Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
'pro Rata'
In the breaking up of an estate to beneficiaries of someone who died intestate, how does a "4-way split pro rata" differ from a 4-way split please?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
TTT; When this began (two years ago!) I was told I was the main beneficiary among 4, and it was mooted (my suggestion) that I should have half and the remainder split between the other 3, so I take it by saying a 4 way split pro rata she (the solicitor) means keeping to some form of proportion other than equal shares.
It has all turned out to be a bigger estate than was first thought so I just want to get it right.
It has all turned out to be a bigger estate than was first thought so I just want to get it right.
What appears to be happening here is that the inheritors are making a 'deed of family arrangement' or variation. This is possible when all the people who would otherwise inherit under the very strict rules of intestacy for the division of an estate all agree to a variation.
Quite how SlackAlice knows that you should end up with 50% is unclear - the split between the parties is whatever you and the other potential inheritors agree it will be.
Recommend you don't spend too much time discussing this alternative distribution with the others and your solicitor, as the only person in all of this whose payment goes up is the legal person, who is paid by the hour.
Quite how SlackAlice knows that you should end up with 50% is unclear - the split between the parties is whatever you and the other potential inheritors agree it will be.
Recommend you don't spend too much time discussing this alternative distribution with the others and your solicitor, as the only person in all of this whose payment goes up is the legal person, who is paid by the hour.
A long time live-in partner has no entitlement. The distribution rules under intestacy are here:
https:/
........ from which I have copied the rules about 'other close relatives' below. Note that the definition of other close relatives are also clear - one is either included or excluded.
There are better brains at this than me - Buenchico for starters. It may well be that you are actually entitled to 100% - I'm not clear about your and other close relatives to the deceased.
But it is still possible to make a deed of family arrangement if you feel bad about the way the law of intestacy forces legal distribution. Just don't spend too much time discussing it, as the only winners are the solicitors who up the fee every time they spend time discussing it with you. Post again if necessary for clarity on what the law says the split should be.
Other close relatives
Parents, brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews of the intestate person may inherit under the rules of intestacy. This will depend on a number of circumstances:
whether there is a surviving married or civil partner
whether there are children, grandchildren or great grandchildren.
in the case of nephews and nieces, whether the parent directly related to the person who has died is also dead
the amount of the estate.
Other relatives may a right to inherit if the person who died intestate had no surviving married partner or civil partner, children, grandchildren, great grand-children, parents, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. The order of priority amongst other relatives is as follows:-
grandparents
uncles and aunts. A cousin can inherit instead if the uncle or aunt who would have inherited died before the intestate person
half-uncles and half-aunts. A half-cousin can inherit instead if the half-uncle or half-aunt who would have inherited died before the intestate person.
https:/
........ from which I have copied the rules about 'other close relatives' below. Note that the definition of other close relatives are also clear - one is either included or excluded.
There are better brains at this than me - Buenchico for starters. It may well be that you are actually entitled to 100% - I'm not clear about your and other close relatives to the deceased.
But it is still possible to make a deed of family arrangement if you feel bad about the way the law of intestacy forces legal distribution. Just don't spend too much time discussing it, as the only winners are the solicitors who up the fee every time they spend time discussing it with you. Post again if necessary for clarity on what the law says the split should be.
Other close relatives
Parents, brothers and sisters and nieces and nephews of the intestate person may inherit under the rules of intestacy. This will depend on a number of circumstances:
whether there is a surviving married or civil partner
whether there are children, grandchildren or great grandchildren.
in the case of nephews and nieces, whether the parent directly related to the person who has died is also dead
the amount of the estate.
Other relatives may a right to inherit if the person who died intestate had no surviving married partner or civil partner, children, grandchildren, great grand-children, parents, brothers, sisters, nephews or nieces. The order of priority amongst other relatives is as follows:-
grandparents
uncles and aunts. A cousin can inherit instead if the uncle or aunt who would have inherited died before the intestate person
half-uncles and half-aunts. A half-cousin can inherit instead if the half-uncle or half-aunt who would have inherited died before the intestate person.
