From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Sun Mar 15 15:49:17 2026 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Lodger with deceased intestate landlord References: <1274187758.98a2e39c@uninhabited.net> <5nv1NWDmV8spFAqi@perry.uk> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [177339947530585] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2026 15:49:15 +0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Mar 13 10:57:55 2026 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Authentication-Results: mailhub-hex-d.mythic-beasts.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uni-berlin.de; dkim=pass header.d=uni-berlin.de header.s=fub01 header.a=rsa-sha256 > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:From: Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:In-Reply-To: References; bh=4o3wYoFvR8m/PBIikN+GYsYSs733uIRBc6X+nsw0sLw=; t=1773399473; x=1774004273; b=osVcDJJvSNEUuzP3I7SoVC6paRw4dyfYM2RM1Od25dkk4N2ZDBtyI0xcQmncZ XJSzbmarnu341D > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Lodger with deceased intestate landlord > Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 10:57:51 +0000 > Message-ID: > References: > > <1274187758.98a2e39c@uninhabited.net> <5nv1NWDmV8spFAqi@perry.uk> > > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net lqXi1q+MmdIj5NOooFX34Q2/6ITIVEWPzaTQOitufvQFUWGzCI > Cancel-Lock: sha1:ApyyZjDb56JhVXNniiM0W0XbTzA= sha256:pfSfTc7Iy2LkVrplFWqmSc+LLzuEuNpLUHncRLzikHo= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 29 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.9 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Authentication-Results: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 13/03/2026 09:54, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message , at 08:41:40 on Fri, 13 > > Mar 2026, Norman Wells remarked: > >> On 13/03/2026 08:05, Roland Perry wrote: > >>> In message <1274187758.98a2e39c@uninhabited.net>, at 10:52:22 on Thu, > >>> 12  Mar 2026, Roger Hayter remarked: > >>> > >>>>>> The widow will be the only one > >>>>>> inconvenienced by her own apparent tardiness. > >>>>> > >>>>> The widow wasn't tardy, it's just how long things take in the real > >>>>> world. > >>>>> > >>>>> OK, so she probably didn't get started until the funeral (six weeks > >>>>> later), but you wouldn't really expect her to have done otherwise. One > >>>>> of the issues with being intestate was that the formerly appointed > >>>>> third > >>>>> party executors were void. > >>>> > >>>> You imply that there was a will (which appointed executors) before the > >>>> marriage. > > > >>>  Yes there was, but it was voided by the marriage. > >>> > >>>> The widow could of course have appointed professionals to seek > >>>> probate and do the admin on her behalf. > > > >>>  She did. But that doesn't reduce the complexity, and if anything it > >>> will  usually cause delays. > >> > >> Why don't you just let them handle it then? > > > > Why don't you try answering my original question, > > It's not Groundhog day and, having answered it, we all moved on ages ago. > > > rather than heckling me about irrelevancies? > > Perhaps because they're not? > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmm21PsACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x4oHwf/cBt1dLEF4XfPzwLBEbJRxohQqJ310bLHs0X2DQcaWRbrV79FgvzL555/ j2dPlmluQykugWj3HaPDD25XbjcHgle+aPMpUwyI/edQt0gRNJF/uc79uI5D5ncR e457wv30sGGksyPULTwlRL0xSlobRkw8SFrTLFEBlP6N1aJu4wtLVm1UGJQ2uu9+ TFoZVXf4D1+rDWv126cLo7H9Ko0mDfcKuWDQouNzr+q/OHIWdBgREwQy6L+kaPGQ 2Fc6ZfGkapNa4yMvnP1VFbCtRi5vZ7ZvuVLcfI3dThZeGcgilBTKNkFDXFz+DSkP XgV+MzZ/TZRKEysumky/TajGL8hFXw== =kXub -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----