Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • leespot
    • By leespot 18th May 17, 12:04 AM
    • 484Posts
    • 379Thanks
    leespot
    FIL died intestate
    • #1
    • 18th May 17, 12:04 AM
    FIL died intestate 18th May 17 at 12:04 AM
    Hi all,

    FIL died intestate in March. He was married (but separated, widow was living elsewhere) with 2 kids under 18 to his wife, the lads lived with the FIL, then there is my partner and her two sisters (all over 18).

    The house was solely in the FIL name, no mortgage. Approx value 500k. No other estate that we're aware of as money was held in joint account.

    The widow was in a relationship with someone else and has decided to move the guy into the property (FIL was in process of divorce but died before it got very far). The widow has now asked my partner and sisters to sign away any claim to the estate.

    What would the correct process be for doing this? Can one sister sign on all three sisters behalves? The widow is suggesting only one needs to sign the forms to relinquish any claim.

    Thanks in advance.
    Last edited by leespot; 22-05-2017 at 10:41 AM.
Page 2
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 18th May 17, 7:58 PM
    • 2,312 Posts
    • 1,847 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    We're not fighting it Yorkshireman - we accept that she is entitled to a fair chunk, but she is wanting the others to sign away any claim to the whole estate so she retains everything.



    No - only the one wife, sorry for the confusion.



    She isn't wanting to sell up to release her share, she is wanting the children to relinquish any claim to the whole estate.
    Originally posted by leespot
    The bottom line is that she has no right to anything but the amount under the intestacy rules. A valuation by a RICS or similarly qualified surveyor will be required to apply for letters of administration and probate. That may be different from the one in the divorce proceedings. In the end if the parties do not cooperate they will risk losing money.
    • leespot
    • By leespot 18th May 17, 9:22 PM
    • 484 Posts
    • 379 Thanks
    leespot
    The bottom line is that she has no right to anything but the amount under the intestacy rules. A valuation by a RICS or similarly qualified surveyor will be required to apply for letters of administration and probate. That may be different from the one in the divorce proceedings. In the end if the parties do not cooperate they will risk losing money.
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99
    It's not an ideal situation really, but at the moment the only one being unreasonable is the widow. She wasn't living at the house before FIL died, she'd been moved out for about 6 months or so. She'd initially told the girls their dad would have wanted them to have something from the estate and that she would see that it happened.

