dls wrote:The real point is that if the proposed administrators take court action, as a result of which they succeed and receive an order for costs in their favour, that order will universally represent a sum smaller than they have expended.
Yes, I agree.
The issue is a rather different one.
A, B and C are residuary beneficiaries. The litigation which led to the Costs Orders was between A and B acting together as one party against C as the other party. (The litigation was not against the estate, and A and B were not Personal Representatives at the time.) A and B became the Administrators after the litigation was over, the result of the litigation having then left the way clear for them to subsequently become the PR's / administrators.
No payment of the Court Orders was made by C for a number of reasons.
The solicitors acting for A & B stated that if payment of the Court Orders was not made by C and C did not authorize the solicitors to deduct the funds from C's legacy, a Court Order would have to be obtained to enable them to deduct the amount of the Court Orders from the legacy due to C from the estate.
No such Court Order was ever obtained by A & B or by their solicitor - they simply deducted the monies from the legacy due to C. 2 years later, in a move apparently hatched by their solicitors, A and B are reported as having assigned to the estate
of the deceased the benefit of the Costs Orders.
A and B then deducted from the legacy (estate funds) due to C the full amount of the Costs Orders.
Thus, what A and B did was to use the estate as a vehicle to pay themselves the full amount of the costs orders.
Is such action legal and permissible under their duties as administrators, in accordance with the Administration of Estates Act 1925?
So, the monies were "assigned" by A and B to the estate (using (... abusing???? ) their positions as Administrators), but were then extracted in full from the estate
for the personal
benefit of A and B.
Even if assigning the benefit of the Costs Orders to the estate was legally acceptable, is seems to me that those monies once so assigned became estate
funds and as such distributable in equal shares to A, B and C?