Messageboard
Notes and Queries permalink
Who Owns The Bull Now?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Monday, 5th July 2010
Or at least Sid's share of it. I don't think we've been told about any will. If he didn't make one does Jolene get it or does Jamie inherit?
If it's Jolene's does that mean she can pass it on to Fallon and do Jamie out of his inheritance? -
Message 2
Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Monday, 5th July 2010
Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:41 GMT, in reply to Reggie Trentham in message 1
Depends on how & whether Sid owned his share - ie on his own, or jointly with Jolene; if jointly, then whether as a joint tenancy or as a tenancy in common.
If jointly & the former, it goes automatically to Jolene, regardless of whether or not there was a will; if jointly & the latter, then she continues owning her share & Sid's share passes according to whether or not a valid Will exists.
Sharpers explained the intestacy rules here:
-
Message 3
Posted by Gene Bailey (U2924633) on Monday, 5th July 2010
do Jamie out of his inheritance?Â
Steady on Reggie. If Sid's will bequeaths his share of The Bull to Jolene, she will rightfully own the share and it is entirely up to her what she does with it. If Sid died intestate she gets his share automatically and it is still up to her what she does with it. It is only Jamie's if Sid specifically named him as the beneficiary of his shareholding (or anything else for that matter).
There is no question of anyone doing Jamie out of anything. The law of succession is applicable in the event of no will. -
Message 4
Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Tuesday, 6th July 2010
Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:08 GMT, in reply to Gene Bailey in message 3
"If Sid died intestate she gets his share automatically and it is still up to her what she does with it."
Sorry, while much depends on the values of Sid's share in TB and his personal estate if he has died intestate, that is technically incorrect. As Sharpers explained in the post linked to above:
"If Sid died intestate then Jolene as his surviving spouse will inherit his personal chattels and the firszt [sic] £250000 of the remainder of his estate if it exceeds £250000. The remainder is split into two, she will have a life interest in one half of the remainder and the other is split between the children, ie Lucy and Jamie with Jamie's share being held in trust until he reaches eighteen. On Jolene's death the life interest ends and the balance of the remainder is split between Lucy and Jamie." -
Message 5
Posted by Gene Bailey (U2924633) on Tuesday, 6th July 2010
You are correct, of course. However, the main point I was making was that Jamie cannot be done out of his inheritance, as was suggested.
-
Message 6
Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Tuesday, 6th July 2010
Tue, 06 Jul 2010 13:32 GMT, in reply to Gene Bailey in message 5
Oh, absolutely, Gene - Jamie (and Lucy) have a right to whatever inheritance Sid has left them, and if left by Will they cannot "be done out of it"; and if Sid has left no Will, then Jamie & Lucy will benefit according to the intestacy rules, subject to the value of Sid's personal estate.
There is a moral ... Make A Will - it's cheap, easy, & saves a lot of hassle on death, even if one considers that one's estate will be small & straightforward. -
Message 7
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Tuesday, 6th July 2010
Thanks both. That answers some of my questions. Hadn't seen the thread in DTA. I suppose we're unlikely to hear Jamie behind the bar in the Bull telling George Grundy he's barred then.
Just one more thing. Sid owned his share of the Bull before he met Jolene so it was unlikely to be in joint ownership, or have I got the wrong end of the stick. -
Message 8
Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Tuesday, 6th July 2010
Tue, 06 Jul 2010 20:21 GMT, in reply to Reggie Trentham
Depends what happened when Caroline sold a 51% share to Lillian & 49% to SidnJerlene: at that point the whole structure of ownership would have changed, and given that SidnJerlene were uhnitem, it is possible that the matter of whether it was singly/jointly owned, let alone Wills &c, was then dealt with. -
Message 9
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Tuesday, 6th July 2010
Sid didn't buy his share from Caroline. My recollection is that when Peggy decided to sell the Bull (can't remember when but a long time before Jolene appeared on the scene) Sid couldn't afford to buy it all so went halves, more or less, with Caroline.
Caroline decided to sell her 51% to help fund the purchase of Grey Gables. I don't think this had any effect on the ownership of Sid's 49%.
So unless Sid made Jolene joint owner of his share at some unknown and unreported date it's was still all his when he died. -
Message 10
Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Wednesday, 7th July 2010
Wed, 07 Jul 2010 04:29 GMT, in reply to Reggie Trentham in message 9
Yes, you're right of course.
So, (1) when did Sid & Caroline buy from Peggy? (2) when Sid married Jolene, did he change his ownership of his share to include Jolene - and if so, how - joint tenancy or tenancy in common? and (3) when Caroline sold her share to Lillian, did /that/ change prompt Sid to change the ownership of his share?