    Fast forward a couple of months after the funeral to where we are now and she's changed her mind and wants to move the new guy in keeping everything for herself and her two sons. My partner and her sisters are still grieving, understandably. The widow had long left the relationship so is perhaps seeing things differently and has somewhat less of an emotional attachment to the proceedings.
    Last edited by leespot; 22-05-2017 at 10:46 AM.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 18th May 17, 9:38 PM
    • 2,312 Posts
    • 1,847 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    She has no right to occupy the house. What has happned about insuring the property and preventing vandalism.
    • leespot
    • By leespot 18th May 17, 9:57 PM
    • 484 Posts
    • 379 Thanks
    leespot
    She has no right to occupy the house. What has happned about insuring the property and preventing vandalism.
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99
    We have no idea about any of that yet to be honest. The widow had a rental as far as we know which she has moved out of and back into the house. In terms of preventing vandalism that isn't likely as it's where the boys live - they're 10 and 14. Nothing malicious is expected in that context to be honest, although I suppose in a situation like this "never say never" is probably prudent.
    Last edited by leespot; 22-05-2017 at 10:46 AM.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 18th May 17, 10:06 PM
    • 2,312 Posts
    • 1,847 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    We have no idea about any of that yet to be honest. She had a rental as far as we know which she has moved out of and back into the house. In terms of preventing vandalism that isn't likely as it's where the boys live - they're 10 and 14. Nothing malicious is expected in that context to be honest, although I suppose in a situation like this "never say never" is probably prudent.
    Originally posted by leespot
    Nevertheless someone needs to get a grip on the situation. Applying for letters of administration is a priority but the wife is likely to be the one who has to do it. In view of the two children what has happened regarding looking after them? Are Social services aware? Someone might need to apply to the court to protect the interests of the children. All potentially very messy and expensive.
    Last edited by Yorkshireman99; 18-05-2017 at 10:09 PM.
    • leespot
    • By leespot 18th May 17, 10:12 PM
    • 484 Posts
    • 379 Thanks
    leespot
    Nevertheless someone needs to get a grip on the situation. Applying for letters of administration is a priority but the wife is likely to be the one who has to do it. In view of the two children what has happened regarding looking after them? Are Social services aware? Someone might need to apply to the court to protect the interests of the children. All potentially very messy and expensive.
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99
    The widow is their mother - that's why she's moved back in to the house. It is very messy, and she has said she will be applying for the letters of administration etc.
    Last edited by leespot; 22-05-2017 at 10:46 AM.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 18th May 17, 10:24 PM
    • 2,312 Posts
    • 1,847 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    She is their mother - that's why she's moved back in to the house. It is very messy, and she has said she will be applying for the letters of administration etc.
    Originally posted by leespot
    Somebody needs to make sure that she does not try it on regarding the distribution of the estate. The children's entitlement will have to be held in trust until they are 18.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 18th May 17, 10:41 PM
    • 28,442 Posts
    • 17,003 Thanks
    getmore4less
    That sounds on the bleeding edge of legality. We have had this discussion recently about whether residual beneficiaries are entitled to their share in cash rather than in other (potentially illiquid) assets, but to convert the entitlement of minors to the assets of their father into minority shares in a house which no-one intends to sell seems incredibly harsh. Normally, a trust for a minor beneficiary would be empowered to advance money ahead of majority for purposes of education or other good things - in essence, the things their late father would have paid for had he not died - and to replace that with a part share in a house is clearly not to their advantage. The trustees for the minors would be derelict in their duty, morally if not legally, if they permitted this.
    Originally posted by securityguy
    it is not clear what is happening but the kids were living with the FIL.

    My assumption is that is the house being discussed.

    If the minors were going to remain living in the house them becoming part owners to avoid the sale of the house their home would likely be a reasonable and acceptable investment for the trustees to use for their share of the estate.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 18th May 17, 10:44 PM
    • 28,442 Posts
    • 17,003 Thanks
    getmore4less
    Quite. Although "intestate" implies there wasn't a will to start with: wills (other than those prepared in contemplation of marriage to a specific person) are voided by marriage, but are not voided by divorce, so had there been a will the FIL in this case wouldn't have been intestate, rather would have had a will which they might not have chosen.
    Originally posted by securityguy
    New does not exclude first.
    • leespot
    • By leespot 18th May 17, 10:48 PM
    • 484 Posts
    • 379 Thanks
    leespot
    it is not clear what is happening but the kids were living with the FIL.

    My assumption is that is the house being discussed.

    If the minors were going to remain living in the house them becoming part owners to avoid the sale of the house their home would likely be a reasonable and acceptable investment for the trustees to use for their share of the estate.
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    The widow had an affair and subsequently moved out of the home, left the kids with the FIL. She's moved back in since the funeral and has decided she wants the house for her, her new partner, and her two boys. Nothing for my partner and her sisters. She has enough money to buy them out if she needs to, and the idea of the boys becoming part owners (if that is possible) is something we'd like to have happen - to protect their inheritance.
    Last edited by leespot; 22-05-2017 at 10:47 AM.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 18th May 17, 10:56 PM
    • 28,442 Posts
    • 17,003 Thanks
    getmore4less
    She has no right to occupy the house. What has happned about insuring the property and preventing vandalism.
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99
    The house is the home of two minors it is reasonable for the person with parental responsibility to move in with them.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 18th May 17, 10:58 PM
    • 2,312 Posts
    • 1,847 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    The children cannot own a share in the house until they are 18. It has to be held in trust. Note che has no legal right to occupy the house.
    • securityguy
    • By securityguy 18th May 17, 11:05 PM
    • 2,329 Posts
    • 3,573 Thanks
    securityguy
    Nevertheless someone needs to get a grip on the situation. Applying for letters of administration is a priority but the wife is likely to be the one who has to do it. .
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99
    Not so much "has to", but assuming she does apply, her application as widow will trump anyone else's application.
    • securityguy
    • By securityguy 18th May 17, 11:06 PM
    • 2,329 Posts
    • 3,573 Thanks
    securityguy
    The children cannot own a share in the house until they are 18. It has to be held in trust. Note che has no legal right to occupy the house.
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99
    Given she is their mother and the most likely holder of letters of administration, it's hard to see how the trustee doesn't end up being her.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 18th May 17, 11:19 PM
    • 28,442 Posts
    • 17,003 Thanks
    getmore4less
    The FIL's wife had an affair and subsequently moved out of the home, left the kids with the FIL. She's moved back in since the funeral and has decided she wants the house for her, her new partner, and her two boys. Nothing for my partner and her sisters. She has enough money to buy them out if she needs to, and the idea of the boys becoming part owners (if that is possible) is something we'd like to have happen - to protect their inheritance.
    Originally posted by leespot
    The first in line to administer is the wife.

