TRNC mirror wills and probate

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 05:25

I've noticed on some threads that the subject of problem wills crops up.



I understood that mirror wills especially those where all or any assets are in both names would be problem and probate free, seemingly this is not the case.



Does anyone know the actual situation?

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 11:02

not sure if lawyers just ripping people off but generally in uk and many other countrys if an asset is held jointly

survivers rights come to play and no need for probate ie telling them they need probate just need death certificate to vests asset in sole name but lawyers in uk tell clients they need to pay for wills just money for old rope for money grabbing bastards but they would not tell you the truth in trnc or where you could find the laws but since it is based on colonilal law do not see if if any different to uk( thia is assuming a asset is not held as so called tennents in common)and as regards a purchaseing contract a bulider landowner can transfer to who ever is left,(or any nominee for that matter)a car held jointly just take name off log book of deceased with production of death certificate at vehicle registration office(this is becauce same as uk it is vehicle registration is not a registrar of ownership just who is declareing responsibility for vehicle,

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 11:36

But Lili has mentioned on occasion that some widows are having problems after their spouse has died



What problems are they having?

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 11:55

Whoa! Stating simply 'no need for probate' is not correct for UK. Getting right advice on probate matters is important for any estate over £5000 which has to have probate submitted.

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 12:20

i repeat if assets held in joint names (and not in so called tennents in common) rules on rights of survivership look on uk hmcs website on wills and probate but in only those circumstance if there are bank accounts investements etc no in joint names probate needed over the 5k limit also look up it is the same as if there are two trustee with a trust when one dies you are left with a sole trustee becauce joint ownership is a form of trust look up the survivership rights lawyers tell people so much crap and bullshit just to extract cash same as same as many other so called proffesionals they create uneccery work for themselves just to get the cash

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 12:30

jacko99

I am no lover of lawyers especially in the TRNC either. Please be careful however when attempting to give people legal advice which you appear to have really only tried to understand from the internet. The UK HMRC website isn't as accurate as it should be and even they will admit that. Your spelling and grammar leave a lot to be desired and reflects badly on your lack of knowledge of this complex subject.

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 12:59

hector believe me it is true i have done it sucessfully, ring any proabte office in uk and any land registry i speak from experiance and stop trying to appear to be be superior by critisiseing my grammer and spelling

i have also done three proved three wills in probate court myself in last twenty years for relations who held assets in sole names and had other legal experience with different types of trusts(is my spelling and gramma to your approvel)

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 13:17

hector,hmcs website wills and probate guidance pa2 page 2 and beyond explains most married couples do not hold as tennents in common and no need for probate if held jointly as laws of rights of surviveorship apply, believe me been there done that got the tea shirt without having to pay 200 quid an hour plus vat if you want me to get relevent case law, common law or on the statute i will get it, i left the legal world a few years ago becauce off all the ripping off and everyone wants to sue at the drop of a hat ,but the thread was about what applys in trnc i would say do not trust most lawyers in trnc take what they say with a pinch of salt

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 13:31

Forget the UK. Here in TRNC, if you have no will, the share of the deceased spouse will be divided up as follows:

The survivinbg spouse gets one sixth and the rest shared equally betwee children. If more than five children, everything divided equally.

ismet

wanderer


Joined: 05/02/2009
Posts: 1653

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 13:49

Ismet thanks for the intestate comments but what do you need to do if a will is in place leaving immovable property in TRNC to the other spouse

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 14:06

so ELKO the state does not get a share as rumour would have it in trnc if you die intestate , would you stlll have to go to probate court and (get letters of administration as in uk)? or need for expensive court fees and legal fees and do land registry just put asset into new cowners names? how would they treat a purchase contract most refer themto them binding on heirs and can be assigned(with vendors consent) any they also say kochan can be put into name of nominee(subject to PTP)by vendor(BUILDER/LANDOWNER)i know there is the inheritance tax aspect but you can still get clearance from them(PAY THE TAX) if you do not have to go to probate court cos you have to get clearance before a will is poved if there is one

deputydawg


Joined: 30/03/2010
Posts: 1727

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 14:33

If you are willing to die intestate based on the statute that your surviving spouse will inherit without fuss then please ensure that you are willing to accept all the statutory rules of being intestate as you can both die at the same time. In practical terms whether formal probate or not is required following a death here you will perhaps find that the authorities you have to deal with afterwards will refuse to act without it eg selling of a vehicle.

jardap


Joined: 08/08/2008
Posts: 318

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 15:03

Mine is a second marriage and if we had not made wills here,60% of our property would have gone to my daughter,leaving my wife with the possibility of losing her home.Yes legal advice might be expensive no

matter where you live,but like insurance you never know when you will need it .

