Inheritance being asked to be paid back after 5 years

That's a sad case and sorry to hear that. I presume the friend does not have the capacity to honour the AIB debt or make restitution to ye
 
There is obviously a moral issue around mistakes in wills. When my mother died my elder brother acted as executor and quickly sold our family home and distributed the proceeds among the 5 of us. Shortly after we received the money AIB made a claim on our mother's estate for €200,000 relating to a personal guarantee that she had given on behalf a very good friend back in 2002. We were shocked, angry and so upset about the guarantee, which my mother had never told anyone about. There was no mention of it in the papers that my brother went through. We took legal advice on it, and the solicitors advice was that it was validly given. The only good thing about it was that we had not yet spent the money which we had received. We could not let our brother, who had acted in good faith, become personally liable for the €200,000, so we all paid back €50,000 each. The guarantee will always rankle me.

I'm not dishonest or a bad person but if I had been given the money along with my other siblings I personally would find it very difficult to give it back and so would all of my siblings. What could they do about it?
 
I'm not dishonest or a bad person but if I had been given the money along with my other siblings I personally would find it very difficult to give it back and so would all of my siblings. What could they do about it?

As per the post, they could go after the Executor (who was a sibling).
 
When my mother died my elder brother acted as executor and quickly sold our family home and distributed the proceeds among the 5 of us. Shortly after we received the money AIB made a claim on our mother's estate for €200,000 relating to a personal guarantee that she had given on behalf a very good friend back in 2002. We were shocked, angry and so upset about the guarantee, which my mother had never told anyone about. There was no mention of it in the papers that my brother went through. We took legal advice on it, and the solicitors advice was that it was validly given. The guarantee will always rankle me.
This is a bit of a shocker, and is there anything an executor can do to protect themselves from such events, e.g. a debt, such as a personal guarantee, arising years after probate has been granted? I've acted as a executor twice. The Law Society's Administration of Estates document says that an executor's duties include 'Finding out what debts have to be paid', but does not go into further details. I would think most executors take this is to include bank debts, mortgages, liens, taxation and related, etc. but a personal guarantee? I've since read that an executor should publish a creditor's notice asking for creditors to present details of claims against the estate, but nobody I know who acted as an executor has published such a notice. Is this a legal requirement or just good practice? And if there is no response to a creditor's notice can creditors just turn up years later and claim against the estate or the executor?
 
As per the post, they could go after the Executor (who was a sibling).

I know that but he could have spent the money or whatever, had nothing in his name of value and the other siblings likewise. Seems to me that giving back something like this in a very mannerly and civic way is not the proper way to go about it and just felt there's other avenues one could use.
 
You should get legal advice; however I am reasonably sure that the beneficiaries and the executor can claim that the debt is statute barred.

Banks have 2 years after date of death to file a claim for repayment.

I'd challenged the claim coming in this late.
 
I know that but he could have spent the money or whatever, had nothing in his name of value and the other siblings likewise. Seems to me that giving back something like this in a very mannerly and civic way is not the proper way to go about it and just felt there's other avenues one could use.

Eh, not at all. Giving the cash back is the normal and moral thing to do. If they hadn't, the Executor would be on the hook personally for the error.
 
Eh, not at all. Giving the cash back is the normal and moral thing to do. If they hadn't, the Executor would be on the hook personally for the error.

We've all read the original post and understand what might happen. Sometimes trying to impose one's own morals on a situation just doesn't cut ice, this is one of those times. Thanks for telling us what's normal and moral for you, it's not for everyone though.
 
We've all read the original post and understand what might happen. Sometimes trying to impose one's own morals on a situation just doesn't cut ice, this is one of those times. Thanks for telling us what's normal and moral for you, it's not for everyone though.

There is such a thing as "objective morality". Not my moral code or yours, a general code of what's right and wrong. You for example may think that it would be okay to keep money that's accidentally transferred into your account. Objective morality would say otherwise.
 
There is such a thing as "objective morality". Not my moral code or yours, a general code of what's right and wrong. You for example may think that it would be okay to keep money that's accidentally transferred into your account. Objective morality would say otherwise.

Gordon that is just your understanding of what is objective morality.

The point about relativism is not that there is no such thing as objective morality, but that there are only subjective, and changing, views of that objective morality.
 
There is such a thing as "objective morality". Not my moral code or yours, a general code of what's right and wrong. You for example may think that it would be okay to keep money that's accidentally transferred into your account. Objective morality would say otherwise.

This "objective morality" guy can say whatever he wants, but i'll go with my own conscience on this particular one. Hope that's ok and you have no problem with it. You carry on with your guy, i've no problem at all with that.
 