    By default she becomes one of the trustees for any minors that inherit(but needs to find a second trustee).

    This is a separate legal entity from her role as the surviving parent for the minors.

    There is a big risk of conflict of interest and potential for self dealing in the role as administrator by keeping the property.

    If you believe there may be attempts to hide assets that should be included for distribution then you need to consider how you will deal with that .

    The issues for the minors trustees is what to do with their inheritance and the house may be acceptable but does have issues when it need to be liquidated.

    There may be little you can do other than try to influence.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 19th May 17, 8:09 AM
    • 28,442 Posts
    • 17,003 Thanks
    getmore4less
    Just in case....

    it may be you already realise this is not relevant(feel free to ignore)

    are you sure that the FIL was the only one with a legal & beneficial interest in the house.

    if the sisters mother was a divorce/clean break or the house was a later purchase then probably was the FIL house

    but if the first wife died and the share of the house was left in trust(life interest) for the the 3 sisters then that could complicate and be an additional incentive to get them to sign away.

    on paper the FIL would be the legal owner although there should be a restriction on the land registry but that would be very easy to work around.
    • leespot
    • By leespot 19th May 17, 10:04 AM
    • 484 Posts
    • 379 Thanks
    leespot
    Just in case....

    it may be you already realise this is not relevant(feel free to ignore)

    are you sure that the FIL was the only one with a legal & beneficial interest in the house.

    if the sisters mother was a divorce/clean break or the house was a later purchase then probably was the FIL house

    but if the first wife died and the share of the house was left in trust(life interest) for the the 3 sisters then that could complicate and be an additional incentive to get them to sign away.

    on paper the FIL would be the legal owner although there should be a restriction on the land registry but that would be very easy to work around.
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    The FIL was the only owner of the property, nobody else is listed. The widow is in a financial position to 'buy out' the others from their shares of the estate, she is just choosing to want her cake and to eat it.
    Last edited by leespot; 22-05-2017 at 10:48 AM.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 19th May 17, 10:36 AM
    • 28,442 Posts
    • 17,003 Thanks
    getmore4less
    The FIL was the only owner of the property, nobody else is listed. She is in a financial position to 'buy out' the others from their shares of the estate, she is just choosing to want her cake and to eat it.
    Originally posted by leespot
    MY point was that the land registry entry does not say who really owns a house.

    The entry just lists the legal owners, who act as trustees for the beneficial owners which in many cases is the same people but not always.
    • leespot
    • By leespot 19th May 17, 10:49 AM
    • 484 Posts
    • 379 Thanks
    leespot
    MY point was that the land registry entry does not say who really owns a house.

    The entry just lists the legal owners, who act as trustees for the beneficial owners which in many cases is the same people but not always.
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    I appreciate your point, but he was 100% the only owner of the property.
    • silvercar
    • By silvercar 19th May 17, 2:05 PM
    • 35,138 Posts
    • 148,275 Thanks
    silvercar
    If the 2 sons were living with their father, is there an obligation to ensure that they are provided for in their inheritance ie some rule about dependents having an entitlement to a reasonable share of the estate.

    I feel very sorry for the boys, such a young age to lose what was their resident parent.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

145Posts Today

1,329Users online

Martin's Twitter