Can we be held responsible for lengthy house sale?

Old_Git

auction it .It will be gone in a few weeks

Davesnave

phill99 wrote: »

Deaths and marriages. They really do bring out the worst in families.

Your sibling has no legal case against you.

If the sale falls through, drop the price to undercut the nearest opposition and look for action in the New Year.

Has any of you done research on relevant sold prices in the area concerned? This is the key to convincing others of the need to be realistic, especially if a quick sale is desired.

missile

Maybe sibbling three feels he is being strung along and is trying to exert pressure on the other two to pull the finger out.

The executor should take responsibility to get this resolved as quickly as possible. Perhaps you could offer to buy sibbling three's share?

moneyistooshorttomention

I rather think your sibling may have a point too.

For a house to be waiting for sale for over 2 years after you all started work on the house to "get it ready for sale" is a very long time. No good crying over spilt milk now - but I wonder whether your sibling agreed for you all to do work on the house to "get it ready for sale" before putting it up for sale thinking that it would increase the price that would be paid for the house and the work would only take a few weeks or at most a few months.

I can understand why someone would agree to a few weeks/months of work for the sake of a better price for a house - but would be dismayed at finding it had taken so darn long as this and wished they had pushed for the house to be put up for sale immediately (even if it had fetched an "auction" price - rather than a "normal" price).

How much longer do you think this work will take now? Will it only be a few more days or, at most, a few more weeks or will it continue to drag on and on and on......?

I know that, in sibling's position, I would have been minded to "cut my losses" and just get rid when I found the whole "work on house business" had carried on for over 6 months and would be seeking for ways to ensure the other two siblings agreed with me and put it up for sale right NOW. He is only doing what most people would probably do and trying to cut losses and get rid now and has decided that refusing to pay a third of the bills should ensure that this happens. From the outside - it does look like the other two of you have seen no good reason to do the work as fast as possible on the house and everyone has just "taken their time".

I feel sorry for this sibling actually - as I expect he just wants to have his share of the money and get on with his life (after all - who on earth spends over 2 years working on a house that isnt even their home?:eek:).

So - put the house up for sale NOW at whatever price it will fetch in its existing condition. You should see the state of some of the houses on that tv programme "Houses under the hammer" and its obvious that quite a few people start work on a house and then down tools and just put it up for auction.

After all - wouldnt the other two of you like to "get on with your lives" and do something more interesting/less time-consuming than renovating a house?

Take the money (even if it's "auction price" level and run).

thelem

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

So - put the house up for sale NOW at whatever price it will fetch in its existing condition. You should see the state of some of the houses on that tv programme "Houses under the hammer" and its obvious that quite a few people start work on a house and then down tools and just put it up for auction.

Re-read the OP - it has already got to sale agreed stage, although that particular buyer may now delay or drop out.

randomlife

Thanks to all who have posted comments. Thelem , thanks for reminding moneyistooshorttomention that indeed the house is at sale agreed stage (with surveys, searches etc having been now completed) although there appears to be problems in the chain. We are of course hopeful, but if it falls through, we will drop the price and hopefully sell in the New Year.

I will also re-iterate that everyone did all the work around their own jobs, as there were very little funds in the kitty to pay workmen to carry out the repairs. The house needed a complete overhaul (plastering, reflooring, redcorating etc) so to have done this around our own jobs in 6 months would have been a stretch, especially when the sibling in question dawdled about getting started on the work and did not lend a hand to the other two until a good 8 months after the death of the parent.

Another house of the exact same size and on the same street without any work done to it has been sitting on the market for 5 years now, at least by doing the renovations, we had reached sale agreed stage within 5 weeks of putting it on the market, and indeed received rising offers upon each viewing. Yes one might argue that the depreciation in house prices and money spent on repairs could be balanced against the loss we might have taken had we sold the house in the condition it was in, but by NOT doing the work we have done, we may not have had any offers at all, just like the house, vacant and unsold on the same street (and at a lesser price than ours!) with very few viewings and no offers.

antrobus

randomlife wrote: »

Problem - 3 siblings have an inherited property .....

Who is the executor of the estate? What is the state of play with the estate?

RAS

antrobus wrote: »

Who is the executor of the estate? What is the state of play with the estate?

eLDEST..........

randomlife wrote: »

My main issue is that that bills for the upkeep of the estate were always clearly communicated by the eldest (also the executor of the will), with amounts, due dates etc clearly stated, and that these were inherited along with the one third share of the property and therefore everyone should pay one third for he upkeep.

antrobus

RAS wrote: »

eLDEST..........

OK I see.

Well the executor is the legal owner of the property. It's up to them to decide what bills to pay. If the beneficiaries have been paying bills for the upkeep of the property (due to lack of cash in the estate presumably) that doesn't change the fact that the bills are payable by the estate. When the property is sold the estate will be in a position to repay these amounts. If one beneficiary doesn't 'pay his share' then there is nothing for them to be refunded and so they simply get less money. If they don't like that they can try and sue the executor.

randomlife

Thanks antrobus, I had been thinking along these lines myself, and you have just explained it (much more clearly than I could gather my thoughts on this) in a nutshell. Sometimes its hard to see the woods for the trees!

This forum is very helpful in this respect as sometimes you are just so close to a situation that its hard to see clearly. Sometimes an outsider can give more clarity.

Thanks to all for your comments on this matter.