Printable View
is there any need for you to be so rude? havee i done anything to you to deserve this?Quote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
wwhy did phil not tell sharon it was shirley who told ronnie about the money and why their so skint ? oh cos hes protecting her not blabbibg obn her!!
is there any need for you to be so rude? havee i done anything to you to deserve this?Quote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
wwhy did phil not tell sharon it was shirley who told ronnie about the money and why their so skint ? oh cos hes protecting her not blabbibg on her!! and why is he constantly lying to sharon that he knows shirley is micks mother? yet again PROTECTING shirley for no reason!!
i havent made anything upi dont know if you know, but a few years ago steve mcf actually said in an interview shirley was the love of his life. ive not seen anything since where hes said sharon is. funny that.
not telling her he hasnt changed it back and should do after they married is actually wrong. what happened if it was him who ended up in a coma, he wouldnt be able to tell sharon then it was a mistake, hes lucky that its just prison and not half brain dead. any man would tell their wife who they wanted to be with for life that they changed it and would change it back considering he needed her to sign. how on earth did ben not know if he needed ben to sign it?
Phil didnt even remember until they came to visit him...Quote:
Originally Posted by monalisa62003
I think he'll be annoyed at Ben, I mean, he was the one that did it not Sharron...
He didnt tell Shirley about alerting Ronnie because it doesnt matter. Ronnie stole the cash, not Shirley. Its not important.Quote:
Originally Posted by monalisa62003
Phil and Sharron are together for the foreseeable future and I think all these "signs" you're seeing are nothing. If you look hard enough, you can see anything.
Phil still has feelings for Shirley though.
Totally agree Dan.Quote:
Originally Posted by xx_Dan_xx
Also, I've said this before but it bears repeating: we can't assume that just because we haven't seen characters saying/doing something, that they didn't take place. Take the above example of Phil telling Sharon about Shirley and Ronnie - he may have told her but the writers didn't consider it an important enough scene to show. The same goes for Phil not telling Sharon about Ben and Abi, which Mona kept alluding to in her posts. It's obvious that he did indeed tell her but it wasn't an essential scene for us to see.
We need to use our imagination to fill in the blanks as it's impossible to show all the character interactions that happen, and frankly it'd be pretty boring viewing if all minor interactions were shown.
I'm still not really clear why the £19,500 left to Kat in Harry's will has only just come to light, some 12 years after it was revealed he left £18,000 to Zoe....:confused:
Maybe we need to stop using our imagination and just watch as things unfold????Quote:
Originally Posted by Dazzle
Maybe we need to stop using our imagination and just watch as things unfold????Quote:
Originally Posted by Dazzle
Well, yes, I see what you're saying - that we shouldn't let our imaginations run wild and invent unlikely events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Perdita
The point I was trying to make to a certain poster though is that life goes on as normal for the characters when they're off-screen and we have to understand that things are said and done which aren't shown. For example, we're not shown the characters going to the loo several times a day, but we know that it's supposed to happen.
We're only shown the dramatic highlights of the characters' lives.
Hmm Maybe Charlie had it and gave it to Moe during the holidays. Maybe Charlie thought it was best to not tell her as he knew she wouldnt accept it and only decided to give her it when he heard how she is struggling with money ?.Quote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
Hmm Maybe Charlie had it and gave it to Moe during the holidays. Maybe Charlie thought it was best to not tell her as he knew she wouldnt accept it and only decided to give her it when he heard how she is struggling with money ?.Quote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
I've read elsewhere that it's the money that was left to Zoe, but that she doesn't want. I suppose interest would account for the £1,500 difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by xx_Dan_xx
That could be it, Dazzle. Though that does mean Harry didn't actually leave it to Kat, so it's not quite the "blood money", Kat is making it out to be if Harry left it to his daughter.
Mind you, I can still perfectly understand why Kat wouldn't want to touch it. However, just tearing up the cheque doesn't mean the money is not still there.
mo had the cheque zoe got years back but never cashed or lodged it so mo said kat should use it zoe must not have wanted it for so long despite she is on the run too over den's murderQuote:
Originally Posted by xx_Dan_xx
also charlie is or was in lanzarote but kat or mo said they left him the kids so where is he?
How can Max take the Arches, wouldn't any documents to be legal need both Ben and Phil's signatures
Ben has power of attorney meaning he can make any decisions, so no I don't believe he needs Phil's signatureQuote:
Originally Posted by tammyy2j
.
If she got the cheque years ago it would no longer be valid. Cheques are only valid for six months. In any case, if it was made out to Zoe, Kat wouldn't be able to cash it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lizann
Yes, that's right. That's the point of giving power of attorney.Quote:
Originally Posted by xx_Dan_xx
its correct about the 6 months of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
and now amount is 1500 more.So been
somewhere to get interest?
So either it was banked in an a/c that
both Charlie and Zoe had access to
or if Zoe was still under 18 at time
could Charlie have been designated
guardian/trustee but there would
have to be paperwork ( cant cash/ deposit
other peoples cheques easily now because
of fraud/money laundering regs)
Or perhaps simplest reason- didn't
give plot a couple mins more thought
and come up with something plausible.
its correct about the 6 months of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
and now amount is 1500 more.So been
somewhere to get interest?
So either it was banked in an a/c that
both Charlie and Zoe had access to
or if Zoe was still under 18 at time
could Charlie have been designated
guardian/trustee but there would
have to be paperwork ( cant cash/ deposit
other peoples cheques easily now because
of fraud/money laundering regs)
p.s if original cheque not cashed-solicitors
d/w estate couldnt certify they had concluded
matters and perhaps put money in a central
fund for unclaimed legacies.?? where it would
accrue interest.
