I guess you missed the part in the BBC article where it said the English Court of Appeal upheld the settlement approved by the English High Court.
No, I didn’t miss it. I assume that all this was done legally. The question is about fairness of the process.
In that context, the question is whether the courts who considered it dealt with the issue of whether or not Savile was really guilty of anything, with witnesses and attorneys for the beneficiaries who stood to pay out etc., or whether they simply dealt with whether the executors had the right to make this settlement etc. IOW, how much attention did they pay to, and in what manner did they establish, that there was a legal obligation altogether.
So you just assume that two levels of courts in England don’t do their job properly, without knowing any further about the case. I see.
No, I’m assuming that it’s possible that the legal system in some cases is not set up to produce fair results. In fact, I’m completely sure that this sometimes happens. Not as confident that it happened this time. But the mere fact that the legal system produced this result is not a proof that it was a fair result. Sometimes the law is an ass.
A person does not have to be convicted of a crime before they decide to pay a settlement.
For instance, Donald Trump paid Stormy Daniels $130,000, even though he wasn’t convicted of any crime. Why did he do that?
If your argument is that the executors of an estate owe a fiduciary duty to the heirs of the estate, and shouldn’t just hand out free money to every Tom, Dick and Harry, then you’re perfectly correct.
But they’re also not obligated to fight every single creditor in court. When there are hundreds of creditors with their hands out, and those creditors are pretty damn certain to win in court, and the inevitable judgments against the estate will be much larger than the estate, then it doesn’t make any sense to keep fighting. The estate is worthless, because the liabilities are much larger than the assets. And don’t forget that the funds for fighting the claims comes out of the estate. Drawing out futile legal cases just means the money goes to lawyers instead of creditors.
If you think the executors screwed over the heirs of the estate, well, that’s just like your opinion, man. The courts over in the UK didn’t agree with you.
Moderator Note
Keep the political cracks out of General Questions. Since I’ve given you several previous notes on this, the next one will be a warning.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
cf Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.
Most settlements are a calculation - “We could defend the case, but there’s a good probability we’d lose, and then we’d be out lawyers’ fees PLUS a potentially larger settlement than what we are offering. Even if we win, lawyers’ fees will be high.”
Plus, if the demands on the estate far exceed the assets (i.e. everyone is suing for several million pounds and they all have a damn good case) then the duty of the executors is to ensure an equitable distribution of available assets.
I guess the only legitimate complaint the heirs might have, is how long does an estate sit around waiting for even more claimants to materialize? Depending on the situation it can take a year or more to settle an estate even without any arguments or possible lawsuits.
= = = = =
But yes, confiscation of assets by the police without death, due process, trial, or even charges happens regularly. Canadians have even been officially warned here about travelling in the USA with large sums of cash. The average sum of money seized without any criminal charge IIRC was an average of $187 in New York City a few years ago… justified as proceeds of crime, if you want it back, hire a lawyer to prove it ain’t.
Right, “the estate” does not just represent the rights of the beneficiaries. It also represents the rights of the creditors. Which was the “moot” point made by the earlier poster.
The rights of creditors do not have to be established in court. When you go to a restaurant to eat, you are simple presented with a bill: unless you fail to pay, they won’t have to prove the bill.
However, this obligation has now been proved in court.
Not a criminal court (because they weren’t establishing a obligation to go to jail), but a court which deals with debts and payments, using the kind of evidence required to prove debts and payments.
This scheme sounds like an ideal solution. You have victims and a pot of money that no one wants, and, the process to be compensated is set. This avoids a lot of unnecessary legal costs for all involved.
Also, and IANAL, this seems to legally isolate the surviving family from this.