To de-arrange the funeral?

[Funeraldilemma1]

NC but reg poster.

An old person I’ll call Sam recently died. They were the parent of someone I’ll call Bob. Bob was severely neglected by Sam right from birth - his practical needs like feeding and washing not attended to with neighbours having to step in, frequently told he was unwanted, banned from the house if Sam had “company” over, I believe Bob spent some time in care but was never removed from Sam’s custody. They went NC around 30 years ago.

Sam has never acknowledged Bob’s existence. Gleefully told Bob he’d been written out of the will. Now they’ve died, some of the admin has fallen to a relative of Bob, as Bob can’t handle having any involvement due to lasting trauma. The relative has ascertained there may not be a will, and is going to deal with the admin and paperwork. Relative has been informed by friends of Sam that Sam wished for a lavish funeral, and had lots of local friends who liked them and want to attend a funeral, but these people never knew Sam had a child as they completely denied Bob’s existence. Sam’s friends have no idea of the abuse and neglect Bob endured.

Bob and his relative are not willing to arrange a funeral. They have said they don’t intend to carry out Sam’s wishes and want to cancel any pre-arranged plans Sam may have made. Friends of Sam feel this is cruel and they should “be the bigger people”. As there’s no will, Bob is legal next of kin so in a procedural sense he does have the final say but who is BU?

Depending on where the plot is and what the rules & regulations for the site are, scattering Sam's ashes on the plot may render it unsellable or massively reduce it's value. People buying a burial plot generally prefer not to buy second-hand.

Co-op Funeral Care,
Direct Cremation £1350 Inc scattering ashes, no family involvement.

So to inter the ashes will involve the cremation fee & a fee to handle the ashes. Local Council charge £305 to inter ashes.
Your not supposed to scatter them on top of graves

Unattended Burial £1350
But doesn't inc cost of plot or grave digging. Plots already paid, local council grave digging is £1150

OK I'll give you it direct Cremation is cheaper. But I don't see the point in paying to get the ashes back to put them in the plot. As that makes the plot used.

No, it isn't murky at all. There are clear laws stating that a child is first in line for inheritance. This person didn't care about their child's wishes for stability, love and care; it is quite fitting that any of their ongoing animosity should be similarly ignored. Bob should do whatever Bob wants to do with the money, it is his by right.

Yes, that's a rather bizarre outlook on it.

So if Bob had been lucky enough to have a lovely, caring mother throughout his life, he would then also benefit from all of her assets when she passed; but because he was abused and neglected and deprived of anything even resembling a 'basic' mother, he now needs to 'pay for' this by being told that he shouldn't morally keep any of the money?

Although obviously technically an inheritance, I would see whatever he ends up with from her as (still very inadequate) compensation for her abuse and neglect. I think it's of paramount importance that we don't effectively impute blame to the innocent victim by treating their rightful compensation as 'dirty money'. The money is to (in some way) compensate for somebody else's 'dirty behaviour', but the money in itself is not dirty at all.

It seems very mean to tell somebody who is in a position of deserving compensation that they nevertheless shouldn't be compensated; whilst, at the same time, somebody else who has not suffered at all in that way should get the equivalent amount, even when there is nothing to be compensated for.

I missed that corker of a comment.
You have to love, the MN obsession with donating large amounts of cash to 'charity'.
It's like everyone is rolling in it, and no financial concerns of their own.

It Bob really wants to give the cash away why bother doing the funeral as cheap as possible. Go for proper funeral and give a eluogy for Sam's friends tell them how "lovely & caring" Sam was.

But how does that work if you're not in a jurisdiction where you legally cannot disinherit a child?

If Sam had left it all to the cats' home - and hadn't lived in an area was she was forbidden to disinherit her child - then Bob would get nothing according to her clearly-stated wishes. In fact, you could argue that 'I leave 100% of my money to Littletown Cats' Home' is LESS explicit about her wish that Bob not receive anything than her stating that he should get nothing. It suggests a preference for the charity, but not any kind of ill intent towards Bob - in theory, Bob could have been a huge cat lover too and personally already a billionaire.

Do we deliberately override people's express wishes if they don't offer a clear alternative - and opt for the one thing that they very emphatically did NOT want?

When I said 'morally', I was referring to the wider picture of wills in general and not just Sam. I 100% agree with you that Bob more than deserves every penny of that nasty woman's money.

I can't see it. I am not a lawyer, but I have occasionally seen press reports of weird and wonderful cases where the deceased has left some sort of clear instruction that doesn't conform to the normal requirements for a will and the courts have agreed that it should have effect. But I think those have mostly been indications of who is to inherit, not who isn't.

I don't see anything murky about it here at all. If the OP's account is true, Sam was an awful person and I'm delighted that she was too lazy or stupid or disorganised or (just possibly) guilty to make a proper will and hurt Bob one last time.

You have to love, the MN obsession with donating large amounts of cash to 'charity'.

Or, to be crystal clear, 'You have to love, the MN obsession with donating large amounts of OTHER PEOPLE'S cash to 'charity'. It's the easiest thing in the world to give away something that never has and never will belong to you!

I don't see anything murky about it here at all. If the OP's account is true, Sam was an awful person and I'm delighted that she was too lazy or stupid or disorganised or (just possibly) guilty to make a proper will and hurt Bob one last time.

I absolutely, completely, emphatically agree with you that Bob should by all moral standards get all the money, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

But I don't see what the point is of having wills (or other clear statements of intent) in the first place if we ignore them as long as we believe that we know better than the deceased person did as to their stated wishes.

A will doesn't have to be beautifully typed up by a solicitor, using official legal jargon and probably a load of Latin and presented on pure unbleached vellum for it to be valid.

