Estate - reasons for approval of proposed procedure put forward.
Before : |
T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Nicolle and Ramsden |
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF TREVOR PAUL HUNT (DECEASED)
AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PROBATE (JERSEY) LAW 1998, AS AMENDED
Advocate M. L. A. Pallot as Attorney Executor of the Estate of Trevor Paul Hunt (Deceased)
judgment
the deputy bailiff:
1. On the 10th September, 2015, this Court approved a procedure proposed by Advocate Pallot as Attorney Executor of Trevor Paul Hunt who died 2nd May, 2015, domiciled in Jersey (the deceased). These are our brief reasons.
2. The deceased left a Will of movable estate dated 3rd October, 2003, in which the deceased appointed a local executor and trust company to act as executor of the Will on the basis of its standard terms and conditions. On 26th May, 2015, Advocate Pallot swore the usual oath to execute the said Will and discharge the duties of the office of executor as specially appointed attorney of Julie Hunt née Fletcher named as the Executrix dative of the Will.
3. The deceased also left a Will of immovable property but that sits outside the movable estate and was not the subject of an application before this Court.
4. The Representation of Advocate Pallot ("the Representation") is brought on the basis that the movable estate of the deceased is insolvent. Advocate Pallot informs us that he has done as much investigation of the financial affairs of the estate as he practically can and although depending upon which debts may ultimately be admitted into the estate, there are possibilities that the estate approaches being solvent in his view it is at the moment clearly insolvent and would in any event remain so. Accordingly he seeks from the Court an order in identical terms to that which the Court made in the Estate of the Hickman [2009] JRC 040.
5. When the Representation was first brought before the Court we directed that, as in the case of Hickman, all of the creditors of the estate should be convened. This has proved a challenging task as there are a significant number of creditors. However, when the matter was returned before us on 10th September it is clear that the large majority of creditors, if not all, had been served and, indeed, a number of interested parties attended before us. Each was given the opportunity to address the Court and whereas one raised a query concerning the estate, none of those before the Court opposed the orders sought in the Representation.
6. Advocate Pallot further informed us that, whereas he was aware that some creditors or interested parties were dissatisfied with the financial position, he was not aware of anyone who objected to the orders that he was seeking.
7. It is quite clear from reviewing the statement of assets and liabilities and the affidavit of Advocate Pallot that this estate is not without its complexities.
8. For example, a number of flats, owned jointly by the deceased and Mrs Hunt have passed to Mrs Hunt by reason of survivorship. Similarly, some of the indebtedness to be proved in the estate is joint and several in nature and the liabilities, especially those to income tax, are not clearly identified as yet. The Executor will need to consider these and other matters carefully and also consider what, if any, claims he should properly bring for contribution, or otherwise, to ensure that matters are dealt with in the best interests of the creditors.
9. This seems to us to be a clear case where it is important to ensure that the estate receives the appropriate attention that it requires, that individual creditors have the ability to make their claims in the estate, and that those claims are properly adjudicated with reference to the Court if necessary.
10. In the case of Hickman provisions were made for claims to be made, proofs to be inspected, determination to be made and then a final account to be presented before the Court, on notice to creditors, prior to distribution. In effect, it seems to us, that the process employed so far has already given the creditors one opportunity to make submissions to the Court (none did) and that if we adopt the process as we are asked to do then the creditors will have a further opportunity, in that there could be objection to the Court's approval of the accounts prior to distribution.
11. In addition to seeking an order to deal with the proving of claims, the Representor also seeks charging provisions so that professional charges can be levied and paid in connection with the essential work that he will be doing. This seems to us to be appropriate. As the Court said in Hickman at paragraph 19:-
"... the presumption is that the Executor will act in accordance with his duties and that his fees will be both reasonable and properly incurred. We are mindful of the cash flow requirements of any professional firm and regard it as unacceptable to subject the Executor to a judicial process before he can recover his fees. A creditor who considers that the Executor has acted unreasonably or improperly and ought not to be able to recover his fees has the usual remedies available for an alleged breach of the Executor's duties."
12. In summary, the Court was satisfied, for the reasons referred to in the case of Hickman, that there was no suitable alternate process available for dealing with an insolvent estate of this nature and we made the orders requested and in the form attached hereto as Schedules 1 and 2.
Authorities