it was called then) threshold, so it was all interest. Or maybe it did attract duty based on the 1914 total...

Anyway, thanks for all the suggestions and advice.

I'm focussing on closer relatives now

* One of my great great grandmothers had "relations" with Cuthbert's grandfather resulting in the birth of my great grandfather. No marriage or formal relationship at all...

mc2fool wrote:So the estate duty and interest on the unadministered estate of £350 was £230 -- 66%.

But is that £230 tax on £350, 66%. Or £230 tax on £580 (£350 + £230), 40%?

Anyway, love the legal wording:

"the relict of deceased

the residuary legatee

devisee for life"


PS. OK "gross amount" was £350, so 66% tax.