When a person dies, someone has to take responsibility for administering the estate. If the deceased has made a Will, the people named as executors in the Will have the right to administer the estate.

If someone dies without making a Will (i.e. dies ‘’intestate”), the law determines who has the right of “first refusal” to apply to administer the estate. The rules broadly follow the intestacy rules (which determine who will inherit an estate). Usually, the person with the right of first refusal is a surviving spouse. If the deceased person died widowed or unmarried, surviving children have the right of first refusal. If there are no surviving children, any surviving parents have the right of first refusal.

However, a situation can arise where the “wrong” person has assumed responsibility for dealing with the estate. For example, it is often assumed that whomever the deceased nominated as their “next of kin” has the right to administer their estate. This is not necessarily so.

This may not cause a long-term issue if the wrong person has not done a great deal (e.g. if they have only arranged the funeral).

Intermeddling is a legal term meaning that a person has dealt with an estate to such an extent that they have assumed responsibility for it and cannot just “walk away” without the court’s approval.

Intermeddling can also occur when the correct person to deal with the estate has assumed the role. This is not a problem if they subsequently apply for the grant of probate and finalise the estate administration. However, it can cause an issue if they no longer wish to act as administrator or others (such as beneficiaries or their co-administrator) agitate for them to stop carrying out the role.

What constitutes intermeddling?

There is no set definition of what constitutes intermeddling. An individual’s actions cannot simply be compared against a list to decide whether they have intermeddled.

Examples of actions which are intermeddling, include:

• Selling assets of the deceased;
• Paying debts;
• Collecting debts due to the deceased and issuing receipts for their payment;
• Disposing of the deceased’s possessions;
• Carrying on a business of the deceased.

Examples of actions which are not intermeddling include:

• Arranging the deceased’s funeral;
• Gathering and perusing the deceased’s papers;
• Insuring the deceased’s assets;
• Arranging urgent repairs;
• Collecting the deceased’s assets to protect them;
• Securing the deceased’s property;
• Removing assets to secure storage;
• Opening an executor’s bank account;
• Making arrangements for the welfare of dependants.

Why does it matter if someone has intermeddled?

It is reasonable to ask, “why does it matter?”. There may be no animosity in the situation, and someone has simply changed their mind about being able or willing to act as administrator. They may wonder why they cannot simply hand ongoing responsibility for the estate administration to someone else.

It matters because once someone has intermeddled, they have accepted a level of responsibility, and therefore liability, for the estate. Walking away and handing responsibility to someone else does not absolve them of liability for any future actions in the estate administration. This can leave them in a difficult position of not being involved in the estate administration but still liable (to an extent) for it. If the court formally removes them as administrator, they are absolved of any ongoing liability. They will only remain liable for actions they carried out.

The opposite is true if someone has not intermeddled. They can sign the appropriate form to “renounce” their role/right to act as administrator and they will not be liable for any future actions in the estate administration.

What if someone who has intermeddled no longer intends to act as administrator?

Just because someone has intermeddled does not mean they have no means of walking away. There are legitimate reasons why someone who has started dealing with an estate may be unable to continue. Equally, if the wrong person has started dealing with an estate and the situation needs rectifying, this can be dealt with.

A court application must be made to remove someone who has intermeddled. It is relatively straightforward if the application is consensual (i.e. all those affected by it agree). The person applying for the removal has to file with the court a witness statement explaining why the person intended to be removed should be removed, and identify any replacement administrators. They are also required to explain why the proposed replacements are appropriate to assume the role. If the removal of only one person leaves one or more others to continue dealing with the estate, replacements need not be identified.

Usually, the court deals with consensual applications without needing a hearing.

If, however, the situation is hostile, the court application is made on a non-consensual basis. The application is similar, but the court may require the matter to be dealt with at a hearing.

Here to Help

Contact us for advice or representation if you think someone may be intermeddling in an estate.