When a couple divorce and financial arrangements have to be sorted out, there are occasions when the court may decide that assets not owned by the divorcing couple should be taken into account.

In a recent case, a couple with three children divorced after 20 years of marriage. They had enjoyed a high standard of living, which was largely funded by a trust of which the husband was a beneficiary. The trust had been set up by the husband’s father, who is extremely wealthy. Following the break-up of the marriage, the man’s father claimed that no future gifts would be given to his son and that the prior gifts had been for business purposes.

However, the High Court considered that the gifts and loans to the man were not made for business purposes and the evidence given in that regard had not been full and frank. The wife was awarded a capital sum of £3 million, to purchase a house for herself, and periodical payments totalling £3.25 million, leaving the husband with his trust interests intact and personal assets of £1.6 million.

Peter Sellers, the comic actor known for his roles in Doctor Strangelove and The Pink Panther, may have tried to change his will just hours before he died, according to legal document found recently. The letter suggests that Sellers tried to stop his fortune passing to his fourth wife, Lynne Frederick, just before his fatal heart attack in 1980.

However, as the papers were never made official, Ms Frederick inherited the majority of the actor’s wealth, while his children received token amounts. “This document is exceptional on two fronts,” said Auctioneer Henry Aldridge and Son of Devises, which sold the document at the weekend.

“One, that it was the very last item ever to be signed by Peter, and two, because his daughter Victoria was left just £800 in his will.” If the letter had been known about, the auction house went on to say, Victoria Sellers would have inherited £200,000 on her 21st birthday.

Source: http://www.bpcollins.co.uk/wills-trusts–probate-legal-document-reveals-sellers-tried-to-change-will-438018197-19900419.php

People who stay in education for longer appear to be better able to compensate for the effects of dementia on the brain, a study suggests.

A UK and Finnish team found those with more education were as likely to show the signs of dementia in their brains at death as those with less. But they were less likely to have displayed symptoms during their lifetime, the study in Brain said. Experts said scientists now had to find out why the effect occurred.

Over the past decade, studies on dementia have consistently shown that the more time you spend in education, the lower the risk of dementia. Post-mortems showed the pathology – signs of disease – in the brains of people with and without long educations were at similar levels. But the researchers found those with more education are better able to compensate for the effects of the condition.

It also showed that, for each year spent in education, there was an 11% decreased risk of developing dementia. Dr Hannah Keage of the University of Cambridge, who co-authored the study, said: “Previous research has shown that there is not a one-to-one relationship between being diagnosed with dementia during life and changes seen in the brain at death.

“One person may show lots of pathology in their brain while another shows very little, yet both may have had dementia. “Our study shows education in early life appears to enable some people to cope with a lot of changes in their brain before showing dementia symptoms.”

The researchers used data from the Eclipse collaboration, which combines the three European population-based longitudinal studies of ageing from the UK and Finland which have assessed people for up to 20 years. Professor Carol Brayne, who led the study, said: “Education is known to be good for population health and equity.

“This study provides strong support for investment in early life factors which should have an impact on society and the whole lifespan. ”This is hugely relevant to policy decisions about the importance of resource allocation between health and education.”

Ruth Sutherland, chief executive of the Alzheimer’s Society, said: “This is the largest study ever to confirm that hitting the books could help you fight the symptoms of dementia in later life. What we don’t know is why a longer education is so good for you.

“It could be that the types of people who study longer have large brains which adapt better to changes associated with dementia.

“Another reason could be that educated people find ways of managing or hiding their symptoms.”

She added: “We now need more research to find out why an education can make the brain more ‘dementia resistant’. Until then the message appears to be stay in school.”

Rebecca Wood, chief executive of the Alzheimer’s Research Trust, added: “During dementia, proteins build up in the brain and nerve cells become damaged. This research suggests that education is not able to stop the damage but enables the brain to cope better and alleviate its impact. ”

Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10741274

Following a series of cases involving unqualified will writers, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has announced that it has approved a Code of Practice which will apply to members of the Institute of Professional Will Writers (IPW).