Even the most wicked of people are entitled to leave a will that must be fully respected, assuming the assets that they leave did legally belong to them.

Agreed. Burials are expensive. He should take what he can now she is gone because he was denied basic care whilst she was alive.

Another poster inferred her having a large circle of friends meant she can't have been that bad. It means nothing. Like attracts like.

This.

For a will to be legally binding, it has to be written (or very rarely recorded in some other permanent form) and it has to be signed and dated by the testator in the presence of two witnesses, who both also have to sign and date it and give their addresses. It has to be the last will and testament, replacing any earlier versions, and the wording has to be very clear and unambiguous.

Sam hasn't met any of those requirements, ergo, there is no will and nothing to be respected.

If Bob and Relative don't want to do anything - that's their call. And I personally think that if the many friends of Sam heard the backstory, that they'd agree with that choice.

If there isn't a Will, the ghost of Sam can shout and scream all they want about their "lavish funeral", but if it's not in any Will, and not pre-paid, Bob and Relative are under no obligation to do jack shit.

If Friends Of Sam want to arrange a wake or a get-together of some sort, they are more than welcome to. There's no reason why the family have to be involved.

If wishes aren't made clear then it's up to the executor / beneficiaries (I'm not sure which) to decide what to do.

If wishes were so important to the deceased they would have made them clear or given away their money before they died.

That's what a will is for.

You can't second guess a dead person.

If Bob really wants to give the cash away why bother doing the funeral as cheap as possible. Go for proper funeral and give a eulogy for Sam's friends tell them how "lovely & caring" Sam was.

Or Bob could have a knees up for his own family and friends where they all stand around saying what a great bitch Sam was. I reckon a lot of money could be usefully wasted that way (might save on therapy too)

No, it's not up to the executor or the beneficiaries. It's all set out in the law, to save the endless arguments there would otherwise be. If there is a will, there will be an executor or executors, and they have to carry out the instructions in the will. If there is no will, someone has to step up to be the administrator, and they do what the law requires them to do.

This sets out very clearly who would inherit. https://www.gov.uk/inherits-someone-dies-without-will

Spouse or civil partner gets up to a certain amount plus personal possessions, and in most cases that means the children get nothing.
If the estate is over a certain value, the children then share what's left with the spouse or CP.
If there are no children, the spouse or CP gets everything.
If there is no spouse or CP, the children get everything.
If there are no children and no spouse or CP, the deceased's parents are next in line, followed by deceased's siblings, then deceased's grandparents.

In every case except spouse/CP, if the person who would have inherited has died before the deceased, their children or grandchildren will get their share.

So if Tom dies leaving no will and had no spouse or CP and no children, and his parents have already died, Tom's brother Mark and sister Jane are his heirs. If Mark has also already died, his children get his share split between them equally.

If Andrea dies leaving no will and she also had no spouse/CP, children, parents or siblings, then the estate will pass to the other descendants of her grandparents, i.e. her aunts/uncles or if they've died, their children, her first cousins, or their children.

So if Sam died leaving no will, then Bob or Tom - or whoever is the NOK - can decide what to do with the assets.

Wishes are irrelevant if they don't want to honour them.

That's why you make a will

In Bobs position I would take the death certificate and get the body sent for a simple cremation, if it’s dearer to collect the ashes then I wouldn’t bother. If it’s included in the cost then it’s up to them whether to collect and dump in a dumpster or just leave. If Bob doesn’t want to or can’t deal with this then I believe you can make the arrangements and just get her to sign?The will is often read weeks after the funeral I believe,
Has all paperwork been gone through in Sams property?
I do hope Bob inherits and I hope she uses the money to improve her life and that of her own family! Call it compensation or whatever!
I Wouldn’t put too much time, effort or thought into it though!

Agree.

Even if there was money already paid and this was lost, I'd cancel it. Go for the cheapest, least impressive option and consign the whole horrible woman's horrible life behind poor Bob, and let him start to heal. And make sure he never, ever blames himself (I say this because a death can do strange things to people's emotions - especially when there has been pain and conflict. Just look after Bob as well as you are able).

A "wish" isn't a will. It's not legally binding on anyone because as far as the law is concerned Sam might have changed her mind and that's why she didn't make it official.

Let Bob do what's best for his own peace of mind.

The “moral” bit of this presumes that the purpose of following wills is to enact dead people’s wishes. I would say that the purpose of following wills is to have an orderly way of distributing assets that is more likely to take into account individual circumstances than a single set of rules (e.g. intestacy).

I’ve read most of this thread and am really curious to know how much we are talking about. Hundreds? thousands? hundreds of thousands?

The value of the estate is very small. It isn’t about the money so much as Bob wanting some form of closure.

Op You have to assume their is no will. I'd call round your local undertakers tomorrow and figure out the quickest way to deal with it.
Burial might be more pricy than cremation but if it takes weeks of the wait I'd do it.
Bob needs to put the whole thing behind him and move on with his life.

Bob needs the death certificate and to find out where Sam banked.

Bob can arrange whatever funeral he likes, pays absolutely nothing. Takes funeral invoice, death certificate to Sam's bank. Sam pays for her own funeral.

With grave opening that is usually paid upfront to the local authority.. so it'll be in Bobs best interest to go for cremation. But can be claimed back from the estate..so Bob will be out of pocket.

If Sam put in a will she wants to be buried at sea, Bob doesn't have to honour this, it is a request and requests can be denied. Leaving of assets is very different, that is legally binding.

Wakes do not come out of the deceased banks only the funeral.

Has Sam's small estate got enough for a direct cremation?