Charity threatens to contest will

DVardysShadow

daska wrote: »

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.

As I understand it, grandmother divided the house 4 ways and gave the deceased aunt a lifetime interest in the whole of the property.

daska

DVardysShadow wrote: »

As I understand it, grandmother divided the house 4 ways and gave the deceased aunt a lifetime interest in the whole of the property.

It's difficult to follow isn't it!

meritaten wrote: »

I turned out that as the house was about to be sold the solictitors discovered that the lease (freehold) was actually still in the name of 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

DVardysShadow

daska wrote: »

It's difficult to follow isn't it!

I am struggling. It does indeed look like the aunt only had a lifetime interest. So aunt's will did not restore things back to grandmother's will - it was more of a case of aunt carving out a share for herself that was bequestable.

the_cat

daska wrote: »

It's difficult to follow isn't it!

Err yes! Can open, worms everywhere......

Can't help but think settling out of court is the best option with something this complicated. Otherwise the 3 old ladies are liable to (even if they win) end up with a bigger share of nothing, because the solicitors could drag this out forever and use up all the funds

*max*

Blimey, this has got my head spinning...

So. The deceased aunt owned the house, but not the freehold, which is still part of the grand-mother's estate to be divided according to the grandmother's will, ie: 1/3 to each of the 3 other sisters. The deceased aunt never owned any part of the freehold, therefore the proceeds of its sale should be divided according to the grand-mother's will (between the 3 other aunts).

In my view, the charity isn't entitled to any money from the sale of the freehold, because the aunt never owned it, therefore it wasn't hers to bequest.

The proceeds from the house itself however, have been divided correctly between the 4 parties, according to the aunt's will.

Phew....:eek:

jackieglasgow

DVardysShadow wrote: »

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.

I have edited my post, to show this, as its what I meant.

Though if our fine minds are having so much trouble with it, the legal eagles will enjoy bleeding the estate dry. So meritaten, which was it, in grandmother's will, what did it state was to be done with her estate outwith the house itself which had been gifted to the aunt? It seems to me, that this is how you go about arguing the point with the charity.

meritaten

GracieP wrote: »

Is this what happened in very basic term? (I know it's not exactly accurate in terms of what a leasehold and freehold mean but I'm writing it this way for simplicity.)

The grandmother owned the house and the land the house was built on. The grandmother left the house and land to three of her daughters with a lifetime "tenancy" to her fourth daughter.

The fourth daughter finagled the grandmother into getting the house gifted to her. But as she was unaware of the freehold/leasehold situation the land the house was built on was was still willed to the first three daughters.

The fourth daughter left the house to her three sisters plus a charity. (She also left her goods to the charity but lets leave that out right now as that adds to the confusion.) At this point everyone assumed the house and land were one freehold entity, worth £70k. And that each of the four parties would receive one quarter of this, £17.5k.

But during the initial sale the fact the that house and land were two entities was uncovered. This meant the house was to be divided in four, sisters and charity. And the land the house was to be divided in 3, just the sisters.

Eventually you managed to sell the house for £20k and the land for £45k, costing the buyer £65k. This means that each sister and the charity gets £5 for the house and each sister also gets £15k for the land. Totalling at £5k for the charity and £20K for each sister.

However the charity is insisting they are entitled to one quarter of the £65k for the entire property, not the £20k for the house. And want everyone to take roughly £16k.

Am I right? If so, my utterly lay guess is that as the land never belonged to the fourth sister, she can't have willed it to anyone. The charity is either chancing their arm or are acting on terrible advice.

:T Yes - and you put it so succinctly! am going to post an update in a few minutes..............want to read some more responses first!

daska

meritaten wrote: »

:T Yes - and you put it so succinctly! am going to post an update in a few minutes..............want to read some more responses first!

So the grandmother's parent's bought the original lease and the grandmother then purchased the Freehold from the Mining company at a later date?

What was the result from the conversation with the solicitors?

btw I don't think they should be charging you for this bit, surely they should have established that their interpretation was accurate before winding up the estates.

meritaten

UPDATE
Thank you all so much for your interest and your input! its wonderful to see how other people view this (I am too close to the matter to have an unbiased view - besides, I was born in that house and spent a great part of my childhood there- its always been, in my mind, my NANS house)

gracieP understood it really well - thanks gracie, you explained that so well even I understand it now!

OK........my youngest aunt met with the solicitor today and informed her that the sisters are all in agreement and that they are satisfied with matters AS THEY STAND and that they do NOT agree to the charity being included in the greater amount of the sale of the house. the sisters feel that the deed of gift was set up to protect my aunt in the event that social services would try to enforce the sale of the house in the event my nan went into a care home (I was unaware of this) and that the outcome is the right and proper one.
the solicitors view is that the charity are 'trying it on' and that they have NO grounds to contest and its unlikely that they will considering the relatively small amount of money.
so now, its wait and see what they do next!
by the way - I am NOT an executor of my aunts will, that is two solicitors in the same firm we are using for probate as the firm my aunt used folded years ago.
I have taken on executor duties for my NANS will as my mum (who was the only executor) could not possibly do it. this was so that the leasehold could be transferred to the buyers upon request. and I suspect that the executors of MY AUNTS ESTATE realised what would happen.
The solicitor actually told my aunt if you want to leave money to charity then leave a specific amount as they cause no end of trouble if you dont!

If anyone is still puzzling some points out - then I will TRY to answer them!
someone said about the intent of the deed of gift to my aunt. ok, I think I know why she was only given the leasehold house. my nan was very confused and muddled and at the time SS were turfing people out of their homes to pay for the homeowners care. Youngest aunt knew that oldest (the deceased aunt whose will has caused all this malarkey) was going to see a solicitor to see if the property could be protected from this. she was told it was sorted - but NOT that the property had been gifted to aunt (my mum and her other sister knew nothing of this). youngest aunt and the solicitor think that this was done and the lease was withheld for the very reason that we are discussing it today. to protect the sisters interest in the property under my NANS will.
the charity have stated that as it was my nans intent to GIVE her daughter the house then she must have meant to include the leasehold - therefore they were entitled to a quarter share. WRONG! nan didnt intend that at all - it was done to prevent my aunt being made homeless and for the remaining sisters to still benefit after my aunts death.
Nan would NEVER have intended any part of the home to go to charity - Aunt was under the wrong impression about the house being hers freehold - but thats her problem!

DVardysShadow

meritaten wrote: »

UPDATE
...
the charity have stated that as it was my nans intent to GIVE her daughter the house then she must have meant to include the leasehold - therefore they were entitled to a quarter share. WRONG! nan didnt intend that at all - it was done to prevent my aunt being made homeless and for the remaining sisters to still benefit after my aunts death.
Nan would NEVER have intended any part of the home to go to charity - Aunt was under the wrong impression about the house being hers freehold - but thats her problem!

Thanks for the update

OK, it is making more sense as to why there was a deed of gift. But it is still confusing. You seem to be using the term leasehold and freehold interchangeably.

1. The property was originally leasehold
2. At some stage, the freehold was obtained [when? and by whom?]
3. Aunt was given the leasehold, because this was necessary for her to live there, but not the freehold.
4. Who held the freehold?

Perhaps you could clarify?