The Bamber Estate

[Nicholas]

Its an interesting and complicated subject this. That link goes by (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011. I don't know how much has changed since 1985.

Interstingly enough the forfeiture rule does not apply to the insane who kill relatives. If at first since it was accepted Sheila committed suicide after killing her parents and children. Whatever was intended for Sheila could in theory end up with Colin via the twins. Maybe that is what happened?

Caroline at Today at 12:42 PM »
"That's not what we were talking about. It is suggested that RWB et al had Jeremy framed to inherit. Problem with that is, is that it is complicated and even the solicitor didn't know and had to seek advice. This being the case, it is unlikely that RWB et al would have the first clue who would get the money and they could have ended up with nothing. So, not really a motive. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422166.html#msg422166

Caroline Today at 12:55 PM »
"They didn't consult a solicitor from day one Lookout - the idea that they framed Jeremy for the money falls flat because of the complications.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8845.msg422173.html#msg422173


The voice of reason - thanks for clearing that up Caroline

Now will SOMEONE please tell Bamber in order to bring an end to the continued abuse and harassment his surviving relatives have had to endure for over 3 decades

The smear campaign launched by Bamber in relation to these innocent people has been relentless

[david1819]

So the argument the relatives, police, JM and Uncle Tom Cobley were keen to establish order of death and/or twins predeceasing other victims to gain financially from the Bamber estate is WRONG.  It would be completely out of their hands and the laws of intestacy would prevail.

This is all based on the assumption that they were given sound and accurate advice. And whoever gave JM those details had their facts right (no pun intended)

By the looks of the things, even the person who they got advice from didn't know the answer.

[Nicholas]

This is all based on the assumption that they were given sound and accurate advice. And whoever gave JM those details had their facts right (no pun intended)

By the looks of the things, even the person who they got advice from didn't know the answer.

Can you list the times and dates JM is alleged to have been given any details by anyone other than Jeremy Bamber

[Holly Goodhead]

Maybe you should set us an example Holly

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8530.msg427897#msg427897

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8533.msg427780#msg427780

Your behaviour as moderator reflects on you Holly, they are YOUR actions

As I said previously as moderator I make the judgement calls on on/off topic.

Any action recently taken to edit/remove posts was done on the basis that I could not even see a tenuous link/off topic banter.

There's nothing preventing posters starting new threads providing threads/posts don't deviate from the rules on the home page.

[Holly Goodhead]

This is all based on the assumption that they were given sound and accurate advice. And whoever gave JM those details had their facts right (no pun intended)

By the looks of the things, even the person who they got advice from didn't know the answer.

Was the advice from solicitor Basil Cock?  What type of work did he practice in?

As you know I have experience and qualifications in this area.  Although I wouldn't regard myself as an 'expert' as such.

In terms of distributing the estate I don't believe the order of deaths is relevant.  The main beneficiaries of the wills all died: NB, June and SC.  JB lost his right to inherit due to his conviction.  Therefore the laws of intestacy kick in.  Had one twin or both survived then yes they would have been entitled to the full estate.

As the twins died the laws of intestacy move on to NB's nieces and nephews and June's mother.

Marple posted up thread the value of NB and June's individual estates.  I was surprised to see NB's was significantly greater?

Are the values net or gross?
NB had recently purchased some land in his name but this had a loan attached to it?
NB had fairly recently inherited from his mother but the renovation of a property had a loan attached?
June was a 42% shareholder in OCP.  NB didn't own any shares.

I think arguments between the Boutflours/Eatons v Pargeter/Wood revolved around who was entitled to what.

If NB and June had a joint life first life assurance policy this would require order of death but asfaik the only life assurance policy was 10k on June's life covering a mortgage on the Maida Vale flat. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Just to reiterate given June's mother's circumstances: age, health, financial status I can see solicitors etc advising a 'deed of variation' hence it filtered down to the Boutflours/Eatons.

The natural order: June's mother (Mrs Speakman) PB, June's surviving nieces/nephews: AE, DB.

I think PB said she didn't want to benefit financially.  Given she was most likely to be the main (sole) beneficiary of her mother's estate post June's death then I can understand the decision to filter down further to AE/DB perhaps using a further deed of variation.

I don't see anything untoward here. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Its an interesting and complicated subject this. That link goes by (Forfeiture Rule and Law of Succession) Act 2011. I don't know how much has changed since 1985.

Interstingly enough the forfeiture rule does not apply to the insane who kill relatives. If at first since it was accepted Sheila committed suicide after killing her parents and children. Whatever was intended for Sheila could in theory end up with Colin via the twins. Maybe that is what happened?

I'm pretty sure my explanation is correct which also ties in with what actually happened.

If I remember correctly from my training at one time caps existed under intestacy rules.  I can't recall the monetary amounts but it was something like 250k max per child thereafter 125k max per grandchild and the it filtered down with the amounts reducing per relatives removed.  I think there was a max cap with the excess going to the Crown.  (Music to the ears of the champagne socialists on Blue.

