Howes v Howes

A beneficiary may have sufficient interest to require an executor to account for an earlier estate where a possible asset of the beneficiary’s estate is a reimbursement claim against the executor for wrongful appropriation. The court may order an account despite being unable at that stage to determine whether misappropriation occurred. The account should cover the period during which the fiduciary relationship continued, subject to a proportionate endpoint. A further account is unnecessary where the information already supplied gives the beneficiary sufficient understanding of the estate’s administration.

This was a Part 8 claim by a beneficiary against her brother, who was executor of their mother’s estate and had administered their stepfather’s estate. The claimant sought complete accounts of both estates. She was a beneficiary of the mother’s estate but had no direct beneficial interest in the stepfather’s estate. The central issue was whether her indirect interest in that estate, arising from a possible claim by the mother’s estate against the defendant, justified an account, and whether the information supplied concerning the mother’s estate was sufficient.

1. Account of the Howes estate. The detailed schedule and supporting documents supplied by the defendant identified the deductions from the sale proceeds and provided sufficient information about the administration of the Howes estate. No further account of that estate was required.
2. Interest in the Crozier estate. The evidence concerning the proceeds of sale of 141 Ladywell Road showed substantial transfers to the defendant and raised unresolved questions about whether the money had been spent at the direction of the deceased or appropriated by the defendant. If the latter had occurred, the Howes estate would possess a reimbursement claim against the defendant. That possible asset gave the claimant sufficient interest to require an account of the Crozier estate.
3. Scope of account. The account was to cover the period from the commencement of the Crozier estate’s administration until either the administration of the Howes estate or the point at which the proceeds had effectively been reduced below £100, whichever was earlier. The £100 threshold reflected proportionality.
4. The defendant was ordered to produce the Crozier estate account. The parties had permission to apply if they disputed whether sufficient information had been provided. Costs were left in the proceedings.