Here's a better Government tool which you can run through yourself, in the privacy of your own home, without having to declare the whole of your family relationships to the prying world.
https:/
The truth table that drives the algorithm is complex, because there are so many variations depending on family relationships. Hopefully something useful will drop out of the end for you, that explains your legal entitlement. Post again if you want more help. DB
https:/
The truth table that drives the algorithm is complex, because there are so many variations depending on family relationships. Hopefully something useful will drop out of the end for you, that explains your legal entitlement. Post again if you want more help. DB
just follow the intestacy chart for the deceased and see what drops out.
http://
http://
Everything above appears correct to me:
i.e. the estate MUST be distributed according to the intestacy rules UNLESS those who were due to benefit have AGREED otherwise. (Such an agreement can be by a formal deed of variation or simply by word of mouth. e.g. someone who is entitled to receive all of an estate is free to say that they'll give part of it to someone else who has no actual entitlement; it's their money, so they can do what they like with it).
It will make things a great deal easier for us, Khandro, if you explain:
(a) exactly how you were related to the deceased person ; and [particularly]
(b) how the 'distant cousins' were actually related to him/her.
(Please also confirm that the deceased person lived in England. The law may well be different in Scotland and also, of course, where you are in Germany).
i.e. the estate MUST be distributed according to the intestacy rules UNLESS those who were due to benefit have AGREED otherwise. (Such an agreement can be by a formal deed of variation or simply by word of mouth. e.g. someone who is entitled to receive all of an estate is free to say that they'll give part of it to someone else who has no actual entitlement; it's their money, so they can do what they like with it).
It will make things a great deal easier for us, Khandro, if you explain:
(a) exactly how you were related to the deceased person ; and [particularly]
(b) how the 'distant cousins' were actually related to him/her.
(Please also confirm that the deceased person lived in England. The law may well be different in Scotland and also, of course, where you are in Germany).
Buenchico; Thanks, the deceased was a cousin of my mother, my mother was an only child as was I, so I believe that makes me a 1st cousin once removed, - I had never seen nor heard of her before.
I'm not sure of the status of the other two (who are in Australia) I was originally sent a chart made my the genealogist who traced us, but it is elsewhere at the moment and I've sent for another copy, so I'm uncertain how close they are, but when this process began I was told by the acting solicitor that I was the main beneficiary. I have also been told that the long term partner, under UK rules of intestacy is entitled to make a claim.
I'm not sure of the status of the other two (who are in Australia) I was originally sent a chart made my the genealogist who traced us, but it is elsewhere at the moment and I've sent for another copy, so I'm uncertain how close they are, but when this process began I was told by the acting solicitor that I was the main beneficiary. I have also been told that the long term partner, under UK rules of intestacy is entitled to make a claim.
So, if the deceased (at date of death) had no married or civil partner, and
had no children or other direct relatives, and
had no living parents, and
had no brothers / sisters, and
had one aunt, - your mum, who is no longer living
then the inheritance would appear to be yours.
But you need to get the copy of the family tree to check that there are no other closer relatives.
No doubt BC will have something knowledgeable to add (or correct)
had no children or other direct relatives, and
had no living parents, and
had no brothers / sisters, and
had one aunt, - your mum, who is no longer living
then the inheritance would appear to be yours.
But you need to get the copy of the family tree to check that there are no other closer relatives.
No doubt BC will have something knowledgeable to add (or correct)
Oops, there's a generation missing:
So, if the deceased (at date of death) had no married or civil partner, and
had no children or other direct relatives, and
had no living parents, and
had no brothers / sisters, and
had one aunt, - your grandpa, who is no longer living,
who had your mum, who is no longer living,
then the inheritance would appear to be yours.
But if either of these two are closer than you, then the closest one inherits all.
So, if the deceased (at date of death) had no married or civil partner, and
had no children or other direct relatives, and
had no living parents, and
had no brothers / sisters, and
had one aunt, - your grandpa, who is no longer living,
who had your mum, who is no longer living,
then the inheritance would appear to be yours.
But if either of these two are closer than you, then the closest one inherits all.
I have just received the family tree by email and (are you sitting comfortably!)
(1) My maternal grandfather had an older brother and a younger sister.
(2) The older brother married and had one child a daughter; the deceased.
(3) My grandfarther married had also had only one child - my mother, who married my father and they had only one child, Me.
(4) The younger sister -see (1) - married and had only one child who produced two boys, but with an "unknown" woman, and these two are the ones that have been named, and are in Australia.
(1) My maternal grandfather had an older brother and a younger sister.
(2) The older brother married and had one child a daughter; the deceased.
(3) My grandfarther married had also had only one child - my mother, who married my father and they had only one child, Me.
