Hatfield Court

(2)

Hatfield Court

Hatfield

Nr Leominster

Herefordshire

HR6 0SD

Phone: 01568 760333

23 January 1996

Dear Antonia,

Well done to have wrestled so successfully with the figures and presented them with such clarity. They were worked out according to your ideas as to what seemed fair (as we agreed you would), so herewith some thoughts on my part to add to the discussion.

You suggest that ‘the proper approach would seem to be to divide equally the costs due to matters in which we were all concerned, and to leave to [individuals] the costs due to matters of concern to [them] alone’, but it might be, it seems to me, that this might reduce your own proportion of the final ‘share out’ as it seems to me that, if we do it that way, we ought to look at the cottage costs as well as the executor’s costs. Anyway, I’ve made some notes on all that in what follows.

Human nature being what it is, I suppose all ideas of what seems fair may tend towards getting a slightly better deal for whoever is working out what is fair (‘all knowledge is subjective’), so your comments on this will be most gratefully received. Mine are highly speculative and subject to discussion just as I think yours were.

I also add notes on two or three areas where I feel we might ask David Francis for a reduction and your views on this will also be gratefully received. We should, I think, not even begin to think of asking for a reduction unless we’re all agreed that this would be a good idea.

First, though, I’d like to say that I feel really sad that you and Juliet don’t seem to want to join me in the creation of the Garden of Remembrance. It seems to me it will be such a lovely thing to do for our parents - and also I’m thinking of the Great Cross Mary put up in memory of Algy and how special that is, and of the cross on the downs at Woolley. And can I manage it on my own? I certainly hope so and intend so.

We did agree, did we not, that we would as far as possible reach a consensus among ourselves on all matters and then approach the solicitors, as a way of keeping down costs (especially following Judith’s astonishing revelation that her time costs £90 per hour). So, my view is that we should think carefully before involving her too deeply at this point.

Judith has confirmed, in her letter of 8 November, that ‘£5,118.25 is [her] total bill for the sale of the cottage, and associated work.’ However, she goes on, ‘I must remind you that should further complications or negotiations arise ... these will have to be charged for separately.’ So we should tread carefully here and possibly check with her every now and again whether anything proposed would count as ‘further complications or negotiations’, or not. She has indicated to me that a valuation of the Garden of Remembrance would be ‘extra’.

Incidentally, there seems to me to be a mistake in the final figure of your Appendix I which I believe is £2,000 too low.

Grounds for asking for a reduction

(1) Failure to alert us to size of bill (£5,118.25)

In my experience, solicitors send a reminder, every thousand pounds or so, so that their clients have a rough perspective of what is going on. This could have been specifically stipulated in the initial stages of discussion with the solicitors (was it?) I appreciate that you were holding the fort at that point when I didn’t feel up to it and Juliet was in the USA. They were sending us their bills for approval once a quarter during ‘94.

David Francis’ failure to alert us to this might, it seems to me, be grounds on which it might be reasonable to ask for his views as to whether a reduction might be appropriate.

Judith has described how David Francis ‘cannot recollect how the boundaries were arrived at in the original conveyance’, and his recollection may equally have failed him in ‘95, at the point it would have been a reasonable part of the service to point out how the bill was mounting up.

(2) Expenses to do with establishing the boundary with the Moncrieffs

It in fact seems to me that considerable expense was caused in this area by the lack of recollection in David Francis’ case. It was he who did the conveyance for our mother. His inability to recollect meant that you and I, and Judith who had only heard about it at second hand, were drawn into extensive correspondence which, as far as I can see, would have been unnecessary if David Francis’ recollection had not failed him.

David Francis’ exact words are ‘I have no detailed memory’ and, while this is understandable, it is hard to understand why he did not make notes. The point about a conveyance, as I see it, is that money is exchanged for a certain area of land and the job of the conveyancer, as I see it, is to be specific as to exactly what is being paid and what is being sold.

In the situation that David Francis has not been able to be exact, and the result has been a lot of time and expense for you and me, it might be worth asking whether a reduction of their fees in this area might not be appropriate in that, it seems to me, we have in effect been doing David Francis’ work for him.

