Wills for civil partners not revoked on conversion: A new government regulation amends the Wills Act 1837 which states that marriage revokes all wills: in the case of a previously existing civil partnership, a same-sex marriage will not have the effect of revoking wills that were written whilst the couples were registered civil partners. This regulation will come into force in December 2014
Author: Burdett
Please Release Me, Let Me Go
Not sure about this: I think it is not a breach of confidence to confirm that a will exists, but it is definitely a breach of confidence to reveal anything of its terms.
O
ne of the recent debates on the Trust Discussion Forum has been about the circumstances in which a lasting, enduring, continuing power of attorney can properly be handed over. To whom does such a power of representation belong? When does ownership pass from the granter to the grantee? One solution can be to agree with the granter — at the time of the creation of the power — the circumstances when the power can be given to the grantee.
We do of course have similar problems with wills and other documents. In many civil-law jurisdictions, the original will is not released by the holding notary, but he produces an inheritance certificate based on it. In jurisdictions where executors or administrators are appointed, the will may well belong to these Personal Representatives (PRs) once the testator has died. Professionally, what information is it proper to release? Once we have seen…
View original post 222 more words
Golden, but tactless
Golden – but tactless.
If you are making radical changes to your will and you are of advanced years, or have a history of mental illness (which includes strokes and tumours), please do not be offended if your solicitor explains that they would like to consult your doctor.
The solicitor (and this includes members of the Society of Trusts and Estate Practitioners) is trying to do the best for you. This means that they are trying to make sure not only that your will is drafted following your instructions, and executed in accordance with the formalities, but that it will stand being tested at a later date.
People who are disappointed at being left out of a will do sometimes allege that the person making the will did not know what they were signing – this could mean literally – the person did not understand the English language, could not read through blindness or partial sight, or were deceived in putting their signature to the paper in front of them. Or it could mean a deeper sense of understanding – that the person signing the will did not have the necessary mental awareness to be able to make a will.
In such cases, the law states that the solicitor should obtain the professional opinion of a doctor that the person has testamentary capacity *at the time of giving instructions preferably* – and if they did not, the solicitor has to explain why not – and it is seen as a major blow to the will being proved if there is a reasonable doubt.
“ the Defendants have only themselves to blame for not having [the testatrix] assessed by a psycho-geriatrician in order to determine her capacity in May 2007. [He] accepted that he was aware of the golden rule for solicitors dealing with aged or seriously ill testators , viz. that it is best practice for the will to be witnessed or approved by a medical practitioner who ought to record his examination”
In the recent case of Catling –v- Catling, the judge was particularly scathing of the “professional” adviser (Mr Wallace) that assisted the late Mrs Catling in the preparation of her final will (executed in 2007).
In that case, Mrs Catling had ceased to use her solicitors of many years, who had prepared many previous wills for her. Those wills were very different from the last will that was presented to be proved. In earlier wills, Mrs Catling had treated her children equally. In the final will, she excluded all but her youngest child, Kevin.
The judgment does present many unhappy facts – it appears that Mrs Catling did make wills with her usual solicitor, but that he had found himself unable to continue to advise her because of the suggestion that she was being manipulated by Kevin and his wife, with whom she lived at the time of the will being made, Kevin’s wife being the main carer for Mrs Catling. Mrs Catling also made an Enduring Power of Attorney, which was registered in 2005 appointing that solicitor to be an attorney, but from which he retired, from a sense of being compromised.
It appears that the replacement for that solicitor was Mr Wallace. He was not legally qualified, having only completed a law degree and not completed any further training. He was also a trained builder and described himself as a student barrister – but it appears that Mrs Catling and her family believed him to be a barrister or solicitor and that their misunderstanding was not cleared up immediately. Mr Wallace had a set of terms of engagement that were onerous and not in Mrs Catling’s interest, and the will he drew up contained wide powers for him to charge fees for being her executor, and at the same time wide exclusions from liability and high charges for interest on unpaid bills.
