GUILTY UK - Helen Bailey, 51, Royston, 11 April 2016 #3

[Cherwell]

Defence counsel Simon Russell Flint QC claims that despite Stewart being the primary beneficiary of Ms Bailey’s will, he was not guaranteed to funds in the event of her death.

He says: “This will doesn’t make any specific provision of any specific amount being left to Ian Stewart, it is entirely within the discretion of the trustee, and the trustee might determine I’m not going to give you a penny Mr Stewart.”

Ms King-Jones agrees this is the case, but adds: “It was an intended as an interim will. Where one doesn’t have immediate family or children or others, it’s very usual that somebody can’t quite decide whether somebody is to have a £10,000 legacy or a £50,000 legacy and this gave her time to consider about what to do.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12531416

I don't understand this at all.

If he was the "primary beneficiary" that usually means he is the residuary legatee, which means he gets everything that hasn't been specifically left to other people or charities. Normally an executor is named (which is often one or more of the beneficiaries) and they wind up the estate and distribute the assets. They don't have the right to decide whether named beneficiaries get their legacies or not! What trustee are they talking about?

 

[pinklilies]

Oh very interesting. Previously I'd wrongly interpreted it to mean that IS had to share POA with Helen's brother, when in actual fact Helen's brother would only get involved as POA as a replacement if for some reason IS couldn't act.

Makes it all the more frightful!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Squamous]

And more -

Stewart stood to inherit Royston and Broadstairs properties plus a further lump sum

The court heard if Ms Bailey was to die unmarried then it was acknowledged that there would likely be an inheritance tax bill of £1.28million. Ms Bailey eventually took out a life insurance policy to cover this eventuality. In an email to Mr Hurley, following a meeting with him and Ms King-Jones, Ms Bailey set out her wishes for her will. She asked for Stewart to be given her share of their main house, ownership of the second house in Broadstairs and a sum of money to ensure he lived a comfortable lifestyle.

Ms King Jones says: “I personally took this to be a large step towards her wishes, that should anything happen to her it would have been a very considerable indication of what she wanted.

“Not a legally binding instruction. It’s an expression of her wishes. One would encourage a client to be more formal”

 

[JudgeJudi]

I don't think the insurance policy covering Inheritance Tax would have to name anyone. Inheritance Tax is paid by the estate.

I think the defence barrister has confused the issue by saying IS would have to pay IT, I think he means his inheritance would be reduced (before marriage) because the estate would be reduced after tax.

After marriage you can make IT free gifts to your spouse. But because Helen had a policy to cover IT, IS is not affected.

I think this is correct and I hope the prosecution will clear it up, because as it stands I believe it is false and misleading to say IS stood to lose if she died before marriage.

It is correct that all fees, expenses, taxes etc come out of an estate before the balance is divided amongst beneficiaries. The following link explains.

https://www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax/overview

 

[snoopydog]

Not sure on IS excuse for needing the power of attorney - for cancelling holiday - I'm sure in the circumstances the cost of a holiday should be the least of his worries. It's not like they were low on cash....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ColourPurple]

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/helen-bailey-murder-trial-week-12531416

I don't understand this at all.

If he was the "primary beneficiary" that usually means he is the residuary legatee, which means he gets everything that hasn't been specifically left to other people or charities. Normally an executor is named (which is often one or more of the beneficiaries) and they wind up the estate and distribute the assets. They don't have the right to decide whether named beneficiaries get their legacies or not! What trustee are they talking about?

Rather than the will itself, could he be talking about the money from the life insurance policy that was set up to cover inheritance tax?

That would have a trustee who could decide how to allocate the cash if Helen hadn't left instructions. The link posted previously advised writing a separate side letter with instructions to the trustee/s.

• When you die, the policy pays out to the trust, which might be used to pay all or part of your Inheritance Tax bill.
  You might need to set out your wishes in a side letter to guide your policy trust trustees to use the funds in this way.
• It’s a good idea to write your wishes in a separate letter to help trustees follow your instructions

• .

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/a-guide-to-inheritance-tax

 

[Squamous]

Court now at lunch til 2pm.

 

[Squamous]

Not sure on IS excuse for needing the power of attorney - for cancelling holiday - I'm sure in the circumstances the cost of a holiday should be the least of his worries. It's not like they were low on cash....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, if you called the travel insurers and explained that your partner was missing would they really ask if you had power of attorney in order to cancel it and give you back the money? It does sound like a front.

 

[snoopydog]

Also, if you called the travel insurers and explained that your partner was missing would they really ask if you had power of attorney in order to cancel it and give you back the money? It does sound like a front.

They might but any normal person wouldn't stress it. If my man was missing I wouldn't even be thinking about cancelling a holiday. I wouldn't care


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DollyDiamond]

Makes it all the more frightful!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it previously sounded as though IS and John Bailey had joint POA but in fact only IS did, with John Bailey merely his stand in if for some reason he couldn't act. This is powerful evidence of IS' motive - and yes pinklilies, it is truly chilling.

