backtop


Print 56 comment(s) - last by ipay.. on Mar 11 at 12:27 AM


Grant with the iPad  (Source: BBC News)
Apple wants a court order

Losing someone can be a very difficult time, and we cling to their possessions as a way of holding onto them. But what happens when that possession is an iPad on lockdown?

According to BBC News, 26-year-old Josh Grant from London and his four brothers are experiencing this very issue. Their mother recently passed away from cancer, and left her iPad to the men in her will.

It was decided that the oldest brother, Patrick, should be the one to take the iPad. However, none of them obtained her Apple ID or password before she passed on. 

They attempted to show Apple their mother's will, death certificate and solicitor's letter as a way of proving they can have access to the iPad, but Apple said this wasn't enough evidence.

Apple initially asked for written consent from the owner that her five sons can have her login credentials, but that obviously is no longer an option. Now, Apple wants a court order to prove that their mother was the owner of the iPad and the iTunes account.

"I thought we might use it as a shiny placemat," said Grant. "I'm a big fan of Apple, their security measures are great but we have provided so much evidence.

"At 59, my mum was fairly young, I've already lost my dad and it's a bit cold of them not to treat things on a case-by-case basis."

Apple offers security measures like Activation Lock, which makes it hard for thieves to sell a lost or stolen iPhone or iPad. It's apart of Apple's "Find My iPhone" feature, which allows you to find your iPhone, iPad or iPod touch using another device.  

Source: BBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Jesus H Christ Apple....
By tayb on 3/6/2014 5:15:07 PM , Rating: 1
A solicitors letter is meaningless unless it is backed by the court, which is what they are requesting.

A written letter would need to be notarized. Again, it is not the job of an Apple employee to try and interpret a will. That is the job of the executor. The executor needs to have the court back the interpretation of the will. A notarized letter in this case has more power than a notarized will. It's pretty ridiculous that people expect Apple employees to try and interpret a will. You can't be serious.

This is how transfer of property works. The ONLY reason this is an issue is because the children here want to save some cash and Apple is unwilling to bend their unlock policy.


RE: Jesus H Christ Apple....
By evo slevven on 3/6/2014 11:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
That was a pretty retarded answer more so with the "the children wanted to save some cash" response when it would've been more logical and understanding that they wanted to know more about their mom. As someone who lost a parent as well, it's the same act as going through a loved ones stuff. Sounds like I'm intruding but that happens a lot when you loose a loved one.

Likewise a lot of courts both in America, Europe and the UK set precedents as to what is required for a court order precedent. Additionally both the UK and the US have guidelines as to whether a court order is required. In the case of the UK where items of value and money are considered a court does uphold a letter of probate equivalent to a will IF a will is left and is found to be both valid and not in contest.

As the brothers agreed on the iPad, a court order would be required in typical cases of lack of a will, contesting of the last will and testimony or contesting of legitimate heirs to the will.

Additionally you are actually incorrect in how Apple is interpreting the events as the executor is one given the assignment of handling the assets of the estate in question in relation to the will. That would automatically denote it to a son if a lawyer was not selected in advance and need not require court authorization for any actions on their part in executing the will as long as all parties agree.

In the event there is a "disagreement" leading to a contesting of the assets then the courts need designate an administrator. An executor is different from an administrator albeit they function in a similar capacity.

If all the brothers were in agreement and a valid will is left and there is no contesting or disagreement of the will and its interpretation or the asset (being the iPad) in question then legally speaking, no you shouldn't need a court order.

You have no idea how the transfer of ownership exists in instances of deceased relatives so please sh*t your pie trap and either be informative about the material or not.

For the US, similar rules also apply but have restrictions on assets based on a state-to-state value of assets being over $10,000 and under $10,000. In some respects, if a will designates an individual and the individual presents the will (notarized), state issued death certificate as well as documentation of your identity then legal institutions are bound to hand over control of said assets granted they follow the prescribed limits of their state which can range from $5,000 and above.

This is just really a case of an Apple representative being lazy and the issue spiraling only because of said laziness and disinterest in customer service.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki