Charity threatens to contest will

FatVonD

Meritaten, I know nothing about law or whether any of these things are possible but if it was me I would be considering:

Are you yourself entitled to Legal Aid, could you fight this in the role of executor without the costs being taken from your aunts inheritance?

Could you get a solicitor to write to them saying that, while all parties are happy with the current split, even though it means the charity has more than any of the other beneficiaries, if they are not willing to accept that amount then the executors will seek to overthrow the gifting of the lease on the grounds of dementia and they will then only be entitled to one quarter of one quarter of the entire sale value of the house (which I think would be about £1,000 less than they are getting at the moment?)

If they didn't accept this I'd have no hesitation in going to the press about it, a Charity seeking to deprive three old ladies of money when they have already received more than each of the ladies, they'd love it. If the nationals didn't take it then the likes of 'Take a Break' etc would.

daska

FatVonD wrote: »

Are you yourself entitled to Legal Aid, could you fight this in the role of executor without the costs being taken from your aunts inheritance?

http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/

FatVonD wrote: »

Could you get a solicitor to write to them saying that, while all parties are happy with the current split, even though it means the charity has more than any of the other beneficiaries, if they are not willing to accept that amount then the executors will seek to overthrow the gifting of the lease on the grounds of dementia and they will then only be entitled to one quarter of one quarter of the entire sale value of the house (which I think would be about £1,000 less than they are getting at the moment?)

I think you'd need to be sure of your ground and it would probably be cheaper to do the homework first. They're not likely to be bluffed easily, their response will be 'show us the proof' and they'll dissect anything you send them looking for any loophole.

Mojisola

You could easily spend more on solicitors than the share the charity is asking for now. You may be better off coming to a compromise with the charity.

daska

Mojisola wrote: »

You could easily spend more on solicitors than the share the charity is asking for now. You may be better off coming to a compromise with the charity.

Absolutely agree about the cost, it could eat up the entire estate and not have anything left to spit out, hence my suggestion to do homework before engaging with the charity.

There's more on costs here, including details about the Gill case: http://www.wrighthassall.co.uk/resources/articles/litigating_inheritance_disputes_how_costly_is_it.aspx

(Gill based her challenge to her mother's will leaving her entire estate to the RSPCA on coercion (on the part of her father, not the charity) and also on proprietory estoppel - that she acted to her own detriment based on promises made by her mother that she would inherit.)

DVardysShadow

jackieglasgow wrote: »

they are not at all happy with this! they say the house should have been sold freehold

From what I can tell this is the sticking point, in my layman's opinion, they should have received 1/4 of the value of the bricks and mortar and 1/4 of the value of the sale of the leasehold, as the grandmother predeceased the aunt, and therefore the aunt's 25% of the sale of the leasehold to the new owners should be gifted in full to the charity as it forms either part of her residual estate or part of the house value, either of which they are legally entitled to. As annoying as it is, your aunt wanted them to have a 1/4 of her estate, which is in essence her inheritance from her mother, with which she can do as she wishes. I don't see how your mother and aunts can refuse legally. I am more than happy to be wrong though.

I agree with this. It seems to me reasonable that the aunt got grandmother to sign the house over, knowing that it was to be split 4 ways in grandmother's will. However, either not knowing or not understanding that she would have a lifetime interest in the property she set about protecting her own position by arranging the deed of gift, but wrote her will to restore everyone back to the position they would have been in, but leaving everything else to the charity.

daska

But the aunt's will didn't restore the position of the grandmother's will - in the grandmother's will the house was divided between the 3 other sisters, the 4th (the aunt) only had a lifetime interest.

jackieglasgow

meritaten wrote: »

my grandmother, the original owner of the house and whose will specified that the house go to the three sisters with my aunt (the deceased having a life interest - when gran had alzhiemers my aunt took her to the solicitors and got her to deed of gift the house to HER).

My understanding of this is that the house was to be split between the three sisters and the aunt, with the aunt having lifetime interest.


If it does mean just the three sisters, then grandmother's will would incomplete, as it doesn't mention the leasehold seperately and unless she had a residual property clause in her will, the leasehold should be split between her four surviving children, one of which was the aunt at the time. Still the same outcome for meritaten's family, unfortunately.

DVardysShadow

daska wrote: »

Could the Charity argue

1. that once the Leaseholder has purchased the Freehold the Lease is no longer extant?
2. Or that gifting the house implicitly includes gifting the freehold?

1. No, Freeholds and leases can be sold separately with out affecting each other. If someone comes to hold both lease and freehold, the lease still stands unless action is taken to extinguish it. Even to the point that a new lease cannot be created with different terms unless the old lease is extinguished.
2. The deed of gift of the house can only give what is owned. So it was leasehold - it cannot confer the freehold. But if the lease has a right to buy out the freehold for example, that was transferred too. A big difficulty [in meritaten's favour] is that if the deed explicitly conveyed only the freehold of the house, then that was not grandmother's to give and so nothing was actually transferred to the aunt. But there are many variations on what could be transferred and it becomes difficult to argue what parts of the transfer are valid or whether the whole deed was void. The less the deed corresponded with reality, the more easy it is to make the argument in respect of grandmother that she was not of sound mind.

jackieglasgow

meritaten wrote: »

NO DVardy
My grandmother had the house bought her by her parents - the ground rent was paid to a mining company. she bought the leasehold and left the house to her three daughter with the fourth daughter having a life interest in thehouse. the house was then given to fourth daughter while gran was suffering from alzhiemers (not here or there now) but fourth daughter thought the house was freehold. she died and the house was put on the market - the sale fell through when it was discovered that the grandmother who had died still had the lease in her name. mum was executor of the will but unable to fulfil that so I took over. the house was on an auction site as leasehold when I took over. it was on the site that the lease was available for purchase. when the house finally sold I signed the lease over to the new owners for a fee. so they now own the house freehold. the fee went into the estate as part of the house sale. but as daughter didnt own the house freehold it was NOT a major part of the charities share. that went to the sisters - exactly as my grandmother intended!

Right I have just found this bit, and see what you meant Daska. So it all hinges on grandmother's will, if it did not specify the leasehold and the bricks and mortar as separate entity, then I think it value of the leasehold has to be split four ways or as per the part of the will in which grandmother has stated her wishes for the remains of her estate. This is what you need to check I think, meritaten. Did grandmother 's will not mention leasehold at all? Did it say what she wanted doing with the residual estate or did it say everything to be split three ways?

DVardysShadow

jackieglasgow wrote: »

My understanding of this is that the house was to be split between the three sisters and the aunt, with the aunt having residual interest.

The aunt is one of 4 sisters. meritaten's mother is another of those sisters as I understand it. So it is 3 sisters who survive the aunt. This aunt had a lifetime interest in the property under the will - not a residual interest.

At least, that is how I read it.