The code of practice will apply to the 190 members of the IPW. Whilst the code of practice is to be welcomed, it should be remembered that 80 per cent of will writers are not members of the IPW. Will writers are not subject to compulsory regulation and the market is awash with organisations and individuals offering will-writing services who have no relevant qualifications or proven competence. The code of practice requires IPW members to pass tests of competence, to protect customers’ deposits in the event that they are unable to provide the promised service and to provide an independent redress scheme.

Regrettably, the Government has not stepped in to prohibit the preparation of wills by unqualified will writers and there is as yet no legal requirement for any will writer (including those who are members of the IPW scheme) to be covered by comprehensive indemnity insurance for their clients’ protection. Solicitors who undertake this work have passed stringent academic and professional examinations and undergone rigorous professional training, and are also required to have professional indemnity insurance. Problems with the services provided by will writers have abounded in recent years, with complaints of wills being lost and errors in drafting being regrettably common. Recently a will writer was convicted of stealing £80,000 from an estate of which he was the executor.

Following a series of cases involving unqualified will writers, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) has announced that it has approved a Code of Practice which will apply to members of the Institute of Professional Will Writers (IPW). The code of practice will apply to the 190 members of the IPW. Whilst the code of practice is to be welcomed, it should be remembered that 80 per cent of will writers are not members of the IPW. Will writers are not subject to compulsory regulation and the market is awash with organisations and individuals offering will-writing services who have no relevant qualifications or proven competence.

The code of practice requires IPW members to pass tests of competence, to protect customers’ deposits in the event that they are unable to provide the promised service and to provide an independent redress scheme.
Regrettably, the Government has not stepped in to prohibit the preparation of wills by unqualified will writers and there is as yet no legal requirement for any will writer (including those who are members of the IPW scheme) to be covered by comprehensive indemnity insurance for their clients’ protection. Solicitors who undertake this work have passed stringent academic and professional examinations and undergone rigorous professional training, and are also required to have professional indemnity insurance.

Problems with the services provided by will writers have abounded in recent years, with complaints of wills being lost and errors in drafting being regrettably common. Recently a will writer was convicted of stealing £80,000 from an estate of which he was the executor.

Source: http://www.lockharts.co.uk/site/library/legalnews/OFT_will_writers_code_of_practice_a_welcome_first_step.html

The government was accused today of performing a U-turn on one of the most explosive issues of the general election when the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, left open the option of a “death tax” to fund long-term care for the elderly. Only months after waging a Tory poster campaign against the Labour plan, Lansley established a new independent commission that will be free to examine compulsory funding of long-term care. He is already under fire for abandoning commitments in the coalition agreement after he abolished primary care trusts.

Andy Burnham, the shadow health secretary, said: “Today’s announcement is yet another example of the Tories changing their tune only weeks after the election. When I called cross-party talks [as health secretary], Mr Lansley refused to attend unless a compulsory option was taken off the table. He even produced crass posters with gravestones to make his point. Now he is giving this commission free rein to look at compulsory options.” Lansley announced that the economist Andrew Dilnot would chair a commission on the funding of care and support that will report within a year. A Department of Health spokesman confirmed that the commission would be free to examine a variety of funding options.

“The commission will look at both voluntary insurance schemes and partnership models of funding,” the spokesman said. “We do not wish to constrain the commission from considering other options, such as compulsory schemes. It is important that the commission has the space to rigorously consider this complex social policy issue in full.” Lansley told the Commons health select committee: “I am not seeking to fetter [the commission]. We are looking at a partnership model to the extent that a publicly funded public care service is consistent with the fiscal framework. [The commission] will look at insurance and partnership models and [others] in previous green papers.”

Lansley said the commission was “fully aware” of the Tory manifesto proposal for an £8,000 voluntary insurance model to cover residential care costs. His remarks, the terms of reference for the commission and the coalition agreement indicate that the government’s preference is for a voluntary insurance scheme and a partnership funding scheme. The coalition agreement cited a partnership scheme, recommended by the banker Derek Wanless in a report for the King’s Fund in 2006, which concluded that “almost everyone” would make a contribution. Wanless said a minimum level of care would be provided free. For more care, people would make contributions that would be matched by the state up to a limit, with those on low incomes supported through benefits. The scheme would not involve means testing.