 

[ColourPurple]

And more -

Stewart stood to inherit Royston and Broadstairs properties plus a further lump sum

The court heard if Ms Bailey was to die unmarried then it was acknowledged that there would likely be an inheritance tax bill of £1.28million. Ms Bailey eventually took out a life insurance policy to cover this eventuality. In an email to Mr Hurley, following a meeting with him and Ms King-Jones, Ms Bailey set out her wishes for her will. She asked for Stewart to be given her share of their main house, ownership of the second house in Broadstairs and a sum of money to ensure he lived a comfortable lifestyle.


Ms King Jones says: “I personally took this to be a large step towards her wishes, that should anything happen to her it would have been a very considerable indication of what she wanted.


“Not a legally binding instruction. It’s an expression of her wishes. One would encourage a client to be more formal”

Is anyone else concerned that lot of these instructions seem to have been given by email rather than in person?

It does fit in with how Helen would probably act but just highlights to me how somebody else could get access to her emails and write these things pretending to be her.

 

[Cherwell]

Rather than the will itself, could he be talking about the money from the life insurance policy that was set up to cover inheritance tax?

That would have a trustee who could decide how to allocate the cash if Helen hadn't left instructions. The link posted previously advised writing a separate side letter with instructions to the trustee/s..
[/LIST]
https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/a-guide-to-inheritance-tax

It was specifically about the will. However we are probably not getting the full account here, so that may be clouding the issue.

 

[ColourPurple]

They might but any normal person wouldn't stress it. If my man was missing I wouldn't even be thinking about cancelling a holiday. I wouldn't care


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly my thoughts. When something major is going on in your life those kind of things take back seat.

 

[ColourPurple]

It was specifically about the will. However we are probably not getting the full account here, so that may be clouding the issue.

Could be misreporting too if its quite a complex legal argument. The reporter may have assumed something incorrectly.

 

[Cherwell]

Is anyone else concerned that lot of these instructions seem to have been given by email rather than in person?

It does fit in with how Helen would probably act but just highlights to me how somebody else could get access to her emails and write these things pretending to be her.

No, she had a meeting with Mr Hurley who is her financial advisor, and he confirmed to her by email what she had requested.

At a meeting with will executor Tony Hurley, Ms Bailey asked for Stewart to be given her share of their main house, ownership of the second house in Broadstairs and a sum of money to ensure he lived a comfortable lifestyle.

An email from Mr Hurley summarised Ms Bailey’s wishes as “you specifically wished to ensure that Ian had your share of the main house, the second home in Broadstairs and a capital sum that will ensure that he has a very comfortable lifestyle.”

NB That also confirms that he is her executor, which I don't think we knew before. No wonder IS was so desperate to talk to him!

 

[cottonweaver]

Is anyone else concerned that lot of these instructions seem to have been given by email rather than in person?

It does fit in with how Helen would probably act but just highlights to me how somebody else could get access to her emails and write these things pretending to be her.

yes , esp as he had access to a notebook where she kept passwords and her email history was deleted when the first PC attended after April 15th

In an email to Mr Hurley, following a meeting with him and Ms King-Jones, Ms Bailey set out her wishes for her will. She asked for Stewart to be given her share of their main house, ownership of the second house in Broadstairs and a sum of money to ensure he lived a comfortable lifestyle.

 

[DollyDiamond]

Also, if you called the travel insurers and explained that your partner was missing would they really ask if you had power of attorney in order to cancel it and give you back the money? It does sound like a front.

Him mentioning his holiday in the context of wanting more info on the POA is patently nonsense on stilts. It is now entirely obvious why he was chasing that up, the money grabbing murdering piece of filth!

 

[ColourPurple]

No, she had a meeting with Mr Hurley who is her financial advisor, and he confirmed to her by email what she had requested.!

Ah well that I AM OK with lol

 

[icemaiden65]

Is anyone else concerned that lot of these instructions seem to have been given by email rather than in person?

It does fit in with how Helen would probably act but just highlights to me how somebody else could get access to her emails and write these things pretending to be her.

Absolutely! We've tinkered about with our wills over time and whilst we might exchange emails, the majority of the detail is settled face to face with our solicitors. In fact, it seems rather lax of the solicitor to accept these wishy washy directions without stressing to Helen that they must be set out legally and signed/witnessed.

I don't suppose she can produce the actual emails from 'Helen' about these wishes with the verbatim wording? Would be interesting.

 

[ColourPurple]

Him mentioning his holiday in the context of wanting more info on the POA is patently nonsense on stilts. It is now entirely obvious why he was chasing that up, the money grabbing murdering piece of filth!

Yup, the flat sale was probably his first priority once he got POA . Wonder how long he was going to wait before he put Broadstairs up for sale?