(4) The younger sister -see (1) - married and had only one child who produced two boys, but with an "unknown" woman, and these two are the ones that have been named, and are in Australia.
Hmmm.
To benefit under the intestacy rules, a person must be
(a) a child of the deceased person ; or
(b) someone who shares a parent with the deceased person ; or
(c) someone who shares a grandparent with the deceased person or
(d) the child (or grandchild, etc) of someone who falls into categories (a), (b) or (c).
[Your mother fell into category (c), so you fall into category (d)].
Having a great-grandparent in common would not qualify someone to inherit under the intestacy rules. So the two 'distant cousins' can't be too distant or they wouldn't qualify anyway!
Without access to the chart I can't offer any actual figures here but, for purely illustrative purposes, let's assume that there was a person, 'X', who shared exactly the same relationship to the deceased as you do (and, of course, that there's nobody else with any entitlement to inherit). Then, obviously, you'd each receive 50%. However if X had also died, leaving two children, then each of those children would share in X's entitlement, meaning that you'd get 50% and they'd each get 25%.
Note that, under the intestacy rules, the live-in partner receives no part of the estate. However under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 a person who "during the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the date when the deceased died, the person was living—
(a) in the same household as the deceased, and (b) as the husband or wife of the deceased" is entitled to make an application to a court for the terms of the intestacy rules to be varied in order for them to receive "reasonable financial provision" from the estate.
It would be entirely up to the court to determine exactly how the intestacy rules should be varied. The court could, in extreme circumstances either way, refuse to give anything to the partner or even give the whole lot to the partner.
http://
What someone now seems to be proposing is that a deed of variation be drawn up, giving at least part of the estate to the partner. You, and the two distant cousins, would all need to agree to it. The advantage of doing so for you would be that it could avoid the risk of the court awarding everything to the partner as 'reasonable financial provision'. The advantage for the partner would be that they could be certain of receiving something, rather than having to take their chances with an application to the court.
However I'm at a loss when it comes to understanding how any 4-way split could be 'pro rata', since anything that's 'pro rata' must have a reference point from which to make the calculations and, as the amount that a court might award to the partner is unknown, I can't see how their share could be calculated by using a 'formula' (rather than just common agreement)!
Oh well, I tried!
To benefit under the intestacy rules, a person must be
(a) a child of the deceased person ; or
(b) someone who shares a parent with the deceased person ; or
(c) someone who shares a grandparent with the deceased person or
(d) the child (or grandchild, etc) of someone who falls into categories (a), (b) or (c).
[Your mother fell into category (c), so you fall into category (d)].
Having a great-grandparent in common would not qualify someone to inherit under the intestacy rules. So the two 'distant cousins' can't be too distant or they wouldn't qualify anyway!
Without access to the chart I can't offer any actual figures here but, for purely illustrative purposes, let's assume that there was a person, 'X', who shared exactly the same relationship to the deceased as you do (and, of course, that there's nobody else with any entitlement to inherit). Then, obviously, you'd each receive 50%. However if X had also died, leaving two children, then each of those children would share in X's entitlement, meaning that you'd get 50% and they'd each get 25%.
Note that, under the intestacy rules, the live-in partner receives no part of the estate. However under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 a person who "during the whole of the period of two years ending immediately before the date when the deceased died, the person was living—
(a) in the same household as the deceased, and (b) as the husband or wife of the deceased" is entitled to make an application to a court for the terms of the intestacy rules to be varied in order for them to receive "reasonable financial provision" from the estate.
It would be entirely up to the court to determine exactly how the intestacy rules should be varied. The court could, in extreme circumstances either way, refuse to give anything to the partner or even give the whole lot to the partner.
http://
What someone now seems to be proposing is that a deed of variation be drawn up, giving at least part of the estate to the partner. You, and the two distant cousins, would all need to agree to it. The advantage of doing so for you would be that it could avoid the risk of the court awarding everything to the partner as 'reasonable financial provision'. The advantage for the partner would be that they could be certain of receiving something, rather than having to take their chances with an application to the court.
However I'm at a loss when it comes to understanding how any 4-way split could be 'pro rata', since anything that's 'pro rata' must have a reference point from which to make the calculations and, as the amount that a court might award to the partner is unknown, I can't see how their share could be calculated by using a 'formula' (rather than just common agreement)!
Oh well, I tried!
Latest Posts
Jokes2 mins ago
Technology3 mins ago
Listener 4848 Return By Dysart
Crosswords9 mins ago
