StivH wrote:
> 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 :-) )
The burden of proof would be on her, and given that the couple seemed to
have led an independent financial existence albeit cohabiting I would think
she would have great difficulty in doing. Of course nothing is certain in
this field which is why there are so many legal actions but after the
Mills/McCartney case one suspects the judiciary are not to impressed with
gold diggers. In any case we have no idea what the estate is made up of and
assuming that it is what you say would be quite wrong.
Peter Crosland
|