morally wrong or illegal

[Gerry557]

If upon the death of a someone, I have access to some of their tools and give them to another person that the deceased expressed a desire to pass them too, Am I doing something wrong.

Would it alter things if I am a 50/50 beneficiary in the will anyway.

[Dod101]

If upon the death of a someone, I have access to some of their tools and give them to another person that the deceased expressed a desire to pass them too, Am I doing something wrong.

Would it alter things if I am a 50/50 beneficiary in the will anyway.

I dare say there is probably something wrong in the legal sense if you are not an executor but I think practicalities matter more than the strict law unless of course the tools are gold encrusted.

Dod

[JohnB]

Only real issue is whether they would invoke an IHT charge, but probably de minimis for HMRC.

[88V8]

If upon the death of a someone, I have access to some of their tools and give them to another person that the deceased expressed a desire to pass them too, Am I doing something wrong.

To a craftsman or keen hobbyist, tools are important. I have a huge tool collection, mine, my father's, inlaws', grandfather's, but none of my family is handy, and I suspect mine would end up in a junk shop if there are still such things.
So I would say you are doing something very right.

V8

[pje16]

The mere fact that you are asking does suggest some feeling of guilt, m'lud

[scrumpyjack]

If upon the death of a someone, I have access to some of their tools and give them to another person that the deceased expressed a desire to pass them too, Am I doing something wrong.

Would it alter things if I am a 50/50 beneficiary in the will anyway.

As an executor I have given away small items such as this, but paid my own cash into the estate and included that value of the items in probate.
Chattels are valued at net realisable value which for these things is next to nothing. You can ask yourself what a firm of 'house clearers' would pay and it would be next to nothing. The costs of collection, packing etc etc generally means the value of chattels is low.

But I agree with the de minimis comment.

[dealtn]

If upon the death of a someone, I have access to some of their tools and give them to another person that the deceased expressed a desire to pass them too, Am I doing something wrong.

Would it alter things if I am a 50/50 beneficiary in the will anyway.

Unless you are the executor then I would say in a legal sense this is both wrong and unlawful.

[gryffron]

Unless you are the executor then I would say in a legal sense this is both wrong and unlawful.

And since an executor is legally bound to carry out the wishes expressed in the will, then I would suggest that EVEN if you are an executor, it is both wrong and unlawful.

Of course, if you asked the executor to include the tools in your 50% share, then you'd be free to do with them as you wish. But it is the executor's decision (as per will), not yours. What if the tools are promised to someone else in the will?

Gryff

[SalvorHardin]

You could try "Donatio Mortis Causa" which deals with deathbed gifts and gifts made by a person who knows that they are going to die in the near future.

These gifts are triggered on death and don't form part of the estate which is distributed amongst the beneficiaries. The link below, from a solicitors' website, is very good and has a lot of case citations ("Donatio Mortis Causa" comes from case law, not statute, and its origins are in Roman Law):

https://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/knowledge-base/donatio-mortis-causa-a-deathbed-gift

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/equity-law/gifts-that-have-been-made-in-contemplation-equity-law-essay.php

A couple of years ago I was co-executor of an estate where we used "Donatio Mortis Causa" to cover a few items which had been lent out to beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, where the person had said a few weeks before their death (they were terminally ill) that everyone who had borrowed something from him could keep it and that one person was to be given certain other items. In total the items were worth a bit less than 2% of the estate, half of which went to one beneficiary. But it was prudent to have a few words with the beneficiaries, who were happy with the arrangement.

As others have said, if the items are valuable then you might want to check with the beneficiaries. Unfortunately it has been known for seemingly trivial items and decisions regarding the execution of wills to be blown out of all proportion by a disgruntled beneficiary, who then proceeds to engage in a vendetta with the executors and their fellow beneficiaries.

[Gerry557]

Thanks for the answers so far.

There won't be an IHT issue and I'm not the executor, who is unlikely to know of the expression to give the tools away. The value might be several hundreds of pounds as some are nearly new.

As for guilt no but concerned about possible concequenses. Can I steal from myself? What action could I be liable too. I suppose once the executor finds out its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

[pje16]

As for guilt no but concerned about possible concequenses..

Apologies I typed guilt, thought I had changed it to "doubt" but must have hit post by mistake

[Gerry557]

"Donatio Mortis Causa"

That's getting quite legalistic. The items were not lent out at the time or ever. It was an expression that X might benefit from them one day if the original owner had no use for them.

[dealtn]

There won't be an IHT issue and I'm not the executor, who is unlikely to know of the expression to give the tools away. The value might be several hundreds of pounds as some are nearly new.