(3) A third area where it might be reasonable, it seems to me, to ask whether a reduction might be appropriate is that there was one really important letter from the Moncrieff’s solicitors which arrived during Judith’s holiday and was dealt with by David Francis. This contained a seven day ultimatum that Gavin Moncrieff was about to shut and lock the front gate if certain conditions were not adhered to. It was some two and a half weeks after receipt by David Francis of the letter that it was handed to me. (In fact Judith spotted it in the file when I called in to see her, two and a half weeks later, otherwise it might have been even longer.)

Mr Moncrieff duly chained and locked the gate and the result was considerable chaos since, as a result of our solicitor’s forgetfulness, there was a total lack of communication between the two parties as to what was going on, Mr Moncrieff naturally assuming that his ultimatum had been delivered.

How we should share out the legacy

The simplest way (but not necessarily the fairest) would be to share equally all ancillary costs to do with the winding up of our dear Mother’s estate.

These would include:

Money paid by executors to Inland Revenue £8,137

All bills to do with maintenance and safe-keeping

of the cottage £13,226

Executors fees to do with sale of cottage £5,118

_______

Total: £26,481 or £8,827 each

Following this course, the figures might look like:

A Method “A”

Paying equal shares of all bills and executors costs:

(a) Money available from executors £93,873.75

(b) Value of articles retained by children £41,359.00

__________

Total: £135,239.75

(d) Equalisation:

Total Due Valuables already received Remainder

Jeremy 45,077.58 25,581.00 19,496.58

Antonia 45,077.58 9,775.00 35,302.58

Juliet 45,077.58 6,003.00 39,074.58

These figures are less than either of Antonia’s two sets of proposed totals in (d) and (e) of her Appendix I.

Apart from the fact that under this scheme we would all be paying equal shares of executors fees as well as the bills, also Antonia’s total in (e) seems to me to have been wrongly added up. The figure of £93,873.26 should actually be £95,873.76, higher than the executors would be able to pay out, should, I think, be £666.66 less in each case. Except that I think a further £2,000 or so from sale of dolls to the executors is to be forwarded to them.

B Method “B” (Antonia’s suggestion)

Under this method all would pay equal shares of Inland Revenue and bills to do with the cottage. Jeremy would pay 4/5 of the executors costs to do with sale of the cottage, and Antonia and Juliet 1/10 each.

Jeremy would also pay Antonia and Juliet £2,000 each for their shares of the estimated value of £6,000 for the remaining third of the orchard.

(For details of computation, see Antonia’s Appendix I.)

These totals work out at:

Jeremy £13,084.42

Antonia £39,508.67

Juliet £43,280.67

C Method “C”

Before outlining my thoughts on a possible Method “C”, may I be allowed to preamble?

Method “C”, like the above Method “B”, represents a point of view with which I have come to have some sympathy, and which is the view now taken by Antonia; that if, through the particular desires or needs of any one of us, money may have been spent which would or might not otherwise be spent, that this should be reflected in the equalisation. Or, as she puts it, ‘the proper approach would seem to be to divide equally the costs due to matters in which we were all concerned, and to leave to [individuals] the costs due to matters of concern to [them] alone.’

Since such desires have been more the province of Jeremy and Antonia than Juliet, it could be argued that there should be a financial balancing up in the direction of Juliet.

However, in reaching a ‘fair’ figure, we should not forget the almost two years of much activity on the part of Jeremy and Antonia to do with the winding up of our dear mother’s estate, activity both physical (i.e. moving furniture, driving up to ‘keep an eye’ on the place, fending off Gavin Moncrieff) and intellectual (engaging caretaker(s), writing letters, etc.) One by-product of this was that Jeremy was, for a period of some weeks, doubled up with a bad back, needing the services of an osteopath. Both Jeremy and Antonia have had nightmares about it all. So, there then arises the question as to whether there should be an equalisation in the direction of Jeremy and Antonia, since Juliet, through being in the United States, was in effect able to play no part in this exhausting operation. Totting this up at Judith’s rate of £90 per hour (which is not for a moment suggested), it would, I am sure, result in thousands of pounds equalisation in the direction of Jeremy and Antonia.

Antonia has chronicled some of the expenses which could be perceived as being exclusively the result of Jeremy’s desires or needs.

