Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » A different view of traffic cameras

A different view of traffic cameras

5 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Guest


Guest

Markle wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Markle wrote:It would seem that the attorney that handled the probate is responsible.  They were responsible for seeing to it that the car was put in the name of the recipient prior to their getting possession.  They should have also seen to it that the house was secured until the will could be filed and the actions it called for had been fulfilled.

I'd go back to the attorney and tell them hey, this happened on your watch, now clean it up.

More bad advice. The atty. is not responsible.You can't make someone put a car in their name. They only disperse the assets like the administrator. The guy is responsible and will be held responsible.

The attorney would have delivered the title to the title office and transferred the ownership to the person in the will.  If the person did not want the car, they could have taken the title to a local charity and signed it over to them.  An attorney would NOT have left a loose end like that hanging out there begging for just the sort of problems which have come to pass.


An atty. cannot transfer a title to someone else. I don't know where you got that from?

2seaoat



The attorney would have delivered the title to the title office and transferred the ownership to the person in the will. If the person did not want the car, they could have taken the title to a local charity and signed it over to them. An attorney would NOT have left a loose end like that hanging out there begging for just the sort of problems which have come to pass.

A great deal of misconception.....but nobody is completely right or wrong. First, the court appoints by Probate order an executor/Administrator. The attorney is not responsible, rather the administrator is responsible. The attorney may be negligent in their advice, but the fiduciary duty remains with the administrator.

The administrator as Mr. Markle said should have transferred the title by court order even if they could not locate the title papers. This Order would be given to dmv, and a new title would issue in the legatee's name.

What conceptually is missing from Chrissy's interpretation is a timing issue. You cannot prove anything once the administrative hearing has passed or a default has entered. There are very strict rules on vacating that judgment, and allowing a new hearing. The estate could be held liable because the vehicle was an asset of the estate during the infractions. The individuals acting as executor or administrator USUALLY in these facts would have no liability, however if he killed a child, they could be found to be negligent, and if the insurance was insufficient.

Markle

Markle

Dreamsglore wrote:
Markle wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Markle wrote:It would seem that the attorney that handled the probate is responsible.  They were responsible for seeing to it that the car was put in the name of the recipient prior to their getting possession.  They should have also seen to it that the house was secured until the will could be filed and the actions it called for had been fulfilled.

I'd go back to the attorney and tell them hey, this happened on your watch, now clean it up.

More bad advice. The atty. is not responsible.You can't make someone put a car in their name. They only disperse the assets like the administrator. The guy is responsible and will be held responsible.

The attorney would have delivered the title to the title office and transferred the ownership to the person in the will.  If the person did not want the car, they could have taken the title to a local charity and signed it over to them.  An attorney would NOT have left a loose end like that hanging out there begging for just the sort of problems which have come to pass.


An atty. cannot transfer a title to someone else. I don't know where you got that from?

Then the attorney would not have given possession of the vehicle to anyone.

Guest


Guest

Markle wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Markle wrote:
Dreamsglore wrote:
Markle wrote:It would seem that the attorney that handled the probate is responsible.  They were responsible for seeing to it that the car was put in the name of the recipient prior to their getting possession.  They should have also seen to it that the house was secured until the will could be filed and the actions it called for had been fulfilled.

I'd go back to the attorney and tell them hey, this happened on your watch, now clean it up.

More bad advice. The atty. is not responsible.You can't make someone put a car in their name. They only disperse the assets like the administrator. The guy is responsible and will be held responsible.

Who said he did?
The attorney would have delivered the title to the title office and transferred the ownership to the person in the will.  If the person did not want the car, they could have taken the title to a local charity and signed it over to them.  An attorney would NOT have left a loose end like that hanging out there begging for just the sort of problems which have come to pass.


An atty. cannot transfer a title to someone else. I don't know where you got that from?

Then the attorney would not have given possession of the vehicle to anyone.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

2seaoat wrote:The attorney would have delivered the title to the title office and transferred the ownership to the person in the will. If the person did not want the car, they could have taken the title to a local charity and signed it over to them. An attorney would NOT have left a loose end like that hanging out there begging for just the sort of problems which have come to pass.

A great deal of misconception.....but nobody is completely right or wrong.   First, the court appoints by Probate order an executor/Administrator.  The attorney is not responsible, rather the administrator is responsible.  The attorney may be negligent in their advice, but the fiduciary duty remains with the administrator.

The administrator as Mr. Markle said should have transferred the title by court order even if they could not locate the title papers.  This Order would be given to dmv, and a new title would issue in the legatee's name.

What conceptually is missing from Chrissy's interpretation is a timing issue.  You cannot prove anything once the administrative hearing has passed or a default has entered.  There are very strict rules on vacating that judgment, and allowing a new hearing.   The estate could be held liable because the vehicle was an asset of the estate during the infractions.  The individuals acting as executor or administrator USUALLY in these facts would have no liability, however if he killed a child, they could be found to be negligent, and if the insurance was insufficient.

