Jump to content

A Dilema


Huge_Vitae

Recommended Posts

I have a really bad problem, as I posted a few days ago, my very good friend has passed away, a while ago I discovered that he had sold his property to another person who had 'befriended' him at less than market value on condition that he and his partner were able to reside there for life.

 

My friend, several years ago wrote a will, naming me as his executor and leaving his remaining estate to his long term partner in trust.

 

When he died I was presented with a new will by the purchaser of his property, stating that all of my friends assets would be inherited by him, this means the **** has bought the property cheap and what monies paid he would now inherit at the expense of his partner.

 

I can deal with that part, win or lose in the Law Courts. BUT my friend Pete, was a Staff Sergeant CQMS, and gave me instructions for his funeral, amongst which instruction he requested his coffin be covered with the Union Flag etc, his funeral is tomorrow, Wed.

 

 

I have only just found out that these requests are not going to be carried out, and I am very, very het up by this, I cannot sleep and can only take this as a further insult.

 

I have a half Union Flag and intend to halt the coffin on it's entry to the Crem to adorn the coffin, after that I fear that I may not be able to remain calm and conduct myself in a reasonable manner.

 

Am I in a lose lose situation? One should conduct oneself in a correct and proper way at a funeral but I feel there is little opportunity to stand for what I believe to be right and correct.

 

Being as it is, I appreciate that I might not get any replies until too late, but at least I have had the opportunity to vent my frustration in words rather than action, but there again, to quote Denny Crane, "I cannot understand why more people do not resort to violence, it is such a good way of solving problems!"

"My imaginary friend doesn't like your imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflict...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have a word with who ever is conducting the service and tell him of your mates wishes

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if your graveside could you not place the flag in the grave?

might be a less disruptive way of doing it?

its a tough call...

and as for your quote...violence isn't usually the answer...but it does make a bloody good way of asking questions!!

 

I hope things work out as you would like them too; whichever way you decide; in the end you have to go with the best way you can honour your friends wishes.

its about his wishes...not anyone elses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have a word with who ever is conducting the service and tell him of your mates wishes

The person conducting the service turned out to be the 'friend' mentioned above!

"My imaginary friend doesn't like your imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflict...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if your graveside could you not place the flag in the grave?

might be a less disruptive way of doing it?

its a tough call...

and as for your quote...violence isn't usually the answer...but it does make a bloody good way of asking questions!!

 

I hope things work out as you would like them too; whichever way you decide; in the end you have to go with the best way you can honour your friends wishes.

its about his wishes...not anyone elses!

No burial Crematorium! After a verbal argument I was able to drape the coffin with the Union Flag, I escorted my friend to into the room, but left in discuss when his 'friend' started to give the address, Pete's requests regarding his funeral were not carried out, but I was able to pay my final respects to him and treasure the memories I have of him.

 

Thanks for your help.

  • Like 1

"My imaginary friend doesn't like your imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflict...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kin ek some friend that was, at least you can hold you head high and say to yourself you did the best that you could even though there are some who don't know what the word respect means, well done you, you made the point. Let him rest in peace and forget about the so called friends that ain't worth diddly squat, or seething over.

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kin ek some friend that was, at least you can hold you head high and say to yourself you did the best that you could even though there are some who don't know what the word respect means, well done you, you made the point. Let him rest in peace and forget about the so called friends that ain't worth diddly squat, or seething over.

Yes Barry to a certain extent I agree with you, however, Marj, Pete's long term partner survives him, She too is my friend and Pete entrusted her welfare to me knowing that I would see to it that she is well cared for.

  • Like 1

"My imaginary friend doesn't like your imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflict...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cant the wife challenge the will?

The sale is pretty standard in those schemes where you sell for a smaller worth but remain in it but the other person inheriting everything over the wifes head very strange ,a trip to CAB at least to see the inns and outs.

Have you seen the new will ? Who witnessed it etc

 

Was he mentally frail ? If so i doubt this new will would stand up in law especially if the wife was not consulted ,sounds like he was manipulated into making a new one which is not uncommon

 

The wife would have no control over the house but the proceeds and husbands bank account should be available to her and a will leaving that made to anyone she wishes surely ?

Edited by chesters1

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Chesters, you raise several valid points, but in the first instance Pete and Marj never married, they have a Daughter but sadly Marj lost her faculties some years ago and is resident in a home, our local Authority have power of attorney over her but sadly seem to be lacking the intent to challenge on her behalf.

 

I have instructed a Solicitor to challenge the will, but the will was written by another Solicitor who certifies he was of sound mind when he signed it, even though I have evidence that he was not making rational decisions at the time, the Solicitor states that at the precise time, ie. 5 mins in his life he was competent!

 

I therefore have to consider throwing my own money to a Solicitor to gain advantage for somebody else, very difficult because I loved and respected them both, but principles can be expensive.

 

Very common, like you say to make a financial agreement similar, but I would estimate that Pete's property would be valued in the region of 3/4 of a million, and has pontoons attached for about 18 boats and a potential earning of about £15,000 pa which Pete sold for less than £100,000, I think we would all start a firm on that basis!

"My imaginary friend doesn't like your imaginary friend is no basis for armed conflict...."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would consult the daughter ,unfortunately chucking good personal money after bad isnt going to solve the problem i guess.

Oh is the daughter called marj? Or the wife

Plenty of dodgy solicitors as well ,might be worth a little research on him ,not sure he would have medical training to declare anyone mentally fit .

Edited by chesters1

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

None of this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" crap it just means i have at least two enemies!

 

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

 

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

 

Mathew 4:19

Grangers law : anything i say will  turn out the opposite or not happen at all!

Life insurance? you wont enjoy a penny!

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.