Looking at expenses which could be perceived as exclusively incurred by Antonia’s desires or needs, I would suggest:

Antonia’s intention to move her home to the cottage / need to discover whether this might be possible. Antonia asked for a delay of 13 months in the sale of the cottage after our dear mother’s death, i.e. till 1st January 1995. (In fact she decided against it in November 1994, but it was not realistic to put the cottage on the market at that point because it was important to offer it to any other family members in order of entitlement. And the sensible time to put property on the market is the spring.)

If Antonia had not needed (quite understandably) that period to decide whether she wanted the cottage or not, the offers to other family members could have been made in early 1994 and the cottage put on sale in spring ‘94, to take advantage of the seller’s market that still prevailed in that year. We could, it seems to me, have hoped to sell it by August 1st.

So, all three of us should bear all expenses up to that date. From then on, till the point of actual sale, it seems to me that there is a strong argument for those costs to be born by Antonia, as they were the result of her need / desire to delay the sale while she decided what she wanted.

I think it is right to say that during most of the two years till the cottage was sold, Antonia was using it as a weekend cottage, so she was having the advantage of a weekend cottage for free, and was of course using electricity, oil, etc. while she was there.

As far as I can unravel them, the costs on maintenance and care for the cottage up till August 1st ‘94 were £3,370 and this, it seems to me, should be shared by all of us since the cottage could not have been sold before that date, and that is a likely date for sale of the cottage if it had been put on the market in spring ‘94 as it was still a good market for that type of property.

There is, it seems to me, a strong case that the rest of the cottage expenses should be born by Antonia since they would not have arisen if she had not asked to keep back the cottage for a year.

Outgoings since August 1st ‘94, according to my calculations (see my Appendix I), were £9,395.

To this, however, should perhaps be added a further figure which, despite having to be rather more speculative, is nonetheless part of the equation. If Antonia’s needs had not been such and the cottage had been put on the market in the spring of 1994:

a) It would have given a full year more to achieve a good price for the cottage. By the time it was put on the market (in spring ‘95), there was already pressure (especially from Juliet) to expedite the sale. This specifically affected the decision to ask for the ‘reasonable price’ of £100,000 rather than the ‘good’ price (for which less attractive cottages than this one were on offer in the area) of £120,000.

b) Even more important, in Spring 1994 there still existed to a degree a seller’s market. The alarmist reports in the press of Spring 1995, that country cottages in this area were virtually unsaleable, were still a year away. My understanding of the market (based in part on reports from various estate agents) is that property of this sort fell as a whole by 10% average during this period; but, far worse, by spring ‘95, country cottages were beginning to be perceived as unsaleable.

So that - and this is speculative but highly possible - these two combined factors (the drop in prices overall plus not having time to wait for the right price) may well have lost us, say, £15,000.

Turning now to the executor’s bill of £5,118.25 to do with the sale of the cottage and what would be a fair proportion between the three children.

The bill covers various activities on the part of the executors:

1. Ordinary costs which are the result of any property conveyance.

2. Costs to do with the Moncrieffs’ wish to put a driveway through the orchard, and with drainage.

3. Costs to do with establishing where exactly the boundary with the part sold to the Moncrieffs goes.

4. Costs to do with the Moncrieffs’ ultimatum that they wanted us to contribute to the resurfacing of the drive and would close the gate to the drive, and subsequently did close it, in order to extort money from us.

5. Costs to do with how much of the orchard was to be retained, and what might or might not be done in the Garden of Remembrance.

Looking at these in turn:

1. Ordinary costs which would be incurred in any conveyance. Judith has given this figure as £712, i.e. £237.33 each. Antonia suggests this should be shared three ways.

2. Costs to do with the Moncrieffs’ desire to put a driveway through the orchard and with drainage. Antonia believes this would come to £476, i.e. £158.66 each (£1,000 - £712 ÷ 2 x 3) and should be split three ways.

3. Costs to do with establishing where exactly the boundary with the Moncrieffs’ runs. (Judith has pointed out that David Francis ‘cannot recollect how the boundaries were arrived at in the original conveyance’.)

Since these problems would be likely to have arisen whoever was buying the property, it seems to me that these should be shared three ways. My estimate of the cost is £ , i.e. £ each.

