Share of deceased parents House Sale

Lance

I know 6 grand is not a good return after 20 odd years but she told me it was a final settlement after previous payments as she had paid mortgage off years ago and still had over 30 grand in savings so although don't know exact time of previous payments or how much was agreed, she just used to mention it occaisionally in phone calls, it cannot have been that long because she paid of mortgage first.

I have seen no paperwork even for 6 grand payment which considering one party is an accountant who invested her savings for her is rather strange but I am assured there is no paperwork relating to debt / debt payments. So I have mums word she cleared the final payment on the debt in 2006 and theirs that that was the only payment and she did not have the cash to pay the rest as they had tied it up in investments to be left to their 6 children and my one. They admit this in an email I just got.

With regards to the money going to their kids it was mums wishes and must be respected, except the one giving me an equal share in the house.

troubleinparadise

Dear Lance,

Sadly whatever the final outcome there will still be a bitter taste left with regard to the sense of money grabbing that often seems to arise when it comes to families and money in an inheritance situation.

The truth is that it is a very pleasant bonus to be left some money by someone else - perhaps you can try to take that view in order that you don't lose precious family relationships over all this. Some may end up with more than others, and it is for them to live with their consciences.

Easily said, not so easily done - it is one I try to keep in my head when things are getting contentious! :eek:

ILW

What was said or was not is of no consequence. The will is everything.

Lance

troubleinparadise wrote: »

Dear Lance,

The truth is that it is a very pleasant bonus to be left some money by someone else - perhaps you can try to take that view in order that you don't lose precious family relationships over all this. Some may end up with more than others, and it is for them to live with their consciences.

Easily said, not so easily done - it is one I try to keep in my head when things are getting contentious! :eek:

I know what you mean but I have little contact with them, a few times over 20 years, just saw mother and with her dead I will never see them again regardless of this as we had a very poor relationship so I moved to London and started again.

bowlhead99

Lance wrote: »

I know what you mean but I have little contact with them, a few times over 20 years, just saw mother and with her dead I will never see them again regardless of this as we had a very poor relationship so I moved to London and started again.

That's good then. Simply tell your story (that the mother had told you the historic debt was paid, that there was no specific bequest to the siblings, and that the net assets noted at probate did not include such debts or charges on assets) to a solicitor as suggested by everyone above.

Presumably they would have had some expenses in tarting up the place for sale which had previously been occupied by 'an old dear' and the fact that they want to claim these along with some nominal amount for the kids to stay in for estate agents or house clearers or decorators is probably neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things - and probably not too outrageous given you have not been required to give up your own busy life to take on these duties.

They can probably claim 40p+ a mile in travel expenses too, given cost of petrol, insurance, maintenance and depreciation these days. But certainly any third party expense should be suitably evidenced and any 'internal' cost like paying the kids 50 quid to wait in for the electric board to come and read the meter, can be challenged given the aforementioned conflict of interest between executors and remaining beneficiaries.

Good luck and please let us know how it goes once it's all done and dusted.

Strapped

ILW wrote: »

What was said or was not is of no consequence. The will is everything.

Except that the estate can still have a debt from a verbal agreement.

Although from the OP's subsequent posts, it sounds very much as though the deal was that instead of handing over the amount of cash that the siblings wanted in full settlement of their loan, the money was invested and bequeathed in main to those sibling's children - and so there isn't a debt which would affect the carve-up of the house.

To be honest, we had a vaguely similar situation a few years back, and just walked away and left the other siblings to it. But I can understand if the OP really needs the money, for whatever reason, that he may want to fight it.

Thrugelmir

Strapped wrote: »

Except that the estate can still have a debt from a verbal agreement.

There's one side of the story though. Wouldn't stand up in court.

Strapped

Thrugelmir wrote: »

There's one side of the story though. Wouldn't stand up in court.

Unfortunately, you can never be completely sure what a court will decide. And it can be expensive to find out.

00ec25

ViolaLass wrote: »

Your sig says "I am not being paid to type so will not correct typos unless it reads double dutch".

there is a difference between inability to type (or unwillingness to go back and correct) and illiteracy

camptownraces

Lance wrote: »

Yes she left a will and my 2 sisters are executors. .... The will has house and enough money to pay debt but money left equally to my one child and their 6 and house to be sold and monies divided equally between the 3 of us. .

It seems clear that mother intended, according to her will, each of her seven grandchildren to have an equal sum of money.

(Actually this is what grandparents often do. They think it's fair on the kids.)

Do you honestly believe that your one son/daughter should have been left three times as much as each of the cousins? would that have seemed fairer to you?