What if the executor is not telling the truth?
Comments
-
JacobPasco wrote: »Dave lives in it with his kids. Nobody wants to kick them all out of their house.
But it's not like it's ever been discussed since we've never been told about the will.0 -
JacobPasco wrote: »everything after that was to be divided equally between my daughter Sally and my brother in-law Dave, with Sally's share to be kept in trust until her 18th.JacobPasco wrote: »I went to the Land Registry and got the title. Dave transferred the house to his name about 9 months ago.
He's stolen your daughter's inheritance if he's put the house solely in his name.0 -
That is not a valid reason not to get the issues resolved. If need be Dave should be paying a reasonable rent. Is the property insured?
Yeah, not presenting it as a reason to not resolve it, just that selling it from under him is not a desirable resolution.
No idea if the house is insured.0 -
He's stolen your daughter's inheritance if he's put the house solely in his name.
Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem right. I doubt the executor just gets to keep the house if they decide to put it in their name.
Given the people involved, there's still a very real possibility they just haven't got round to sorting things out properly, since it's supposed to be in trust for several years to come, and they have no intention of selling it any time soon.
Telling us would have been polite, but it wouldn't have made any material change (the £1000 aside).0 -
JacobPasco wrote: »Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem right. I doubt the executor just gets to keep the house if they decide to put it in their name.
If you don't challenge the situation, no-one else is going to and he will continue to own the asset.
When the estate was finalised, your daughter (as a beneficiary) should have received estate accounts and an explanation of what was happening to her legacy until she reached 18.0 -
JacobPasco wrote: »Obviously I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't seem right. I doubt the executor just gets to keep the house if they decide to put it in their name.
Given the people involved, there's still a very real possibility they just haven't got round to sorting things out properly, since it's supposed to be in trust for several years to come, and they have no intention of selling it any time soon.
Telling us would have been polite, but it wouldn't have made any material change (the £1000 aside).0 -
I'm not an expert, but with Mojisolo on this one.
If he hadn't transferred the house into his name, you could make an argument that he's just being slow, but I think he's *tried* to steal her share.
I doubt it'll be that hard to sort out. He might just pretend he made a mistake and now sort out the trust and ask if he can remain in the house, but it might involve you getting a solicitor.
I'm surprised he could switch the LR like that.0 -
JacobPasco wrote: »Telling us would have been polite, but it wouldn't have made any material change (the £1000 aside).
It might well have made a material change. Why isn't Dave paying rent to your daughter?
If he owns half the house, but is using all of it, he ought to be paying your daughter for the half he doesn't own.0 -
Telling you would not only have been polite, it is essential.
Transferring the house into his sole name is wrong. A house held in trust has to have two Trustees. Assets held for a minor have to have two Trustees.
To be honest I would be seriously concerned that he is trying to conceal the terms of the Will and keep the house for himself.
You need to find out from him (whether you choose to write direct or get a solicitor involved at this stage is up to you)- Full Estate Accounts dealing with the assets and liabilities of the Estate and detailing your daughter's share.
- Proof that the house is held in the names of Trustees and who the second Trustee is.
- Proof that the house is insured for all risks and for full rebuild cost.
- Details of the account where half the open market rent is being paid to (and who the second Trustee is on that account).
- Details of the review carried out into the investment of the Trust and proof that retaining the house is a better option for the beneficiary than liquidating the house and investing the proceeds.
- An undertaking from Dave that he is keeping the house maintained and repaired as appropriate and that he will continue to do so whilst he and his family live there.
- Oh, and where your £2k is...
:heartpuls Daughter born January 2012 :heartpuls Son born February 2014 :heartpuls
Slimming World ~ trying to get back on the wagon...0 -
Just to add that I believe a beneficiary who is under 18 is not permitted to waive thir inheritance or reduce it by deed of variation. Which I think might mean she/you cannot waive market rent on her half.
Does not having a formal trust set up have capital gains tax implications?But a banker, engaged at enormous expense,Had the whole of their cash in his care.
Lewis Carroll0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.4K Spending & Discounts
- 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 172.8K Life & Family
- 247.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards