The doom-laden legal advice being offered above doesn't sound right. It wouldn't be right in England. Heric, where are you? Does anyone know who he actually is? I can't PM him as he isn't a member.

First step should be was there a will. If so there should have been an executor. Then chain of executorship applies.

If no will, then there should have been an administrator. If there was a surviving spouse, it should have been the surviving spouse, if not children (if more than one, jointly unless the others were "cleared off"). Once an administrator is appointed then the adminstratorship will pass to the executors or adminstrators of that administrator, but if one wasn't then if the potential adminstrator dies the next in line becomes entitled.

Executor's authority speaks from death, adminstrator's from appointment. In either case there should be a grant - on the one hand of probate, on the other of letters of adminstration.

This much I think flows fromthe common heritage of UK and US law and sounds familiar from when one of my partners was involved in the film rights flowing from the literary estate of an American author - the first place I hear the ugly coinage "perstirpetally" as the adverbial form of the latin expression "per stirpes".

If the stuff was "stock" then unless they were bearer shares (uncommon) then the company should have records of ownership. In England (until the new act comes in) it would have been obligatory.

The facts need clear and accurate elucidation. I for one am unclear what is meant by "caretaker" above, in context. And the other bits are somehow incoherent.