We are all possibly learning, that nothing here is what it seems.

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 15:37

if held as beneficial joint owners in most countrys has been in common law since begining of time and by statute for years and refered to in case law any barister worth his salt will tell you, a few years ago the hsbc froze a joint acount on death, a barister was consulted in girne he rang them, they unfroze it and admitted all moneys now belonged to survivor and removed deaceased name from account, no will ,no probate yes if both joint owners die in accident heirs will have problems but they will get there in end even if there is a will probate is a very expensive and long and stressfull process sole owner is a different kettle of fish i might add

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 17:04

I am catching my plane tomorrow morning at 7 am and I will be back on 15th September but hopefully I will have internet access in Japan where I will be

Whether you have a will or not it makes no difference to the government.

British can bequeath everything to whoever they like (Colonial laws)

Other foreigners can only bequeath all their movables (i.e. money, yatch etc) to whoever they like.

The rest can only bequeath a certain amount depending on circumstances.

Probabate has to be done no matter how small or big the value of the estate. Some lawyers can do it very cheap but most look upon their clients, especially the foreign ones, as fair game.

Once you make your will you have nothing more to do, let the others worry about it

The heirs to benefit must have PTP to have title deeds to any unmovable. The vendor has no say in the estate irrespective of whether it mentions the heirs etc., its all legal jargon to make it look impressive and a good excuse for more money.

ismet

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 17:08

I forgot about the joint accounts.

According to the tax office, half of the joint account is subject to inheritance tax and therefore can be blocked. I do not agree with this view. A joint account is a joint account i.e. one can draw all the money even when the other joint owner is alive, why not when dead? Some banks give in to this demand and some don't. As far as I know nobody has challenged this in the courts.

ismet

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 17:46

ELKO i hate to be legally cotractraditorty to your wise knoledge but an inheritance which is by way of a puchasing contract and the testator had PTP, the estate can get legal title and the executors are the beneficerys (as a estate is a legal entity) they can carry on owning as such and sell as such as quoted and done by a famous eminent lady legal eagle opp girne court, tax office does not get involved with joint accs

but they do property even if title not not vested in joint purchasers(ie no kochan just contract)they value as if

you are legal owner (as opposed to a contract of purchase which means you are deemed beneficial owners)

same as beneficial joint ownership a form of trust is created ) but the rellationship with builder/landowner

is aform of trust but gets sticky when he she has debts and then then who has priority a purchaser or creditor

it was allways regarded registering contracts was alegal charge cos that is why stamp duty is charged same as a charge

kimig


Joined: 04/02/2008
Posts: 103

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 19:18

I have read this thread with great interest. I lost my husband a few months back, went to a lawyer and asked what I needed to do regarding the properly registered Will. " Nothing" I was told.



However......



Initially I was told that I could not sell my property without my - DEAD - husband's permission, a little difficult, I believe. We had matching, properly registered, Wills, each leaving everything to each other. House contract in both names, car in both names.



And then I discovered that I could not dispose of ANYTHING I now owned (which, incidentally, had always been mine, not my husband's!) until Probate had been completed, which could be anything up to 3 years.



And now according to Ismet, who, impressively, knows all about the laws here, says that I don't actually own the villa, either, because I only have contract of sale, and no Kocan.



Is anyone surprised to hear that I am going back to UK for good, while I still have some sanity.......

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 19:33

Kim

"Is anyone surprised to hear that I am going back to UK for good, while I still have some sanity......."



No I'm not surprised at all. I wish you well.