I'm not dishonest or a bad person but if I had been given the money along with my other siblings I personally would find it very difficult to give it back and so would all of my siblings. What could they do about it?

You are missing the point here.

My siblings and I were very angry about the guarantee that my mother had given to AIB. We did find it difficult to have to hand the money back, but it was the correct moral thing to do, as it would have been immoral and unjust for my brother to be stuck with the whole liability.

If you were in a similar situation would your conscience allow you to let your brother pick up the full liability?
 
Last edited:
You are missing the point here.

My siblings and I were very angry about the guarantee that my mother had given to Bank of Ireland. We did find it difficult to have to hand the money back, but it was the correct moral thing to do, as it would have been immoral and unjust for my brother to be stuck with the whole liability.

If you were in a similar situation would your conscience allow you to let your brother pick up the full liability?

In my opinion, you did the right thing. I would do it myself also. Not everyone would though. I think that's what noproblem is trying to say?
 
I've since read that an executor should publish a creditor's notice asking for creditors to present details of claims against the estate, but nobody I know who acted as an executor has published such a notice. Is this a legal requirement or just good practice? And if there is no response to a creditor's notice can creditors just turn up years later and claim against the estate or the executor?

It is not a legal requirement to advertise, but it is considered good practice if the deceased was involved in running a business etc. If I was appointed as a "Professional" Executor I would insist on advertising for creditors claims, as under section 49 of the Succession Act it would provide good protection against creditors who did not notify me of a claim within one month. Such legal adverts are expensive, as the newspapers charge a premium for them. I would also seek indemnities from the beneficiaries.


Jim Stafford
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMU
This "objective morality" guy can say whatever he wants, but i'll go with my own conscience on this particular one. Hope that's ok and you have no problem with it. You carry on with your guy, i've no problem at all with that.

I do have a problem with it actually. Thankfully, the majority of people don't share your views.
 
I do have a problem with it actually. Thankfully, the majority of people don't share your views.
I very much doubt the people on here represent "the majority of people".
I will continue to use my options when confronted with unusual invoices, bills, of which I consider the one mentioned as one of these. If there's any way at all I can negate its payment after consulting with qualified and experienced people then that's what I will do. Morals doesn't enter the equation at all and I never said I would leave anyone in the lurch. In fact it would be very silly of anyone to just pay on the spot when given a questionable "bill" such as the other person was given. I like to use everything in my power to avoid paying and if you really really read my post you may have taken this from it and not be so goody two shoes about what you would do. I simply do not hand over money because someone demands I do.
To Galway 21, I was never saying you or others were wrong, I'm simply pointing out that instead of paying I would have used everything within my rights and my families rights to avoid paying, no way would I want someone like a brother or similar in trouble. Everyone's getting their lines crossed here. As a matter of interest did you and the family get proper legal and accounting advice before paying up and what exactly was the advice? I ask that because a very good legal eagle friend of mine has said there would be no certainty that it would have to be paid.
 
As a matter of interest did you and the family get proper legal and accounting advice before paying up and what exactly was the advice? I

We were all so angry about it that we insisted on getting a barrister's opinion on it. The barrister's opinion was that the guarantee was "good" i.e. AIB would win a case on it, and that AIB were within the statute of limitations for dealing with its claim on the deceased estate.

It turned out that our mother's solicitor had "forgotten" about the guarantee when he was helping my brother with the probate. It was only when the solicitor obtained a copy of the guarantee (with his signature on it as a witness) from the bank that he remembered it.

My bother tried to get a discount. However, AIB knew that they had us over a barrel, and insisted on full payment, otherwise the matter was going to end up in the High Court.
 
Thanks very much Galway21 for that, I know it's personal and good of you to share. It's what I was hoping people would do and am happy that you guys did indeed seek advice on the matter but i'm feeling sorry for you on the outcome.
 
We were all so angry about it that we insisted on getting a barrister's opinion on it. The barrister's opinion was that the guarantee was "good" i.e. AIB would win a case on it, and that AIB were within the statute of limitations for dealing with its claim on the deceased estate.

It turned out that our mother's solicitor had "forgotten" about the guarantee when he was helping my brother with the probate. It was only when the solicitor obtained a copy of the guarantee (with his signature on it as a witness) from the bank that he remembered it.

My bother tried to get a discount. However, AIB knew that they had us over a barrel, and insisted on full payment, otherwise the matter was going to end up in the High Court.

Was there a clause in the loan that it automatically became payable in full on the death of the guarantor? Do you in turn have any grounds to go after whoever had taken out the loan, and look for repayment from them?
 
Back
Top