“Almost everyone makes some form of contribution, however modest, in the partnership model. This puts important incentives in place for people to save to provide for their needs in older age.” But Wanless warned: “Compared with means testing, partnership is not as progressive in that it reduces the differential between what poorer people pay and what better-off people pay. Wealthier people would pay less than under means testing and so the state would be contributing towards the cost of care for some people who could afford care themselves.” The existing system is heavily means tested, with councils containing demand by restricting access to people if they have savings or assets of £23,000 or more. By 2006, fewer households were receiving supported home care than in 1997, and fewer older people got publicly funded care at home than did in 2003.

The commission has to produce a system for England able to cope with an expected extra 1.7 million people needing care over the next 20 years, partly due to the ageing population ageing, with the number of people over 85 expected to double by 2026. Lansley said: “We know that one in five 65-year-olds today will need care costing more than £50,000. The answer is clear – we must develop a funding system for adult care and support that offers choice, is fair, value for money and is sustainable for the public finances in the long term.” A No 10 source said: “The prime minister and health secretary are absolutely clear that they do not support a death tax Their views have not changed.”

Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/20/conservatives-deny-death-tax-uturn

It is best to leave the definition of probate to Her Majesty’s Courts Service to here goes…

When a person dies somebody has to deal with their estate (money property and possessions left) by collecting in all the money, paying any debts and distributing what is left to those people entitled to it. Probate is the court’s authority; given to a person or persons to administer a deceased person’s estate and the document issued by the Probate Service is called a Grant of Representation. This document is usually required by the asset holders as proof to show the correct person or persons have the Probate Service’s authority to administer a deceased person’s estate.

Is a grant needed in all cases?

No – It may not be necessary to obtain a grant:

Where a home is held in joint names and is passing by survivorship to the other joint owner.

Where a joint bank or building society account is held, production of a death certificate may be sufficient for the monies to be transferred to the joint holder.

Certain institutions may release monies without a grant being produced if the amount held by the deceased was small. Apply to the institution to see if they will release monies without a grant.

If the above circumstances do not apply or if the institutions concerned inform you that a grant of probate is, or letters of administration are, required you can choose to contact a solicitor who will arrange this for you.

For consumers the advent of “Tesco Law” with the promise of low or fixed fee legal services may be a welcome relief.  This is especially so in an environment where consumers seek value for money, but how do you measure value?  Solicitors and Barristers have for many years charged their time at a set hourly rate.

Recently the Master of the Rolls predicted that Tesco Law would remove from the market place the “billable hour” and replace it with fixed fees.  Any lawyer who has worked with fixed fees will know that this does not automatically mean low fees.  What consumers are acquiring is a great deal of expertise backed with years of education and continuous training in order to provide the commodity that they seek.

Tesco are clearly experts in the field of providing mass products at low prices but anybody who thinks that a legal service is akin to a can of beans is in for a shock.

The only way that low or discounted fixed fees are going to come about is by the services to which they relate being provided by lesser qualified individuals.  The Legal Services Act 2007 will do little I suspect in providing the safeguards around ‘non-law firms’ to ensure quality of products, which standards lawyers have had to aspire to under the Code of Conduct 2007 and its predecessor.

The only saving grace for traditional law firms with the dawn of ‘Tesco Law’ is the potential to ultimately market for mass Professional Negligence claims against the providers of volume, remotely accessed legal services at low prices.  Such suppliers, in trying to produce these services cheaply, may do so as a consequence without sufficient regard for quality. That quality having been achieved traditionally by reason of the work being done at reasonable hourly rates, reflecting the many years expertise and qualification which apply to such areas of work.

Ask any law firm who have had to advise families whose deceased relatives have used certain ‘Will writing companies’ only to discover that the Wills are negligently drafted or the companies no longer exist and didn’t carry Professional indemnity insurance.

There is a well known and perhaps suitable adage to be applied in this context that you only get what you pay for; let’s hope that consumers are more discerning about the acquisition of legal services than they are cans of beans.

Nick Hall
Keith Park Solicitors