Oh - and has he died with a valid Will? -
Message 11
Posted by Dragonfly (U2223700) on Wednesday, 7th July 2010
It was Guy Pemberton who stepped in to enable Sid to buy Peggy out. At that time Sid was married to Kathy, but if she was joint owner that would all have been sorted out at the time of the divorce when Sid handed over enough money for Kathy to buy April Cottage. I wonder if Sid and Jolene made wills when they got married, and if Sid ever did make over part of his share to Jolene?
Caroline inherited Guy's share of The Bull and then sold it to Lilian.
I think it's a bit odd that nobody has asked these questions on air, but I'm used to this now. It's one of the first things that occurs to me when somebody dies (in fiction, that is) but except in whodunnits it doesn't seem to occur to the writers! -
Message 12
Posted by LJG (U14261274) on Wednesday, 7th July 2010
Perhaps they are all wondering but would be too tactful to ask.
Interested parties: Jolene (too distraught), Lucy (too far away), Jamie (too young), Fallon (tactful and concerned with mother's welfare),
Lilian, as a business partner, waiting for Jolene to recover before asking.
They don't all start going on about their inheritances with Sid's ashes not yet trodden into the cricket ground. -
Message 13
Posted by Dragonfly (U2223700) on Wednesday, 7th July 2010
I can see they might not want to ask Jolene, but I'm surprised the punters aren't discussing it amongst themselves.
-
Message 14
Posted by DeeKay Bee - Disenfranchised (U236881) on Wednesday, 7th July 2010
You would at least expect Kathy to be on the case for Jamie's sake..
-
Message 15
Posted by Gene Bailey (U2924633) on Wednesday, 7th July 2010
Once again.....Jamie cannot be done out of what is rightfully his. I always find discussion over a deceased person's estate to be distasteful. In British law it is automatic, its either a will, in the first instance, or succession.
I recall that when Lilian was selling off "the estate" and Tony enquired about buying Bridge Farm, Peggy stated that Tony couldn't have it at a discount as it was "James's inheritance." Now that's forward planning...... -
Message 16
Posted by LJG (U14261274) on Thursday, 8th July 2010
We don't know yet what is rightfully his.
Luckily in this case I don't think anyone is going to want to do anyone out of what is "rightfully" theirs. -
Message 17
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Thursday, 8th July 2010
So unless Sid made Jolene joint owner of his share at some unknown and unreported date it's was still all his when he died.Â
You're right Reggie. The pub is jointly owned by Sid and Lilian. As for Sid's will, that hasn't been discussed on air yet.
Tayler -
Message 18
Posted by Sixties Relic SAVE ML (U13777237) on Friday, 9th July 2010
"Quick, quick, everyone - we need a topical insert about Sid's will!" -
Message 19
Posted by CoventGardenGirl (U12219411) on Friday, 9th July 2010
my recollection is that Caroline wanted to sell her share of the Bull in order to finance her purchase of Grey Gables and started by offering it to Sid, but he couldn't raise enough money by way of mortgage to do so, hence Lilian stepped in as a partner
I would therefore think that Sid's share of the Bull is mortgaged and his estate will have to repay that loan to the bank, unless the bank are willimg to relend the same amount to the beneficiary, which they might not be in the current climate
As for Jamie - he's not entitled to anything if Sid did not bother to make a will [roviding for him. Everyone should make a will. -
Message 20
Posted by mrsrat (U14498372) on Friday, 9th July 2010
Hang on a minute, as far as my knowledge is concerned, if a parent hasn't made a will, most of the dosh goes to the kids - spouse gets about £200,000, but that includes value of house/pub, so no actual dosh. My friend has had to ask trustees for bits of cash to take kids on holiday, etc.
-
Message 21
Posted by CoventGardenGirl (U12219411) on Friday, 9th July 2010
no, it's £450,000 to spouse. If the Bull is mortgaged, I doubt Sid has left that much after paying off debts. He wasn't rich.
-
Message 22
Posted by Dragonfly (U2223700) on Saturday, 10th July 2010
Where the deceased leaves a spouse/partner and children.
1. Where the net estate is not more than £250,000 – Everything to spouse/ civil partner
2. Where the net estate is over £250,000 – the first £250,000 plus personal possessions to the spouse/civil partner
Half of the rest is shared equally amongst the children.
The spouse/civil partner gets the income or interest on the other half during his/her lifetime, and when the spouse or civil partner dies, the capital goes to the deceased’s children equally.Â
This seems a reasonably authoritative guide. Jamie and Lucy do have a claim if Sid didn't leave a will, but only if after paying off the mortgage there's more than £250k left. If Sid had life insurance, a pension plan or an endowment mortgage there might well be a lump sum sufficient to pay off the mortgage, so the net estate could be well over £250k - assuming that Sid owned 49% of The Bull, and hadn't given a share to Jolene.
Mr D has just said (intelligently) 'What about tax?' What indeed? Inheritance tax threshold is £325,000. -
Message 23
Posted by DeeKay Bee - Disenfranchised (U236881) on Saturday, 10th July 2010
Will it make a difference that Jamie is a minor?
