Yep, normal. Sign the receipt and release

This really is how it's done, even though it doesn't make sense.

IMHO sometimes you have to go with the presumption of regularity. Here, assuming you agree with the accounting of the amount you're supposed to receive I think you can presume that the law firm is not going to steal the money. You could also probably do a 30 min consult with another T&E attorney for minimal expense to confirm this is how the process works.

Another thought would be to post your question on bogleheads. There are a few posters there (BSteiner in particular) that are experienced T&E lawyers that could confirm whether the proposed approach is generally correct or not.

You can also put it in escrow.

I wouldn't want to do that. Why can't they transfer the money electronically into your account? Then the bank can independently confirm that you did receive the money.

Anonymous wrote:The Executor/Personal Representative will need that the RECEIPT and RELEASE to present to the court to close out the estate.

Is the distribution a partial distribution of a residual? Or does it satisfy a specific bequest? Or is it a final distribution? In my experience I wanted to make sure I had the will, inventory, and any accounting.

The process seems out of order, signing a receipt before receipt of funds but it seems to be what is done.

It is the way it's done when the family isn't local. If OP were local to the attorneys, she would just go to their office, sign the receipt/release and be handed a check right there. Since she's not local and isn't willing to travel in, it gets done a little out of order so that the law firm can protect itself.

If OP wants more assurance, she can ask that the check be sent by certified mail with tracking (which is probably how the law firm would do it anyway for their own protection) and that she be sent the tracking number upon shipping. This gives her confirmation that it was sent and protection against someone else receiving it instead.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds weird to me. The canceled check with your endorsement should be proof enough. In court, if it came to that, both the canceled check and the receipt would have your signature on them, and that’s what makes them relevant evidence.

Not everyone endorses checks before depositing them. If the check is deposited and there's no signature on the back, the attorney can't prove later that it was OP who deposited it and not someone else who intercepted and stole the check.

NP here but it would be very easy to prove that the check was deposited into OP's account signature or not. It would be really stupid to cash a check like that and then try to sue and claim you didn't receive the funds.

It's not that hard to to get around something like that, especially if you sell it to someone who deposits it in a bank account opened with a fake id, waits for the check to clear and then cleans out the account.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It sounds weird to me. The canceled check with your endorsement should be proof enough. In court, if it came to that, both the canceled check and the receipt would have your signature on them, and that’s what makes them relevant evidence.

Not everyone endorses checks before depositing them. If the check is deposited and there's no signature on the back, the attorney can't prove later that it was OP who deposited it and not someone else who intercepted and stole the check.

NP here but it would be very easy to prove that the check was deposited into OP's account signature or not. It would be really stupid to cash a check like that and then try to sue and claim you didn't receive the funds.

Anonymous wrote:It sounds weird to me. The canceled check with your endorsement should be proof enough. In court, if it came to that, both the canceled check and the receipt would have your signature on them, and that’s what makes them relevant evidence.

Not everyone endorses checks before depositing them. If the check is deposited and there's no signature on the back, the attorney can't prove later that it was OP who deposited it and not someone else who intercepted and stole the check.

The Executor/Personal Representative will need that the RECEIPT and RELEASE to present to the court to close out the estate.

Is the distribution a partial distribution of a residual? Or does it satisfy a specific bequest? Or is it a final distribution? In my experience I wanted to make sure I had the will, inventory, and any accounting.

The process seems out of order, signing a receipt before receipt of funds but it seems to be what is done.

It sounds weird to me. The canceled check with your endorsement should be proof enough. In court, if it came to that, both the canceled check and the receipt would have your signature on them, and that’s what makes them relevant evidence.

Sign the doc, email it back in PDF form saying it is to be held in escrow until you release it by written confirmation which you will do after receiving the $.

Yea, that sounds odd to me as well. My dh inherited a small amount of money from a great-aunt, and I do recall sending back some paperwork before we received the check, but I'm certain it did not acknowledge receipt of something we didn't have. I think it was more an acknowledgement that he was the intended recipient, and that we weren't looking for any more money. This was in Massachusetts.

I was the executor for my father's estate, which was just between my sister and I, and I just had funds electronically transferred to her accounts and mine.

Perhaps it's worth a consult call with a lawyer in that state to find out if this is standard there? With estates, there are alot of state-specific regulations. Though again, in your shoes, I wouldn't be comfortable signing something that said I had gotten a check that I didn't have in hand yet.

The executor of my mother’s estate, a lawyer, sent receipts to my siblings and me, requesting that we sign them and have them notarized before the law firm will mail final checks to us. The receipt states that I have received a check in the amount of $x, and that I will refund the law firm if there are future claims on the estate. I won’t sign a legal document claiming that I have received a large amount of money that I have not, in fact, received. I have spoken to the lawyer and he says the only alternative is to pick up the check in person. Neither my siblings nor I live in the state or vicinity of this law firm. Picking up the check in person would require a round trip flight and overnight stay.

This is insane, right? Do I need to retain my own lawyer to compel him to mail the check? What is normally done when final estate checks are distributed to distant heirs?

FWIW this is a podunk law firm that has displayed a lack of professionalism on other occasions.