Evidence given in the trial confirmed that once Mrs Catling had sold the house she lived in and moved to live with Kevin and his wife, the rest of the family were continually denied access to her – told that it was not a convenient time, or were unable to speak to her on the phone. This conduct had been raised with Social services,
The story transpires that Mr Wallace visited Mrs Catling between two and four times a week for about two years (that sort of attention is not necessary for making a will and quite unusual). He did spend time with Mrs Catling alone, but the instructions for a will appear to be sketchy, and show that Kevin was present at the time, and to have given subsequent instructions. Mr Wallace also appeared not to understand that there might be any impropriety in having Kevin present, or having Kevin give the instructions for the will. There appears to be no time at which Mr Wallace saw Mrs Catling independently of Kevin and attempted to ascertain her instructions. The time taken to complete the will from initial instructions to execution took some 16 months, which the judge found to be unreasonable, given Mrs Catling’s health and dementia (which may well have been apparent, since the Enduring Power of Attorney was registered in 2005 on her previous solicitor considering that she had lost or was losing the ability to look after her property and financial affairs)
A medical expert was appointed by the court to give evidence on whether Mrs Catling could have understood the earlier wills, made with solicitors, and whether she could have had the necessary mental awareness either at the time of giving instructions, or when executing the will. That expert drew upon as many sources of information as were available in order to come to his conclusion:
By May 2007 I consider that the testatrix was different from dementia of at least moderate degree. If the MMSE score of 4/26 elicited one or two months after she made the ~Will was a reflection of her cognitive state at the time she made her will, it is likely that she was severely demented and would, in my opinion probably not have fulfilled the Banks –v- Goodfellow test because she would have been unable to exercise judgment in assessing the competing moral claims of her eight children for her bounty. It is also probable that she would not have been able to appreciate the extent of her estate. However, it is also possible that delirium, contributed to the low MMSE score in June or early July 2007 and that her score might have been higher in May. I do not consider it safe to presume that the testatrix did have the capacity to make a will in May 2007. Nor do I think that she would have been able to recall that she was making a will drawn up on her previous instructions”
In his concluding words, the judge not only came to a decision on the mental capacity of the testatrix based on the expert evidence, but stated that “this conclusion is reinforced by the Defendant’s failure to follow the golden rule”
Section 9, Wills Act 1837
9 Signing and attestation of wills
No will shall be valid unless:
(a)it is in writing, and signed by the testator, or by some other person in his presence and by his direction; and
(b)it appears that the testator intended by his signature to give effect to the will; and
(c)the signature is made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time; and
(d)each witness either
(i)attests and signs the will; or
(ii)acknowledges his signature, in the presence of the testator (but not necessarily in the presence of any other witness),
but no form of attestation shall be necessary.]
Watts Fair – and what’s legal.
Watts Fair – and what’s legal.
The Inheritance Act Claim –v- the forgery
Watts-v- Watts [2014] EWHC 668 (Ch)
It’s been in the news recently – the Daily Mail and the Telegraph making reference to a daughter challenging her mother’s will so that she could receive a benefit – because the daughter was not working and her brother (who got everything under that will) alleging that she was waiting for her mother to die so she could pay off her debts. Christine Watts, (according to her brother’s barrister) has “done nothing to get a job” since 2005 because she expected to be rescued by a share of her mother’s £200,000 estate.
It sounds like another case of a hardworking son who did everything for his Mum, staying by her bedside through to the bitter end – and a daughter who was workshy – and just waiting for Mum to die, and not putting in the effort to get a job or to visit her mum.
|
However, reading the judgment of the case reveals that it is not as simple as this: what emerges is a story of considerable sadness, combined with a certain amount of greed and a casual approach to the law. It also transpires that the “deserving” son was in fact also receiving benefits – the judgment reports: Gary freely admitted to working only 16 hours per week ‘because’ that was the most he could do without losing his benefits
Mrs Valerie Watts (Valerie) had adopted two children – a daughter (Christine) and a son (Gary). She had made a will in 2009 and another will in 2011. In her 2009 will, she left her assets to be divided equally between the two. By 2011 she was very ill with terminal cancer. She made a will on her deathbed, leaving everything to Gary. The judge observed that Gary was, indeed, an attentive son, being present at the bedside.
Reading the judgment, the reader is transported back to the scene in the hospital and the way that it was described in court some years later. It appears that Valerie’s sister, Yvonne was asked to get a will from WH Smith and wrote the will for Valerie. Yvonne received nothing under the will and was one of the witnesses. Somewhere along the line, it was realised that Gary could not be a witness as well, and he went out to the nurses’ station and coerced one of the nurses into the room. Although the nurse made it clear that she was unable to witness wills or official documents, as she was not permitted to under the terms of her employment, she was assured that she would not get into trouble. She was not told that it was a will.