-
Message 24
Posted by Dragonfly (U2223700) on Saturday, 10th July 2010
Not to his right to inherit, but he would need a trustee to look after his inheritance until he is 18 or gets married.
-
Message 25
Posted by CoventGardenGirl (U12219411) on Saturday, 10th July 2010
no, the limits are £450k for intestacy to spouse
" For dates of death after 1 February 2009
1.where the net estate is not more than £450,000 – everything to spouse/civil partner
2. where the net estate is over £450,000 – the first £450,000 plus personal possessions plus half of the balance over and above £450,000.The other half of the balance over and above £450,000 to the deceased’s parents equally; but if no parents then to brothers and sisters of the whole blood and to any children or other issue of brothers and sisters of the whole blood who have predeceased the deceased in equal shares."
From The Probate Service website -
Message 26
Posted by Reggie Trentham (U2746099) on Saturday, 10th July 2010
I can't believe Sid wouldn't have made a will. Surely, when he was getting divorced from Kathy, his lawyer would have advised him to do this knowing that he had two children already and that he would in all likelihood remarry. Sid is (was) the sort of person to take such advice seriously.
-
Message 27
Posted by Dragonfly (U2223700) on Saturday, 10th July 2010
No, you're quoting from the bit that's relevant to people with no children. My quote is from the same webpage but the section below - deceased had a spouse or partner and children.
-
Message 28
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 10th July 2010
Yes but Sid's estate will also be able to benefit from Polly's nil rate band - looks like £140k for 91/2. -
Message 29
Posted by Dragonfly (U2223700) on Saturday, 10th July 2010
Did you mean 91/2, Cath? Polly died when Lucy was 11, which would have been more like 82.
-
Message 30
Posted by Elnora Cornstalk (U5646495) on Saturday, 10th July 2010
Yes, this was '82, Draggers. (I remember as it coincided with my first trip to the States. TA had jogged along as usual for months, then I left it for three weeks and came back to find everyone awash with grief and shock.) -
Message 31
Posted by Gene Bailey (U2924633) on Saturday, 10th July 2010
I would therefore think that Sid's share of the Bull is mortgagedÂ
Not necessarily, Sid sold Rose Cottage to raise money to buy his 49% share in the bull. Bear in mind that the value of a pub is much less than if the same premises were an unlicenced private dwelling. That is one of the reasons why village pubs close - some townie buys the pub, runs it down, obtains change of use planning permission and bingo, a big country property for a fraction of the price. -
Message 32
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Saturday, 10th July 2010
Oops yes sorry, it was 82 (I thought 91/2 seemed rather recent but didn't think hard enough), so we're talking £50k. -
Message 33
Posted by Tayler Cresswell - Host (U14232848) on Sunday, 11th July 2010
<quoteI can't believe Sid wouldn't have made a will.</quote>
Hi Reggie - I didn't say Sid hadn't made a will, just that it hadn't been discussed on air yet.
Tayler -
Message 34
Posted by LJG (U14261274) on Sunday, 11th July 2010
Seems strange if Jolene and Jamie get the benefit of that.
Of course we don't know if Polly wrote a will. -
Message 35
Posted by Mustafa Grumble (U8596785) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
Tue, 13 Jul 2010 20:32 GMT, in reply to LJG in message 34
The question of IHT may well be academic in any case: given that there is no IHT on transfers between spouses there can only be an IHT liability if the total amount passing to persons other than Jolene, charities & political parties (ie Lucy, Jamie, Fallon, Kathy, Uncle Tom Cobley & all) exceeds £325,000.
Of course, if he owned the 49% share in his sole name & yet died intestate, things could get very interesting indeed if the value of that share, net of any o/s mortgage or secured debts, exceeds £250k, let alone £350k.
... well, I guess it depends on how you define "interesting". -
Message 36
Posted by cath (U2234232) on Tuesday, 13th July 2010
No, but assuming if she did she left the lot to Sid then Sid's estate will benefit from her nil rate band (see FA2008). And his beneficiaries will benefit from more tax-free dosh, assuming his estate was over the IHT threshold.
Which, as MG points out, it may well not be - only a tiny minority of estates are chargeable to IHT though you'd never realise that if you believed what you read in the press. -
Message 37
Posted by CoventGardenGirl (U12219411) on Wednesday, 14th July 2010
The reason I think it must be mortgaged, is because Sid had hoped to buy Caroline out and went to the bank for a loan but couldn't get enough, hence Lilian came in and bought Caroline's share.
If Sid's share was owned outright, then surely he would have been able to raise a 50% loan for the rest?
About this Board
Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
This messageboard is now closed.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú iD
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú navigation
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú links
Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú © 2014 The Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.