www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/9...-in-bitter-feud.html

Sir Peter Ustinov's estate may be lost on legal fees in bitter feud.

Savile's estate is quite small by comparison. There will be nothing left.

Nothing for charities. This should be a story.

same happened to the actress Dina Cilento and her last husband Anthony Schaffer's estate..ten years in the courts and she died never seeing a penny and it's still tied up.

Yet Fleet Street has ignored this..not one alleged victim (or charity) will see a penny of Savile's estate.

And all because the lady loves milk tray.

Charities will suffer & people will die. No liars will get any compensation. So, it will have been a complete waste of time...Hope they'll happy. Absolutely awful.

Quite wrong.

A major difference is that the JS estate/Will is not being disputed by the beneficiaries (or anyone else), unlike Ustinov's - where numerous parties are involved.

The JS estate's proceeds will simply be distributed between those who have made successful claims; if anything is left over, it will go to the beneficiaries, charities included.

Ben 9 wrote:
Quite wrong.

A major difference is that the JS estate/Will is not being disputed by the beneficiaries (or anyone else), unlike Ustinov's - where numerous parties are involved.

The JS estate's proceeds will simply be distributed between those who have made successful claims; if anything is left over, it will go to the beneficiaries, charities included.




parties are disputing the estate..the legal fees will gobble that up....however..

I would venture that not one claimant is legally entitled to a penny including those who make 'successful' claims because (on my limited understanding of having been a trustee twice)..the moment Savile died his estate automatically belonged to his inheritors.

Another mistake the claimants have made..waiting for a year after he died.

It's not in the Nat West's (who have frozen it)power to give or take anything from Savile's estate and it's distribution resides solely with his trustees (which is Nat West). They must fulfill his wishes.

However there is bound to have been a precedent somewhere or a loophole and that is why Jimmy Savile's estate will be tied up in the courts for years and years...and lawyers will clean up.

The c£4.3m Jimmy Saville estate is frozen PENDING abuse claims going through the legal motions; if a court decides that a claim is justified - and gives a judgement - damages can be paid from the estate. Why, otherwise, would numerous claimants be bothering?

I'm with Hedda on this; the complicated battles will go on for years; that's the way the system works (or doesn't).

Ben 9 wrote:
The c£4.3m Jimmy Saville estate is frozen PENDING abuse claims going through the legal motions; if a court decides that a claim is justified - and gives a judgement - damages can be paid from the estate. Why, otherwise, would numerous claimants be bothering?

I repeat : from my memory of a discussion a few years ago re: a relative's estate of which I was a trustee..a claim was put in for a debt incurred after she died and the solicitor said at the time words to this effect :

"it wasn't a debt incurred at her behest before she died..the claimant took it upon himself to do some work and anticipated she wanted it done..he didn't know she was deceased. At the moment she died her estate under law- belonged to the inheritors..and the claim was not enforceable"

This was a minor matter and the inheritors agreed to allow the claim as it was done in good faith but I do not see why the principal would not apply in the same way to Savile's estate.

Or- what is to stop someone popping up 2/ 3 or 5 years after an estate has been distributed and making a claim and demanding an inheritor pay up?

that aside : Britain is one of the worst for settling estate matters as they crawl through the courts..years and years and the Nat West have done what I did..act prudently.

I also believe it's why the solicitors have also absurdly claimed that Savile 'stole' money from the charities and has it hidden.

hedda wrote:
after an estate has been distributed

This is the relevant point/word - 'after'. If the estate had been settled/distributed, no claim would be possible against; it wouldn't exist.

But it hasn't - its frozen. So, claims can be made - as they can against any legal entity, that exists.

Jarndyce -v- Jarndyce

Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:
after an estate has been distributed

This is the relevant point/word - 'after'. If the estate had been settled/distributed, no claim would be possible against; it wouldn't exist.

But it hasn't - its frozen. So, claims can be made - as they can against any legal entity, that exists.



yes that is because there must be cut-off points in law otherwise there would be chaos...and death is most certainly the final cut-off point.

After death it is just processes to get the job done, probate etc. The reason you have a day published stating claims will be no longer accepted is because inheritors must get what they are due and the money will be gone after that date.

Hence my proposition (from limited experience) is that under law, I say that Savile's estate at death was in name only. The estate belonged to those he left it to.

However the law is always dodgy and ways can be found to challenge what may seem clear cut.

Also Nat West as trustees have a legal obligation to defend claims against an estate if the claim is questionable which it will be in this case. Hence- with about 3 Mill quid..it will be gone after a few years.

Personally, those attacking his estate are creeps as the money was left to charity apart from a few small legacies.

They would be better off suing the BBC, The government, Paul Gambiccini (who knew Savile raped dead bodies but kept quiet) the tax avoider ITK and everyone else except me.

hedda wrote:
the tax avoider ITK and everyone else except me.

Shhhh ! Hedda !!!!!

hedda wrote:
Ben 9 wrote:
hedda wrote:
after an estate has been distributed

This is the relevant point/word - 'after'. If the estate had been settled/distributed, no claim would be possible against; it wouldn't exist.

But it hasn't - its frozen. So, claims can be made - as they can against any legal entity, that exists.



yes that is because there must be cut-off points in law otherwise there would be chaos...and death is most certainly the final cut-off point.

After death it is just processes to get the job done, probate etc. The reason you have a day published stating claims will be no longer accepted is because inheritors must get what they are due and the money will be gone after that date.

Hence my proposition (from limited experience) is that under law, I say that Savile's estate at death was in name only. The estate belonged to those he left it to.

However the law is always dodgy and ways can be found to challenge what may seem clear cut.

Also Nat West as trustees have a legal obligation to defend claims against an estate if the claim is questionable which it will be in this case. Hence- with about 3 Mill quid..it will be gone after a few years.

Personally, those attacking his estate are creeps as the money was left to charity apart from a few small legacies.

They would be better off suing the BBC, The government, Paul Gambiccini (who knew Savile raped dead bodies but kept quiet) the tax avoider ITK and everyone else except me.
Yeah Paul Gambaimbicile...Coincidently Savile didn't like Homosexuals, as it 'appens. No, coincidence at all don't we think?! He also hated kids & cults. All 3 are the connections, that have ruined his name, just to get back at the man.

I don't particularly like kids and avoid them like the plague with their sticky hands and screeching voices.

Presumably a pedo must like being around them. Savile must have been the exception to the rule.

hedda wrote:
I don't particularly like kids and avoid them like the plague with their sticky hands and screeching voices.

Presumably a pedo must like being around them. Savile must have been the exception to the rule.
Yep. The whole reason that the complete story is a load of lies & rubbish.

hedda wrote:
I would venture that not one claimant is legally entitled to a penny including those who make 'successful' claims because (on my limited understanding of having been a trustee twice)..the moment Savile died his estate automatically belonged to his inheritors.

The COMPO claims are in !!!!

BBC and Savile estate both sued.

news.sky.com/story/1051668/bbc-and-savil...-sued-by-sex-victims

In The Know wrote:
hedda wrote:
I would venture that not one claimant is legally entitled to a penny including those who make 'successful' claims because (on my limited understanding of having been a trustee twice)..the moment Savile died his estate automatically belonged to his inheritors.

The COMPO claims are in !!!!

BBC and Savile estate both sued.

news.sky.com/story/1051668/bbc-and-savil...-sued-by-sex-victims

sad really as he left most of it to charity.