At no point whilst she was in the room did Valerie say anything at all, being in a drowsy state, capable of being roused if someone needed to speak to her. She was very clear that she did not witness Valerie sign the will or any document, but she did see Gary sign the document. She did not read the document before signing it. After Nurse Brown signed the document Gary thanked her and she left. She did not see Yvonne sign the document.
It is on the basis of who is most believable that the judgment of this case hangs – Are the formalities of the will signing complied with? – ie, did Valerie sign this will? The judge thought not, on the balance of what she heard.
I prefer Nurse Brown’s evidence to that of Gary on the question of what he told her at the nurses’ station. I accept that he did not ask her to come and witness his mum’s signature. I accept that he invited her into the room by saying that his mum needed something. Nurse Brown was not told that she was witnessing a will by Gary or, I find, by Yvonne. As a matter of law, this does not matter: Smith v Smith (1869) LR 1 P&D 143. I find that she did express her inability to sign any official document to Gary and Yvonne in Valerie’s room, and that she was reassured by Gary that what she was signing would not get her into any trouble. That is why she signed it. She was misled by Gary. Had she been told it was a will she would not have signed it, being a conscientious professional who would not knowingly disobey this important rule laid down by her employer. I find that she did not realise that it was a will until Gary visited her in St Thomas’ in October or November 2011. That visit was an attempt by Gary to influence what Nurse Brown would say
And then ruled that the earlier will would stand.
I have taken into account that it is entirely possible that on 12th January 2011 Valerie might well have wanted to change her will to cut out Christine. If that were indeed the case it is clearto me that neither Gary nor Yvonne would then have discouraged her, as in my judgment Gary had developed a sense of entitlement which he displayed in the witness box and Yvonne, who never got on with Christine, shared his view. Nor do I have to decide whether Valerie could not, at the last moment, bring herself to complete the act of cutting out her daughter or was physically too weak to sign. The decision which I have come to is primarily based on my assessment of the evidence given by the three witnesses of fact, and has taken into account my views of the respective strengths of the opinion evidence given by the expert witnesses.
There are two sides to most stories – and unlike the media, the judge was not impressed by the story of the son, to the extent that it would overlook forgery. The court was sensitive to the nature of the relationship between mother and daughter and to the daughter’s very real medical issues, not drawing the inference suggested by the media reporting during the trial.
This case, far from being about a grasping daughter who did little for her mother but waiting for her to die, is all about the actual legal formalities of signing a will and why they are there and need to be complied with – the real reason why there are two witnesses.
In the Matter of Buckley [2013]
Attorneys are expected to be aware of the law regarding their role and responsibilities. Ignorance is no excuse.
– a highly unsuitable investment and she broke almost every rule in the book in making it”
This is the case of the reptile breeding investments, if ever you needed something to remember it by, and was recently decided in the Court of Protection (Number 12228697) Click here for the full court transcript It concerns a lady who had made a Lasting Power of Attorney in her later years, appointing her niece C (her only living relative) to be her attorney. Miss Buckley had moved to a private nursing home, and was, at the time of the case, 81 years old and of fragile mental health.
The Office of the Public Guardian received a complaint about the way C was handling Miss Buckley’s finances, and it started an investigation. A Court Visitor went to see Miss Buckley. She made detailed impartial observations about the way Miss Buckley talked about C, and her account of matters that had occurred during her residence at the nursing home was corroborated. Although communication was difficult, there appeared to be a recognisable element of lucidity and it was apparently that Miss Buckley viewed her relationship with C as being one where C was only after her money, and where she didn’t trust her.
The Office of the Public Guardian applied to the Court for an order that the LPA be suspended, her accounts frozen, full accounts to be made up and for C to be prohibited from encashing any asset owned by Miss Buckley.
The OPG’s investigator summarised the facts as follows:
- Miss Buckley’s house had been sold for £279,000 in April 2011
- Between January 2011 and June 2012 C had used £72,000 of Miss Buckley’s money to set up a reptile breeding business
- C admitted that she had used at least £7650 of Miss Buckley’s capital for her own personal benefit
- At one stage there had been daily maximum cash withdrawals of £300 a day from Miss Buckley’s Nationwide account.
- The Nationwide had alerted Social Services in April 2012 and the Police interviewed Miss C in July 2012
- Miss Buckley may have incurred a loss of about £150,000
The legal issue that has been clarified by this case, to the extent that it was not covered by the earlier case of Re Harcourt (31 July 2012) is the responsibility of an attorney when investing the donor’s funds.