Think about it logically what is a will?  A bit of paper setting out what you want to happen when you die.  NB and June did this and it was entirely in keeping with what most people do: spouse to spouse and then children in equal shares or there abouts.  In this case all the main beneficiaries died and JB forfeited his right to inherit.  Effectively they died intestate and therefore the state decides/intestacy laws kick in.

I've explained why I think it filtered down to AE/DB from MS and PB. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Was the advice from solicitor Basil Cock?  What type of work did he practice in?

As you know I have experience and qualifications in this area.  Although I wouldn't regard myself as an 'expert' as such.

In terms of distributing the estate I don't believe the order of deaths is relevant.  The main beneficiaries of the wills all died: NB, June and SC.  JB lost his right to inherit due to his conviction.  Therefore the laws of intestacy kick in.  Had one twin or both survived then yes they would have been entitled to the full estate.

As the twins died the laws of intestacy move on to NB's nieces and nephews and June's mother.

Marple posted up thread the value of NB and June's individual estates.  I was surprised to see NB's was significantly greater?

Are the values net or gross?
NB had recently purchased some land in his name but this had a loan attached to it?
NB had fairly recently inherited from his mother but the renovation of a property had a loan attached?
June was a 42% shareholder in OCP.  NB didn't own any shares.

I think arguments between the Boutflours/Eatons v Pargeter/Wood revolved around who was entitled to what.

If NB and June had a joint life first life assurance policy this would require order of death but asfaik the only life assurance policy was 10k on June's life covering a mortgage on the Maida Vale flat.

Basil Cock was the accountant.  I don't know who the solicitor was.  I thought when JB went for his visit on 8th ? Aug he was asked the question about order of deaths? 

[Nicholas]

Basil Cock was the accountant.  I don't know who the solicitor was.  I thought when JB went for his visit on 8th ? Aug he was asked the question about order of deaths?

You'd think Bamber would be too traumatised to think about money and order of deaths at this point

Why didn't he post pone this for a later date and why take along JM - didn't he claim their relationship had been over for some time?

Was he pissed as in drunk around this time? I ask because in his 14 page letter to the Daily Mail he suggests he turned to alcohol

[John]

Does anyone know who Nevill and June's executor(s) was(were)?

[Holly Goodhead]

Does anyone know who Nevill and June's executor(s) was(were)?

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to. 

[John]

That's a good question that I don't know the answer to.

Could it have been that June's executor was her sister Pam and Nevill's was June and that Jeremy Bamber only came to be dealing with the lawyer by virtue of the fact that he was their next of kin?  Scipio probably knows the answer to this.

[Holly Goodhead]

Could it have been that June's executor was her sister Pam and Nevill's was June and that Jeremy Bamber only came to be dealing with the lawyer by virtue of the fact that he was their next of kin?  Scipio probably knows the answer to this.

I think Basil Cock, accountant, may have been an executor.  This probably explains why he was at WHF on 10th Aug and wanted farm sec, BW, present.

Why do I always think of Basil Brush when I read Basil Cock?!  Is there some fallacy about a fox tail?! 

[Holly Goodhead]

Actually thinking about this further the whole thing must have gone on hold until a verdict was reached by which time June's mother, Mable Speakman, had passed away?  With June deceased then I'm assuming the bulk of MS's estate passed to PB.  PB was unlikely to want further assets in her estate to add to an ever increasing inheritance tax liability.  Also I think she said she didn't want to benefit, financially, from the tragedy.  Therefore I think a deed of variation was drawn up to pass to AE/DB. 

I feel quite confident I'm right on this. 

I don't think order of deaths played any part here.  I think any court would consider NB and June effectively died intestate and the laws of intestacy prevailed with a deed of variation as above. 

Wills can always be contested but I can't see any court ruling NB's estate should go to June's side of the family or vice versa.  It might have been different if anyone was dependent on the Bambers financially eg children or elderly relatives but this wasn't the case here.  No one was dependent on them. 

Why would a court rule all assets should go to one side of the family over the other?  The Bambers had been married some 35 years?  I think a court would view their assets much the same as a divorcing couple.  In fact the wills set out their assets. 

[Holly Goodhead]

Think I've finally nailed this now!

The commorientes rule would apply "for the purposes of determining title to property".  Meaning June's estate passes to NB's (NB is deemed to have survived June by virtue of age).  NB's estate would then be administered eg debts repaid , taxes collected etc.  The net estate would then be distributed in accordance with NB and June's wishes ie SC/JB.  With SC deceased and JB forfeiting his right to inherit effectively the Bambers died intestate.  However the commorientes rule doesn't apply to the intestacy rules ie in this case the entire Bamber estate was placed in NB's estate but this doesn't mean NB's next of kin ie AP/JW have full entitlement. 

This is obviously an unusual case and if the two sides were unable to agree to a 50:50 split then I'm pretty sure a court would decide this for them! 

The idea that the order of deaths pertaining to twins/SC has any relevance is wrong.  It has no bearing whatsoever.  By the time the estate was ready for distributing to the beneficiaries SC was deceased.  The idea CC had any entitlement is also completely wrong.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/2-383-4021?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)