Then perhaps Zoe recently did ask for
money but for cheque to be made out
Kat. All very complicated and not sure
if possible
Or perhaps simplest reason- didn't
give plot a couple mins more thought
and come up with something plausible.
Sadly, I think your last explanation is most likely the correct one, maidmarian.
And, of course, tearing up the cheque means very little as the money will still be in the account.
Thanks very much. I put a ps in original postQuote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
which crossed with yours.
People do decline legacies so there must be
a legal procedure. Soaps always say they've
had medical advice when d/w a health story
- so must have access to advice on basic
legal matters.
In the scenarios in Heir Hunters people
havent left wills and relatives have to be
found or money goes to Crown.
Here there are known relatives and ??
a Will.
Going to Bed!
Thanks very much. I put a ps in original postQuote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
which crossed with yours.
People do decline legacies so there must be
a legal procedure. Soaps always say they've
had medical advice when d/w a health story
- so must have access to advice on basic
legal matters.
In the scenarios in Heir Hunters people
havent left wills and relatives have to be
found or money goes to Crown.
Here there are known relatives and ??
a Will.
Going to Bed!
Max you are a dead man walking when philth has finished panto and gets out of the nick.:D
I know this is all getting very legal and complicated, but surely the only way for the money to go to Kat would be for Zoe to have accepted the inheritance and then made out the cheque. She couldn't instruct the solicitors to alter Harry's will and pay the money to Kat. So the money must be in Zoe's account now.Quote:
Originally Posted by maidmarian
Mustn't it? :hmm:
yes -it must -if she accepted it initially andQuote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
then put in an a/c but never touched it.
Then decided to give to Kat - that would mean
a new cheque could be written.
If she declined it initially -the solrs couldn't
change Harrys will but they would also have
to put the money somewhere separate .
I dont know if having declined u can then
change your mind years later.
And if she was a minor when Harry died
dont know if legally could decline-
perhaps put in a form of trust a/c till older.
Your suggestion would be easier in plot line
terms-so lets hope so.
Interesting if more explanation given in the
prog- as I understood this to be the beginning
of a big new story for Kat(unless got it wrong)
so would expect more to be said about it over
next few months!
yes -it must -if she accepted it initially andQuote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
then put in an a/c but never touched it.
Then decided to give to Kat - that would mean
a new cheque could be written.
If she declined it initially -the solrs couldn't
change Harrys will but they would also have
to put the money somewhere separate .
I dont know if having declined u can then
change your mind years later.
And if she was a minor when Harry died
dont know if legally could decline-
perhaps put in a form of trust a/c till older.
Your suggestion would be easier in plot line
terms-so lets hope so.
Interesting if more explanation given in the
prog- as I understood this to be the beginning
of a big new story for Kat(unless got it wrong)
so would expect more to be said about it over
next few months!
Kat was born in 1971 and was, what 13 or 14, when Zoe was born, meaning she was born in 1984/5, so she would have been 17/18 when Harry died.
Please bear in mind folks that what I read about Kat's legacy actually being Zoe's was a comment on a social networking site and not direct from an official source.
If it is true, and the amounts involved suggest it could be, then perhaps Harry stipulated in his will that Kat should get the money if Zoe declined it? It's all very convoluted! I hope we get a proper explanation.
(Oops...I forgot to use the "Go Advanced" button to avoid double posting! :o)
Some hopes, Dazzle. This is Eastenders!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dazzle
And without a solicitor it is still legal?Quote:
Originally Posted by xx_Dan_xx
Yes.You don't need a solicitor.
this would be a general.power of attorney asQuote:
Originally Posted by tammyy2j
Phil is not mentally unfit to conduct his affairs.
It has to specify what "power" you are giving
to.the "attorney" eg all financial affairs or over
seeing a property sale and period of time can
be specified. There are downloadable
forms on internet.
Needs to be signed by donor and witnessed
by a third party not the attorney. Can be cancelled
verbally and does not need a solictor or to be
registered with authorities- just produced when
needed.
There is also a lasting power of attorney to
be used in eg dementia cases. More complicated
and more safeguards.
so Lizann - in this case it would be legal without
a solicitor.
unless someone questioned Phils sanity !!!
this would be a general.power of attorney asQuote:
Originally Posted by tammyy2j
Phil is not mentally unfit to conduct his affairs.
It has to specify what "power" you are giving
to.the "attorney" eg all financial affairs or over
seeing a property sale and period of time can
be specified. There are downloadable
forms on internet.
Needs to be signed by donor and witnessed
by a third party not the attorney. Can be cancelled
verbally and does not need a solictor or to be
registered with authorities- just produced when
needed.
There is also a lasting power of attorney to
be used in eg dementia cases. More complicated
and more safeguards.
so Lizann - in this case it would be legal without
a solicitor.
unless someone questioned Phils sanity !!!
thanks v much. Admirably concise.!Quote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
thanks v much. Admirably concise.!Quote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
Yes, I'm afraid I have a bit of a thing about solicitors! People always think you have to go to them about most things when in fact you don't and it is usually just as easy and definitely much cheaper to do it yourself! However, I will say your fuller answer was very educational. Thank you.
I take it from some of your answers that you have had legal training. So I'm sorry if my view doesn't chime with your own. But could I just say that some of my best friends are solicitors! :D
I dont have any legal training - just had a somewhatQuote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
litigious father - whose opinion of solictors was very
similar to your own.
I have helped friends/ relatives to find info they need
on occasions.
I did apply for a clerical position in the court service
when I left school - but there was a train strike-
I missed the interview - was given another one
at a later date and then a job elsewhere.