There are two common misconceptions when it comes to investments. The first is that attorneys acting under an LPA can do whatever they like with the donor’s funds. And the second is that attorneys can do whatever the donors could – or would – have done personally, if they had the capacity to manage their property and financial affairs. Managing your own money is one thing.
Managing someone else’s money is an entirely different matter.
The Master went on to declare that whilst an individual can choose to act unwisely, or not at all, stashing their money under the mattress, this was not something that an attorney could do.
Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) s1(5) an act done, or decision made [by an attorney], must be done or made in [the donor’s]best interests.
Before the MCA came into force, there was a separate investment branch of the Court of Protection who carefully considered the suitability of investments for each patient. They divided up investments into short term types and long term types, and assessed the type of asset against the investment requirement and suggested a strategy appropriate for that investment.
When considering the suitability of investments, the person’s age and life expectancy are considered to be the most important criteria. A person of over 80 at the time the court would be asked for investment assessment would be considered to have a life expectancy of less than five years, unless there was clear medical evidence to the contrary. As such, a short term code would be selected, depending on the amounts at stake.
The Master went on to state that
“generally speaking , attorneys acting under an LPA should ensure that any investment products or services they acquire on a donor’s behalf are provided by individuals or firms who are regulated by the Financial Services Authority.”
This means that part of the value of the investment will be covered under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.
I would suggest that, as they have fiduciary obligations that are similar to trustees, attorneys should comply with the provisions of the Trustee Act as regards the standard investment criteria and the requirement to obtain and consider proper advice. I would also recommend that attorneys and their financial advisers have regard to the criteria that were historically approved by the court and the antecedents of the OPG.
The master also reiterated the rule that investments should be made in the name of the donor, not that of the attorney, but that if it was not possible for the asset to be held in the name of the donor, that there must be a declaration of trust over the asset, documenting the true beneficial ownership. And that any loans of money to a member of the donor’s family should be (unless very small indeed) approved by the court, especially when it is in a case where there might be conflict between the attorney and the donor.
The Court therefore ordered that the LPA be revoked and cancelled, so that a deputy could be appointed. It was reported that the police had considered her conduct naïve but that no crime had been committed.
This case is one of the most important to come out of the Court of Protection in recent years as it clarifies many of the frequently asked questions and misconceptions. The Master went on to observe that the court’s authority should be sought in circumstances where it might appear as if the attorney’s own interests might conflict with those of the donor, in particular that:
- Attorneys should keep the donor’s money and property separate from their own or anyone else’s money
- Subject to a sensible de minimis exception, an application must be made to the court for an order under section 23 of the MCA 2005 in any of the following cases:
- Gifts that exceed the limited scope of the authority conferred on attorneys by section 12 MCA 2005
- Loans to the attorney or to members of the attorney’s family
- Any investment in the attorney’s own business
- Sales or purchases at an undervalue; and
- Any other transactions in which there is a conflict between the interests of the donor and the interests of the attorney
Solicitors are fat cats. They deserve to be undermined…
The reason I became a solicitor is nondescript and boring – it seemed like a good idea at the time. Frankly, I have become more cynical, but strangely more idealistic as I have grown older, and seen more. That strange principle, of what it means to be a professional, separates me from those whose only motive is to make money – with no overwhelming and overriding principle of responsibility.
Perhaps it is being a parent. Or perhaps it is having the knowledge that you are told so much in confidence, in complete trust, by people who are vulnerable by imparting such information, let alone by the circumstances that brought them to you. You are the last bastion of truth and honesty before the marketers get their way.
But we are also businesses – we no longer have a monopoly of being service providers. And I am told that this is because solicitors are fat cats (don’t make me choke, if I rented a house I would be on housing benefit and that would bring in more). And because solicitors are the establishment. Such establishment needs competition. Competition is good, competition makes us thrive.
Except, it is not a level playing field. There are some activities that are not restricted to solicitors only – activities like will writing and estate management – both of whom I would suggest do ask for a high level of trust and confidence not only in the skill concerned, but also in putting the customer first. There is a huge amount of regulation that a solicitors firm has to comply with, not only in relation to client money, but also in relation to good behaviour of the individuals (outside their working hours) and there is a standard by which they can be judged – even passing the standard by a very small amount does not mean you have come away looking good – being called to account in itself is potentially damaging, and something that most law firms will try to avoid.