As for guilt no but concerned about possible concequenses. Can I steal from myself? What action could I be liable too. I suppose once the executor finds out its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

You aren't stealing from yourself though, but from the estate. From the information given you only benefit 50% of that, so you are exposed to claims from the remaining beneficiaries of it.

What would be your reaction if you found out another beneficiary decided to take the several hundreds pounds of "cash" and distribute it in accordance with an unwritten expression of the deceased, outside of the will, and without the knowledge of the executor?

[SalvorHardin]

"Donatio Mortis Causa"

That's getting quite legalistic. The items were not lent out at the time or ever. It was an expression that X might benefit from them one day if the original owner had no use for them.

Donatio Mortis Causa probably won't apply unless the instruction was made at a time when the original owner had a reasonable expection of dying in the near future.

In the case where I was co-executor, in addition to the items which had been lent out we were also instructed to gift several items which had not been lent out on death.

Regarding your earlier comment wondering whether it is possible to steal your own property, the answer is yes (under limited circumstances). Basically you have to have temporarily given someone else the use of your property and you then have to dishonestly take back the property. When I was studying property law the case that was cited in courses was R v Turner (No. 2) (1971). Here Mr. Turner had taken his car to a garage for repairs, but long before the repairs were finished he drove the car away without telling the garage that he was doing so (and he had not paid for the repairs).

https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-turner-no-2.php

[Lootman]

If upon the death of a someone, I have access to some of their tools and give them to another person that the deceased expressed a desire to pass them too, Am I doing something wrong.

Would it alter things if I am a 50/50 beneficiary in the will anyway.

Assuming the value of said items is low and I have reason to believe that the deceased would have wanted this, then I would just make the transfers and not worry about it. The law was not designed or intended for such trivia, and doing the right thing is more important.

[scrumpyjack]

If upon the death of a someone, I have access to some of their tools and give them to another person that the deceased expressed a desire to pass them too, Am I doing something wrong.

Would it alter things if I am a 50/50 beneficiary in the will anyway.

Assuming the value of said items is low and I have reason to believe that the deceased would have wanted this, then I would just make the transfers and not worry about it. The law was not designed or intended for such trivia, and doing the right thing is more important.

You are probably covered by the ancient legal principle:

de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trivia) (As it's in Latin it must be applicable, though Boris took that too far!)

[Lootman]

Assuming the value of said items is low and I have reason to believe that the deceased would have wanted this, then I would just make the transfers and not worry about it. The law was not designed or intended for such trivia, and doing the right thing is more important.

You are probably covered by the ancient legal principle:

de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trivia) (As it's in Latin it must be applicable, though Boris took that too far!)

I would also offer up: "ex dolo malo non oritur actio, nullus commodum capere potest de iniuria sua propria" and "ex iniuria ius non oritur". Otherwise known as the clean hands doctrine, for those actions where I act in good faith and derive no personal benefit.

[Gerry557]

There won't be an IHT issue and I'm not the executor, who is unlikely to know of the expression to give the tools away. The value might be several hundreds of pounds as some are nearly new.

As for guilt no but concerned about possible concequenses. Can I steal from myself? What action could I be liable too. I suppose once the executor finds out its easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.

You aren't stealing from yourself though, but from the estate. From the information given you only benefit 50% of that, so you are exposed to claims from the remaining beneficiaries of it.

What would be your reaction if you found out another beneficiary decided to take the several hundreds pounds of "cash" and distribute it in accordance with an unwritten expression of the deceased, outside of the will, and without the knowledge of the executor?

Actually your reply was more in line with what I thought might be said.

I believe that the executor is also responsible for "making sure the property owned by the person who has died is secure, as soon as possible after the death"


So could the executor be held partly responsible or be used in any mitigation.

[scrumpyjack]

If you know who the executor is, you should ask him/her if it is OK to do what you propose and suggesting a sensible valuation of the tools. You could suggest that the estimated value of the tools should be included in the distribution calculation as part of your share.

[swill453]

You are probably covered by the ancient legal principle:

de minimis non curat lex (the law does not concern itself with trivia) (As it's in Latin it must be applicable, though Boris took that too far!)

I would also offer up: "ex dolo malo non oritur actio, nullus commodum capere potest de iniuria sua propria" and "ex iniuria ius non oritur". Otherwise known as the clean hands doctrine, for those actions where I act in good faith and derive no personal benefit.

I don't think that can apply in the case of an executor. Take the case where unknown debts of the deceased come to light after the estate has been distributed.

The executor may have acted in good faith* but can they not be held personally liable?

(* - good faith but not great diligence )

Scott.