4. Costs to do with our contribution to resurfacing of the drive. You’ll remember that, in order to save costs and be masters of our own destiny rather than go through solicitors, you and Juliet gave me a mandate to negotiate directly with the Moncrieffs about this and this was explained to them by Judith, in writing. I did put a lot of energy into this (at Judith’s rate my time would have been worth at least £1,500) and, in my view, was on the point of winning, with the admission wrested from them that there had been a previous expensive tarmacing and that Lettice had not contributed to it (quite contrary to their previous claims). This win would of course have saved us more than £1,000.

What meanwhile seems to have happened is that Antonia and Juliet appear to have instructed Judith to reopen negotiations without telling me so that Judith and I were negotiating simultaneously. This mix-up (which I much regret, since I spent so much time on it) resulted in much expensive use of Judith’s time and finally the decision, in which I reluctantly concurred, to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and, in a situation which may well have surprised them, pay over the £1,000 in the situation that it was now quite clear that we didn’t owe it.

All that was an unfortunate mix-up and I believe we are £1,000 the poorer, even forgetting Judith’s costs. In that the instructions to Judith came from Antonia and Juliet and not from Jeremy there might be an argument for Judith’s costs being met entirely by Antonia and Juliet. It even could be claimed that Antonia and Juliet owe Jeremy his share of the £1,000 since Jeremy believes it was quite unnecessary to pay this out.

More important than this is that none of this would have occurred if the cottage had been sold in summer ‘94 since the Moncrieffs first mention of the matter came, I think, in ‘95. So that it could be argued that these costs should be born by Antonia as they would not have occurred if she had not asked for the year’s delay. My estimate of these costs is £ + £1,000. If divided three ways:

£ . If divided two ways: £ .

5. Costs to do with how much of the orchard we should retain and what might or might not be done in the Garden of Remembrance. The fair share of this would depend on how much Antonia and Juliet want to be involved in the Garden of Remembrance project and the indications are at the moment that they don’t.

My estimate of the costs of this: £ ______. Costs if shared three ways:

£ ______.

Were further costs involved by the aborting of the conveyance to Felicity Norman? I believe that these have all already been covered. I also believe that maybe they should be shared three ways in that our original agreement was that solicitors’ costs should be shared three ways and there was no indication from Antonia or Juliet that they would wish this to be otherwise. It was only after the abortion of this sale that Antonia and Juliet indicated that they wondered whether it might be fairer to share out the solicitors’ costs in some other way.

The sale to the new buyers was jointly agreed by the three children, because it was felt it did constitute a potential financial gain. (This financial gain may have been wiped out by the high level of executors’ fees.)

The point is, as I see it, that the switch to the Brugges was agreed by the three siblings in that it was believed it constituted financial gain. However, it seems to me to make more sense if the split as to what is fair is worked out under the headings (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), rather than in other ways.

Valuation of the garden of remembrance. Jeremy much regrets that Antonia and Juliet do not wish to join him in the creation of the garden of remembrance. Arriving at a fair figure for him to buy their share of the garden of remembrance from them, the following could be born in mind:

1) I do remember one estate agent advancing a value of £5,000 - £10,000 for the orchard as a whole. I don’t myself remember one specifically saying £10,000. Four estate agents were asked for their views. That was for its value as ancillary to the cottage. Even if it were worth that, I do not think myself it would achieve anything like that value sold on its own.

2) The garden of remembrance constitutes only one third of the area of the orchard (i.e somewhat less than one third of an acre). As it is now so small a parcel of land, I do not think its value would be pro rata (i.e. if the whole orchard was actually worth £3,000, I don’t think the value of the garden of remembrance would be £1,000). (The situation would, of course, be quite different if it had planning permission, but that has been forbidden by both the council and the conveyance with the Brugges.)

3) The only specific offer we have received is for £2,000 for the Garden of Remembrance, from Mr Brugges.

4) The current value per acre for an old orchard like this at agricultural rates would be £1,000 - £2,000, so that this would give a price for the garden of remembrance of £300 - £600 (it being rather less than a third of an acre).

