Executor trying to pressure beneficiaries to sell property to him

CT41

Grateful for advice.

My partners Nan passed away, leaving her assets jointly split between 3 siblings, G, T & M. T is my partners dad, and is joint Executer with M. Now for the issues;

M has gone off and obtained probate without involving T.

M refused to have the will read before doing so.

M has not shared any detail of the total value of the Estate (there are insurances, we not sure if is any debt but doubtful)

There is a house which is mortgage free and has been valued, but to date the Title has not been transferred into T, G and M's names.

M wants the house ( he has already put his own on the market....) and is pressurising the other two to agree to sell their share to him by Christmas. We suspect he wants to do this before transferring the Title to to the three beneficiaries.

We are very concerned about this, both in terms of the timetable he is pushing but also that he is not sharing any information. We are trying to get G & T to see that they don't have to do this! Feels like M is using his position as joint Executor to benefit himself as beneficiary, but not the other two.

What are M's obligations?

Do they have to sell to him?

If they refuse ( we are looking at options for them to buy M out, but without knowing full value of estate that's difficult) can M force a sale?

Any advice appreciated.

CT

paddedjohn

Why wouldn't your father in law not want to sell his share in the house? what good is 1/3 of the property to him? Why are you getting involved?

CT41

There are other factors I haven't gone in, but the point is its his choice. The issue is whether his brother is behaving appropriately and lawfully.

We have just lost Nan who was much loved and the centre of the family. Since her death M has done nothing but try and force the issue which feels wrong and is upsetting T &G .Why are we involved? Its called support.

madbadrob

Firstly has joint executors they are entitled to see the will. If he wont show you the will then you can refuse to go ahead with any sale until you have seen it. You can of course order a copy of the will from the probate office at Holborn or Leeds. This costs 6 pounds and can be ordered through the post.

The obligations of all three executors is to pay all debts relating to the estate gather in all assets to pay the debts and then whats left is shared as per the will. I am assuming there was a will.

My first step would be to ask to see the will because I would question has to why he is witholding the will from the other executors. They have a right to see it and to be fair are required to see it because if anything is not disposed of as per the will all three are liable. If he wont show the other two executors the will I would play hard ball and say sorry I dont want to sell my share to you.

Once the will has been seen I would then, from the estate pay for three valuations of the property and split that three ways. If both parties are happy to see their share to M then the value be splut 1/3 each and M pay those two shares.

The brother is not acting lawfully at all by refusing the other executors access to the will.

Rob

rpc

CT41 wrote: »

M has gone off and obtained probate without involving T.

M can't do that legally. T needs to call the probate registry and find out what was recorded on the PA1. Renouncing requires a letter from T and either renouncing or reserving will need a form filled in.

See the PA1 (section A) and guidance notes
http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/pa01-eng.pdf
http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/pa01a-eng.pdf

Once you know what was recorded at the probate office, I would go see a solicitor. Make sure M knows that T is doing this and that T has not renounced or reserved. As an executor, reasonable legal fees can be recovered from the estate. Ultimately, all the fees could come from M's share if they are behaving unreasonably.

spacey2012

If he has "cut out" the other named Executor, who signed the probate form ?
It requires the signatures of all executors.

Something is not right, as joint executor you can have any other executor removed that has misrepresented the estate.
I would contract a Solicitor, any fees will come from the estate.
Sometimes a solicitor can increase the value of an estate by many thousands above what lay persons can.
They do this by selling property on the open market for a real value instead of the mates rates some think they should pay for it, the £2-3k fees they charge can be easily got back by getting the real value for property.
I would see a solicitor about obtaining a court order for misrepresentation's of the estate by this executor who is abusing position acting to obtain advantage.
The property then gets sold correctly, any accounts or insurances get traced down and paid to the estate .
The property goes on the market and if Mr X wants it he can jolly well jog along and visit the estate agents selling it.
Vacant no chain possession property is in demand and often can sell the same day.

troubleinparadise

spacey2012 wrote: »

If he has "cut out" the other named Executor, who signed the probate form ?
It requires the signatures of all executors..

Not any longer - one executor can state that they have informed the other executor/s, and be granted probate independently, without the need for signatures of other executor/s.

rpc

troubleinparadise wrote: »

Not any longer - one executor can state that they have informed the other executor/s, and be granted probate independently, without the need for signatures of other executor/s.

Only one executor need do the form, but they have to say what all the other executors are doing. If they reserve power (option C) or renounce (option D) then

PA1_Guidance_Notes wrote:

If you give reason D or E, please send a letter signed by the executor stating their intention when you
send the application to the Probate Registry. If option C, D, or E is stated the Probate Registry will,
on receipt of your application, send you a form for the executor(s) to sign to confirm their intention.
You should arrange for this to be completed and then return it to the Probate Registry as instructed.

In any case, OP should take this up with the probate registry and find out exactly what was done with the probate application and what the status of the non-active executors is. Then see a solicitor.

Mojisola

troubleinparadise wrote: »

Not any longer - one executor can state that they have informed the other executor/s, and be granted probate independently, without the need for signatures of other executor/s.

This is not a good change - the executors should all have to sign something. It's open to abuse.

Tuesday_Tenor

Mojisola wrote: »

This is not a good change - the executors should all have to sign something. It's open to abuse.

Yes, indeed. Particularly as it seems from other posts on this forum, that at the oath swearing, an executor who has taken the lead, can simply swear that they have informed the others.

So it seems entirely possible
- for one executor (A) to apply,
- other named executors (B,C) not to be informed
- other named executors (B,C) to still be legally responsible (as they haven't signed anything to renounce or reserve powers)
- executor A to swear oath and obtain probate, saying (but lying) that they have informed B and C
- executor A to forge ahead without involving B and C
- and all the while B and C remain equally responsible !!

Surely it's not that daft? Please could someone tell me I'm wrong re the above?!?!?!

joerugby

Tuesday_Tenor wrote: »

Yes, indeed. Particularly as it seems from other posts on this forum, that at the oath swearing, an executor who has taken the lead, can simply swear that they have informed the others.

So it seems entirely possible
- for one executor (A) to apply,
- other named executors (B,C) not to be informed
- other named executors (B,C) to still be legally responsible (as they haven't signed anything to renounce or reserve powers)
- executor A to swear oath and obtain probate, saying (but lying) that they have informed B and C
- executor A to forge ahead without involving B and C
- and all the while B and C remain equally responsible !!

Surely it's not that daft? Please could someone tell me I'm wrong re the above?!?!?!

Just a couple of points:

1) Lying on oath is a pretty serious matter
2) I think after probate is granted only A is legally responsible, not B or C