All modern law work is about risk assessment for the solicitor – either risk of getting it wrong, risk of appearing not to do the right thing, risk of overcharging, risk of having a complaint made against you. And that’s all well and good – we should be kept on our toes. But… here’s the rub – not all people providing legal services are bound to the same standards. If you choose an unregulated body to do the work for you, then you may be in the unfortunate position that you cannot complain that the charges are too high (look in the small print of the glossy charges brochure) or that the service is too slow (who are you to say what is slow?) or that you think they have not done their best to sell your auntie’s house – they virtually gave it away – it was worth far more! or that they never kept you informed (after all, you are the one that gets the proceeds of the estate in the long run.
How is it that unregulated companies manage to sell their service in this way, calling themselves “almost solicitors” and yet are not obliged to abide by certain professional standards? Everyone from the establishment agrees on how to play fair, and makes an effort to give the customer the benefit of the doubt in all things, and yet…
Is it the pricing? Solicitors have been charging by the hour for a long time – because that is one of the ways of working out how long something will take – how much work you have to put in, means the fee is commensurate with the job concerned. Solicitors should give an indication of how much it is likely to be for each stage of the work – there is an estimate of costs for you.
Would customers prefer that every little detail is written down and added to the bill? So that they know the price of every single step? Having recently seen the third party disbursements brochure for a non regulated business, I can see all sorts of things that I just bundle into the price of doing the job. And consider them essential in order to do the correct job for the client. There is no way that I could cut the corner, then blame the client on the basis that “you didn’t want me to do that search, so I didn’t do it, and lo and behold, look at what a pile of mess you are in”. The search is an essential part of the transaction, without which you have not correctly advised. Interpretation of the search is my job, and advising on it.
What is it like for the customer? Do customer’s seriously like a contract that is followed by pages and pages of sub-costs for this that and the other? Trouble is – if you are paying for work from an unregulated body, you can’t complain anyway! How is that remotely fair for the public, who can’t be expected to know what sort of expenses are involved. If replacing the engine oil is a necessary part of my car service, as the current oil is drained to reach the part that needs replacing, am I happy with the thought that the service is £200, plus oil drainage fee, plus environmental disposal fee, plus 6 litres of fresh oil, plus an oil gauge testing fee? (you can tell I know absolutely nothing about how much oil is needed for a car… You might as well charge me the amount it will actually cost you, rather than adding on spurious details that make it seem like you had to do more…
*cough* This has turned into something of a rant. Partly because it seems so damn unfair – how does the public know what they are buying? And how do they know the difference between a regulated person and someone who is not? How do they have any idea of how vulnerable they are, if the service is not good, or the product is substandard? To whom do they turn? Just have a quick word with the Legal Ombudsman, as I did, and you will find that they cannot be turned to, if the will writer is not an “approved person”.
Being a solicitor is for me about trying (I am human, so I fail, hopefully not too often) to do the right thing, the legally correct thing, and to use the law to protect and serve the interests of those who do not know the law, but have other excellent reasons for needing assistance. When I come up against people whose main ethos is to make money and to push customers in at one end and relieve them of their money at the other end, without regard for the actual person, that offends me. I told you I have got more idealistic as I’ve had more experience…
Give Generously: why leave it to the taxman?
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a person with fortune must give some of that wealth to the government of the day. But it is not necessary to do so with every appearance of enjoyment, and it is not a moral obligation, but a legal one.
Death and Taxation are two of the great certainties. In the UK, we have a wealth tax that is calculated on the amount a person leaves when they die (Inheritance Tax). This is in addition to the wealth tax that a person pays when they dispose of an asset that has increased in value (Capital Gains Tax) the wealth tax that a person is in the process of acquiring (Income Tax) and the wealth tax paid on the transfer of a property (Stamp Duty).
It might almost seem as if the money that a person makes, saves, invests and then finally dies owning has been taxed two or three times over before it can be passed on to one’s family. The moral certainty about paying one’s fair dues can wear a little thin, in the circumstances.
If you are an individual and have assets exceeding £325,000, then there is a real possibility that you will be giving the taxman a large chunk of what you have worked hard for – everything over this amount will be taxed at 40%, unless it goes to an exempt person. The figure of £325,000 is not an arbitrary sum – it is the amount that an individual can leave at 0% tax, and has been set for the next three tax years.
