How would you take this offer

mountainofdebt

2 relatives of mine have inherited a share of a property with the remainder being inherited by a third person, who the realtives don't really get on with and to be honest the general consesus is that the term golddigger is very much appropriate.

The third person is able to live in the house, provided certain conditions are met, until they die or decide otherwise at which point the property is sold and the third person gets a certain %age with the rest split between the relatives.

Now the third person has offered to leave the property (so the property can be sold) provided they get a bigger %age than was originally stated.

My feeling is that the third person is very short of money and is trying it on.....but how would you react???

nearlyrich

To be honest it sounds reasonable to me, the third person is entitled to live in the property until they die by which time the other two may not need the money, if they need it now they could bite the bullet and take the offer. A bird in the hand and all that. It's one of those problems where you have to do what you do and not dwell on the situation afterwards as it could lead to resentment.

Rikki

If the person who lives in the house moves out they will incure housing costs for there new place of residence.

mountainofdebt

The 2 relatives don't need the money now but as always money does make life easier regardless of current needs!!!

They are resigned to the fact that the 3rd person will have a %age of the house proceeds so resentment (as far as that's concerned) isn't a factor.

ManAtHome

Sounds like she(?) was the house-owner's partner and he(?) was making sure she'd have somewhere to live after his death (assuming here from the 'gold-digger' comment...). Perhaps they aren't a gold-digger and just can't stand living in the place now? Anyhow, if they do move out they are likely to need more than a third (unless they have very few years to go).

Perhaps the relatives (presumably the kids) should think a bit about what their parent intended and why (quite difficult to phrase all this 'party of the second part twice removed stuff!).

mountainofdebt

Yes you are along the right track with sexes (!!!).....the term gold digger is not one that the family have come up with either!!!

Only guessing here but it is thought that the will was drawn up in such a way so that it couldn't be contested.

The offer has come as a great surprise as it was generally though the person would stay there for a lot longer (we're only talking about a couple of months since the death) especially as we're talking about a 40+ year old who effectively can live in a house rent free.

SnowyOwl_2

I think that as the person who is living in the house isn't considered a friend of the other two have a share in it, then it'd be satisfactory all round to sell the house. So what is this third person decides to reject living rent free - it doesn't matter what his/her circumstances will be. Regards s/he demanding a higher percentage, then perhaps a bit of negotiating would be necessary. The house will still be subject to valuation etc, and if being sold in the current climate then this "gold-digger" may not get the amount s/he wants, or at least may have to wait a long time to get the house sold. Could either or both of the other two make a sensible offer, and take into consideration that transferring ownership without involving an estate agent will avoid estate agent fees. I don't think there is need to fall out about the house, shame if this 3rd person gets more than the deceased had set out...but if it gets rid of him/her for good then it's probably money well invested.

ka7e

I would definately come to some sort of arrangement to release the equity in the house for the 2 relatives. The person in residence (40+ year old?) could feasibly live there rent-free for another 40 years! And they are under no real obligation to maintain the property to keep it saleable.

Mumstheword

Sounds reasonable to me.

In increasing the third person's share, the other two are purchasing back from her her right to live there for the rest of her life. I would think that would be worth quite a bit financially - think of the rent they could charge on the house. And selling releases the cash from the house. As it stands, they could be quite old when they are entitled to that money....maybe even leaving it to someone in their own will still tied up in the property!!

Johnhowell

mountainofdebt wrote:

2 relatives of mine have inherited a share of a property with the remainder being inherited by a third person, who the realtives don't really get on with and to be honest the general consesus is that the term golddigger is very much appropriate.

The third person is able to live in the house, provided certain conditions are met, until they die or decide otherwise at which point the property is sold and the third person gets a certain %age with the rest split between the relatives.

Now the third person has offered to leave the property (so the property can be sold) provided they get a bigger %age than was originally stated.

My feeling is that the third person is very short of money and is trying it on.....but how would you react???

Mountainofdebt,

Surely the percentage has been fixed in the Will of the deceased relative. This is fixed whether the third person stayed in the property 4 days or 40 years! If the third person continues to want more percentage than given in the Will then you could take it to court and maybe they could loss their right to the share under the Will all together?

They can not change conditions of a Will without going to court. I assume the Will was Probated and thus the Exectutors (who are they?) have enforced the Will. Your two relatives should have seen the Will and at least recieved an Executors Account of Estate. If not you can get one from First Avenue House, High Holborn for £5.

The third person must have signed up to the conditions in the Will to benefit from it. Has the third person complied fully to the conditions stipulated in the Will (no new boyfriend, etc)? Grounds for being removed from the property and lossing their right to the percentage?

Regards,
John

mountainofdebt

Yes the %age is fixed and the conditions are along the lines you've mentioned - also the person is responsible for the upkeep of the house and all insurances. If these conditions aren't met then the person can be removed but they would still get the same %age as stated in the will in this circumstance

The general consenus seems to be that they are chancing their luck in asking for a higher %age.

I don't know they say you can see people's real characters when there's money involved.