5) I am not too happy about paying for a professional valuation and am hoping we might be able to arrive at an informal agreement amongst ourselves, especially as the use to which it is to be put is one in which we would, I hope, all concur, i.e. a garden of remembrance to Christopher and Lettice Sandford. In the circumstances of its relatively low value and the worthy aim to which it is to be put, would you perhaps consider gifting it to me as your contribution to the Garden of Remembrance? I would promise to take total responsibility for it and also to reimburse you in the unlikely circumstance that it was sold by me. Alternatively, Juliet and Antonia could finance a valuation if they think one necessary.

6) Would not a good first step be for us to seek informal valuations (which would cost us nothing).

Antonia’s present estimate of value of the Garden of Remembrance: £6,000. Split three ways: £2,000 each.

Jeremy’s present estimate of the value of the Garden of Remembrance: £2,000. Split three ways: £666.66 each.

Note: It would be possible, though time consuming, to work out the exact cost of each of the various categories for ‘cottage costs’ and ‘sale of cottage costs’ since we have the executor’s printout of time spent and all the letters.

However, it would save a lot of time if we were able to agree on approximate sums, thus avoiding much work in collating all the information.

It would be much more sensible if we could all reach an agreement on what would be the approximately fair shares.

As an interim suggestion, would it seem fair if Jeremy paid half of executor’s fees for sale of the cottage? And Antonia and Juliet 1/4 each?

Antonia’s original suggestion was that Jeremy should pay 3/4 and Antonia and Juliet 1/8 each.

Jeremy’s Very Tentative Suggestions for Method “C”

January 1996

(a) Available from sale of cottage 93,873.75

(b) Value of articles retained by children 41,359

_______

Total: 135,233

(d) Equalisation

Total Due Valuables Received Remainder Due

Jeremy £45,078 £25,581 £19,497

Antonia £45,078 £9,775 £35,303

Juliet £45,078 £6,003 £39,075

(e) Effect of apportioning various costs (Note: those not included here would be

shared equally.)

Due Loss in Sale Price Care & Upkeep Executors Costs

as above through 1 years delay of cottage from Sale of Cottage

1 Aug ‘94 (1)*

Jeremy £19,497 +£7,500 +£4,697 -£1,279

Antonia £35,303 -£15,000 -£9,395 +£639

Juliet £39,075 +£7,500 +£4,697 +£639

Continued:

Jeremy buys out (+/-) Remainder due

A & J on Garden

of Remembrance (2)

Jeremy -£1,332 +£9,586 £29,083

Antonia +£666 -£23,090 £12,213

Juliet +£666 +£13,502 £56,999

(1)* In this proposal, on top of equal shares of 1/4 the cost, Jeremy pays a further quarter.

(2) In this proposal, the value of the Garden of Remembrance is taken as £2,000.

I would stress that, as I am sure you found too, to arrive at exact figures is really very hard and it was the original intention surely to go for what ‘feels right’ rather than for the last penny.

This is intended as a discussion document just as yours was and is an interim report or suggestion - in no sense a final recommendation. But I hope it may move our discussion forward a little.

I think in turn each one of us has stood firm for the others in various situations, so that each has on occasion respected the others’ foibles, and I’m sure this will continue.

Appendix I

Outgoings on Cottage

01.01.94 - 01.04.94 Hills Fuels, M E Fletcher, British Telecom,

Welsh Water, Legal & General (£296), NCL Investments (?), Mrs Boll (£376), Hills Fuels.

£1,586

01.04.94 - 01.07.94 MEB, MEB, HMPG (?), J D Spicer, LMS

(£228), Client to Office (£940), Waterlow

Comp (?)

£1,784

01.07.94 - 01.10.94 Russel Baldwin & Bright (?), (£411), Antonia

Boll (£1,671), MEB, Client to Office, Treasure

& Son (£2,604), Patricia Lee (£122).

£4,744

01.10.94 - 31.12.94 MEB, Clients to Office (£528), Leo Dist Co.

£653

01.01.95 - 01.04.95 LDC, MEB, Commercial Union (£440), Water

£776

01.04.95 - 01.07.95 LDC, MEB, LDC, LDC, Client to Office (£293)

£461

01.07.95 - 01.10.95 LDC, LDC, MEB, LDC, Antonia Boll (£2,810)

£2,954

01.10.95 - 31.12.95 June Weston, Client to Office (£235)

£268

TOTAL: £13,226