Happily, there are some ways of lowering an inheritance tax bill. Essentially, the basic way to reduce the tax is to be poorer by the time you die. To spend so that there is less money, or give money whilst you still have many years to live, when your children can appreciate it. By the time you die, your children might be well into middle age, and perhaps may have got past the difficult years.
The very basic patterns for giving are permitted by legislation – an annual amount per donor of £3000, together with small gifts that can be given, and gifts out of surplus income. The one that people know best is the Potentially Exempt Transfer – this is where you give something away (completely, and do not keep any benefit from it) and if you survive that gift, it is out of your estate. You are thus poorer when you die. A direct gift is a potentially exempt transfer.
My uncle, now in his seventies, made a trust for the benefit of his children and grandchildren. That trust fund was set up a few years ago, and is the means of providing for not only his daughter (who is not quite married but not quite divorced), his disabled granddaughter but also his able sons and grandsons. By using the trust, he can retain control of the assets, to a certain extent, and make sure that the money is used in a way that truly benefits his grandchildren, rather than giving them too much money too young. This also indirectly benefits his adult children, who have their lives lifted slightly, by knowing that there are some reserves for school expenses when times are tough. And best of all, with luck, in a few more years, the amount put into the trust will have ceased to be counted as part of his estate planning strategy. This latter sort of giving is not potentially exempt – but if kept within a single 0% band, is effectively without any lifetime Inheritance Tax to pay.
This is not a complete list of all the ways in which you can reduce your inheritance tax liability, and if you are planning to give away a substantial sum to lessen the inheritance tax burden, you are best advised by a professional, to make sure that your objective is achieved. Your own situation is the most important to bear in mind, when giving, and your legal adviser can give a particular view based on your particular circumstances.
Auth comment: yes, this was written to be a small article. Now I look at it, I know it is not really a blog post. Soz.
What’s your reason?
Another look at the hobbyhorse – why don’t people make wills?
Is it:
Seriously – it gets easier to make a will once you have the first one out of the way. It somehow makes it into a chore and not full of existential angst. And it saves you from being caught up in the moment, and letting fate take control – like making a shopping list *before* you go to the supermarket.
What is a grant of probate?
A grant of probate is the word used to describe the process of confirming the right of named individuals to deal lawfully with the estate of a person who has died.
If a person has died leaving a will, then the people who are named as executors are those people entitled to take out the grant of probate. The authority of an executor to act stems from the will itself, and is confirmed by the grant of probate.
If the person has died without leaving a will, or has died leaving a will, but the executors have predeceased, then there is a statutory order of who is entitled to take out the grant of letters of administration. The authority of the administrators stems from the grant of letters of administration itself.
In order to pass through the process of the court, the executors, or prospective administrators must complete an oath, whereby they swear the extent of the estate, the full name and address of the person who has died, details of the deceased’s birth and death and age at death, together with any other names by which the deceased was known. The Personal Representatives also swear that the deceased was domiciled in England and Wales and that the will attached was the last known will of the deceased.
In addition to citing the basic facts, the PRs also state that the estate was of a certain value. They then go on to promise that they will deliver up to the court accounts of the estate if requested, will gather in and distribute the assets and pay the liabilities lawfully.
If the assets are relatively few, and Inheritance Tax does not need to be paid (and there are no complicating features of the estate), then the probate registry will accept a short Inland Revenue form citing the values of the items in the estate. If the value of the estate is high (or if there are complicating features) then the longer form needs to be filled in. This long form asks more detailed questions, but both documents need to be completed with a care for the detail that is appropriate – it is not enough to make an estimate of value if you are not making an effort – if in doubt, employ someone who can tell you how much that Meissen china or that Georgian silverware is worth. If your dad was into antiques, then get a valuation – if it is all reproduction, then perhaps it might not be a high value after all. If you are claiming a transferrable tax band, then you will also need to be able to show this on the relevant form – whether it is a short form that is appropriate or a long form.
So – you tell the Inland Revenue what the estate is worth, and pay the tax (or a proportion of the tax). You take the oath and swear (on the Bible, Koran, other religious text, or solemnly affirm) the oath saying you will do the right thing. And then submit the documents to the probate registry, who, in due course, send a grant of probate. Congratulations – the will has been proved, is now a document of public record, against which you can be held to account. You may now collect in the assets, pay debts, and deal with the estate according to the law. In the case of there being no will – your authority starts now, and you may collect in assets and enter into contracts on behalf of the estate (as opposed to in your own name).
Wills and the rest 