Seaoat, you don't know when the vehicle was taken or even if it was taken with consent of the executor. You don't have enough facts to go off into the netherworld here. What is the proper course of action for Birdy and her husband? Do you have a recommendation, or are you just showing off your obviously missed calling?

2seaoat



Seaoat, you don't know when the vehicle was taken or even if it was taken with consent of the executor. You don't have enough facts to go off into the netherworld here. What is the proper course of action for Birdy and her husband? Do you have a recommendation, or are you just showing off your obviously missed calling?

Possession of the vehicle is secondary. The asset should have been in the inventory of the estate, unless specifically on the title the grandson had been listed as a joint tenant with right of survivorship, and in that case the car would never have been an asset of the estate.

If in the process of probate under letters of administration and the authority of the court the administrator was trying to collect those assets, and the named legatee had possession, Mr. Markle was correct that the title should be transferred, but even though the car was a specific bequest, the administrator still must get an order authorizing the disbursement, and that is usually done after an accounting is presented to the court to make sure the car does not have to be sold to pay creditors. If the administrator had knowledge that the grandson was driving the car without a license, they had a fiduciary duty to protect the assets of the estate from liability and ask the court either to transfer the title to the legatee, or the estate, with an order signed by the judge setting forth that the legatee was in wrongful possession of the car, a copy of the order would be sent to the DMV, and the estate would be covered once they had secured insurance on the vehicle. My guess the judge would allow a partial disbursement to the legatee and put title in the grandson's name only to save money for the estate, limit liability, and make it easy on the administrator.
Birdy, knows the facts, and can apply the same to what I have written, and I am hardly showing off........just giving my opinion....it can be read and discarded......got no skin in this game.

Markle

Markle

Floridatexan wrote:
2seaoat wrote:The attorney would have delivered the title to the title office and transferred the ownership to the person in the will. If the person did not want the car, they could have taken the title to a local charity and signed it over to them. An attorney would NOT have left a loose end like that hanging out there begging for just the sort of problems which have come to pass.

A great deal of misconception.....but nobody is completely right or wrong.   First, the court appoints by Probate order an executor/Administrator.  The attorney is not responsible, rather the administrator is responsible.  The attorney may be negligent in their advice, but the fiduciary duty remains with the administrator.

The administrator as Mr. Markle said should have transferred the title by court order even if they could not locate the title papers.  This Order would be given to dmv, and a new title would issue in the legatee's name.

What conceptually is missing from Chrissy's interpretation is a timing issue.  You cannot prove anything once the administrative hearing has passed or a default has entered.  There are very strict rules on vacating that judgment, and allowing a new hearing.   The estate could be held liable because the vehicle was an asset of the estate during the infractions.  The individuals acting as executor or administrator USUALLY in these facts would have no liability, however if he killed a child, they could be found to be negligent, and if the insurance was insufficient.

Seaoat, you don't know when the vehicle was taken or even if it was taken with consent of the executor.  You don't have enough facts to go off into the netherworld here.  What is the proper course of action for Birdy and her husband?  Do you have a recommendation, or are you just showing off your obviously missed calling?

Fortunately, not 2seaoat here but the best advice was given a few posts back.  Go back to the attorney who screwed up the situation and if you were foolish enough to NOT use an attorney, hire one post haste.

Guest


Guest

And who pays for this atty.? The best thing to do is get the car back and transfer the title.

Guest


Guest

Floridatexan wrote:Birdy, neither your husband nor you ever had title to that automobile, if I understand you correctly.  You can't report it stolen.  However, it does appear that your brother-in-law and your nephew are guilty of grand theft...selling the contents of the house.  What you do about that is up to you.  Meanwhile, where is your great nephew?  How old is he?

Correct, we have not seen the title since my MIL bought the car 5 years ago. It was not in the handful of documents that were left at her house.

We tried to have them charged for selling the contents of the house.  Every deputy who responded to a call (ours and my husband's aunt) said it was a civil matter.  Our attorney advised us to just let it go rather than spend a lot of time and money in court over it.  The only thing of real monetary value was her jewelry, which my husband removed from the house while his mother was in the hospital.  The jewelry was divided among her granddaughters, as she wanted.

The abandoned child is 14 and he is living with the middle brother.  His father was jailed for child neglect.  He signed away his parental rights.  Once he was released from jail, he disappeared.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I wouldn't report the car stolen unless you want your BIL shot dead.

Don't tempt me.  The last time I saw him, he was knocking on our door.  I got my gun and made him step off the porch before I opened the door.  I wish I had called the police then instead of just chewing his ass and scaring him off.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Pensacola Discussion Forum » General Discussion » A different view of traffic cameras

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum