On May 7, 12:44 pm, Cynic wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008 12:03:50 -0700 (PDT), NealR2000
>
> wrote:
> >To clarify ...
> >I wasn't suggesting that the esate is entitled to any part of the
> >girlfriend/partner's house. I just wanted to emphasize that the
> >girlfriend was in no way financially dependent upon my brother.
> >The Will did not give any specifics with respect to assets left by my
> >brother. The estate is expected to be 200,000, consisting almost
> >entirely of bank savings. The two of them did have a relationship and
> >lived together, but they kept completely separate bank accounts.
> >No claim received yet, but I'm getting feedback from others that there
> >will be one.
>
> What does the solicitor say could be a basis for her claim? Unless
> she has a basis to make a claim it would get thrown out at the first
> hurdle without costing the estate any significant legal costs
> whatsoever.
>
> --
> Cynic
IANAL, but could she claim that a) they were living in her house,
owned outright by her, b) she permitted him to live there at no cost
to himself (other than perhaps bill-share), c) this domestic
arrangement allowed him to salt away nearly 200,000 ukp in savings, d)
they had an understanding that these savings were intended to
contribute to their mutual retirement plan, and therefore that she's
still entitled to her share of the pot?
If she did claim this, where would the burden of proof lie in terms of
establishing the facts (and any "understanding" she had with the
deceased)? What would be the standard of proof required? Would the
claim, if all assertions were substantiated as fact, succeed?
As I said, IANAL, but I'm quite interested in this and some of the
principles involved. (Please, indulge me, if you will :-) )
Cheers
Steve |