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 19:51

kmig my message 17 is for sole purchaser contract however if it were uk and beneficial joint ownership

ie with registered title land registry would take off deaceased name off propriortship register with death certificate and hey presto would be in sole name and since there is no inheritance tax betweeen spouses

no tax payable but a contract of purchase in trnc there is no reason if and when you can get title IE kochan

your vendor should just not transfer tou you in sole name but the the tax office may want to have a look but since a villa valued at 85k half share at 42k and inheritance tax threshold at 280k ytl 120k sterling there would be no tax but they still would need to look at but since a contrac is a form of trust and has two or more partys and one dies the survivor end up with the obligations by virtue of death

newscoop


Joined: 23/12/2007
Posts: 2197

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 20:38

So the answer to the original question is??????????????????????????????



Seriously, it would seem from what Ismet says that it is best not to have bank accounts here but what is the point to having the house in joint names?



I know it sounds a bit Irish but if probate is needed to sort out a mirror will why bother with one at all?

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 20:53

good point re previous mess best bet is prob to have purchseing contract in wifes name and then kochan also

if u can get and chances of wife dieing first slimmer than hubby dieing first but differnt kettle of fish if decide to get divorced gets messy

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 21:08

Jacko,

I do not understand what all the fuss is about.

If John has PTP and kicks the bucket before he gets the kochan, I presume the kochan can be registered in his estate's name. So what? Suppose John did have the kochan before he died. His heirs can sell the property but if they want a kochan in their own names, they must have PTP, otherwise no way. As simple as that.

ismet

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 21:40

elko not according to eminent legal eagle opp girne court she says no need for ptp ,inheritance exempt go ask her i think everyone knows who i talking about was told by her last year if you say she is wrong nobody can trust a word she says from now on the best of it it been done by her quite a few times

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 22:31

Jacko,

I think we are talkiing cross purposes. What do I say and what does your eminent advocate says that contradict each other?

Quote "she says no need for ptp " for what? Let us be clear on this. Does she say that when John dies his heirs can have the kochan without a need for PTP for the heirs? I am 100% sure she did not say that. You must have misunderstood.

On the other hand, if John died without a PTP and simply had the Sale Contract, then it is true, there is no need for PTP in order to pass on his rights to his heirs.

As the famous saying goes, "We must agree before we disagree" i.e. we must agree on what we are talking about before we can disagree

ismet

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 22:48

if john had ptp(not permision to own but to purchase) and a sale contract and dies and then gets probate(or what ever they call it in turkish something like death management order) as it is better to admit yours as beneficial owner estate gets title ie kochan then assents to beneficierys no need for ptp cos not purchased but inherited land registry accepts it this of course for sole purchaser not joint slightly different

elko2



Joined: 24/07/2007
Posts: 4400

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 22:53

Jacko,

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. Just out of curiosity, do you know of anyone first hand that as foreign heirs they got the kochan without the need for PTP i.e. Permission to Purchase ?

ismet

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 23:06

yes but i am afraid no names no pack drills seams to be a bit of a loopoll but since the army have already checked out the proposed purchase and the illicit ivestigations of of surnames done with ptp to see if any unwanted ancestry if you know what i mean the policer report from homeland does not mean a jot really cos gary robb and many more would not have been allowed to buy and how did they get there report simple they did not its all a bit of a smoke screen to control what gets bought and sold into foreign hands but it can be done if certain things have allready been checked out say no more

Hector


Joined: 26/08/2008
Posts: 2352

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 23:32

jacko99

I really wish you could put your sentences together in a comprehensible manner so that you could be understood or should I say so that I can understand you at least. Trying to make sense of what you are saying on this important topic is difficult and does you no justice. I doubt I'm the only one that gives up trying to make sense of what you are saying. As for my interest in this, my wife runs her own Probate company in the UK (oh, and charges a fraction of what solicitors charge).

Lilli



Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 13081

Message Posted:
01/09/2010 23:48

hiya newscope, that is why i didnt answer you, Kim did and Ismet, All i know my friends have been to hell and back trying to sort out house and cars with probate. its so un just x

jacko99


Joined: 26/06/2009
Posts: 52

Message Posted:
02/09/2010 00:07

hector what on earth is a probate company do you mean one of these brokers i am afraid to say a child of five could do probate in uk one in 3 do there own its not rocket science only when unregistered title is concerned but the deed of assent can be copied the people at the probate offices are public servants and very helpfull

by the way how much does your wife charge i might be able to put buisness her way