before probate

CLOUDS

As an administrator. ... you have to act in the best interests of the estate. Now this cannot mean handing over what someone is not entitled to? Can I challenge this as an administrator or do I have to do this before? It has taken a long time. Amd I have sought a lot of advice. ... it all differs. For the first year it was just dealing with threats and worry. Now that has stopped. So advice and more advice. So that I can make the right decision. There is NO way I am going to be administrator if that means I have to give half to someone that should not have half. No one else will be administrator. So its stuck and going no where which is stressful. But I am determined to find a way. Hopefully someone will read this who knows one.

Savvy_Sue

CLOUDS wrote: »

As an administrator. ... you have to act in the best interests of the estate.

You appear to have your own views about what the 'best interests' of the estate are, but in reality you have to do what the law says.

CLOUDS wrote: »

Now this cannot mean handing over what someone is not entitled to?

You cannot decide entitlement: that is a matter of law.

CLOUDS wrote: »

There is NO way I am going to be administrator if that means I have to give half to someone that should not have half.

But again, it is not up to you who should or should not inherit, it is a matter of law. If you are not prepared to accept the law then indeed you should not act as administrator.

CLOUDS wrote: »

No one else will be administrator. So its stuck and going no where which is stressful. But I am determined to find a way. Hopefully someone will read this who knows one.

Have you taken 'proper' legal advice, ie paid someone to sit and listen to the situation, read the documents, and advise you? Has anyone told you what you want to hear?

g6jns_2

CLOUDS wrote: »

As an administrator. ... you have to act in the best interests of the estate. Now this cannot mean handing over what someone is not entitled to? Can I challenge this as an administrator or do I have to do this before? It has taken a long time. Amd I have sought a lot of advice. ... it all differs. For the first year it was just dealing with threats and worry. Now that has stopped. So advice and more advice. So that I can make the right decision. There is NO way I am going to be administrator if that means I have to give half to someone that should not have half. No one else will be administrator. So its stuck and going no where which is stressful. But I am determined to find a way. Hopefully someone will read this who knows one.

As has been repeatedly said an administrator or executor has no choice but to distribute the estate according to the law. Since you are unwilling to accept this you should not take on the task. It is hard to believe that any professional advice has told you otherwise. You may think someone is not entitled but if the law says they are then the law takes precedence. If need be the beneficiaries can apply to administer the estate in your place. I am sorry to say that you are your own worst enemy. Sorry to be blunt but I strongly advise you to get some professional counselling to help you face the reality of the situation.

loubel

The Administrators role is to administer the Estate.

If you believe that you have a right to the property then you need to seek specialist legal advice and, if they believe that you have a case, you would need to take the Administrators (on behalf of the Estate) and/or (depending on the basis of your claim) the co-owner to Court to settle the matter. This would be very, very expensive and take a very, very long time.

CLOUDS

Thanks loubel. Yes getting some where. In answer to you yes I become administrator say... then I have to take co owner to court. ... then I have to sue myself under inheritance dep act... this is one way. However really there needs to be a administratorso I can challenge them.... but also yes it will take a long time whichever way and a lot of money as no one is prepared to move. Amd as said before no administrator.... hence original question. Some one must know!

Mojisola

CLOUDS wrote: »

Thanks loubel. Yes getting some where. In answer to you yes I become administrator say... then I have to take co owner to court. ... then I have to sue myself under inheritance dep act... this is one way. However really there needs to be a administratorso I can challenge them.... but also yes it will take a long time whichever way and a lot of money as no one is prepared to move. Amd as said before no administrator.... hence original question. Some one must know!

We do know. You just don't want to accept the truth.

g6jns_2

CLOUDS wrote: »

Thanks loubel. Yes getting some where. In answer to you yes I become administrator say... then I have to take co owner to court. ... then I have to sue myself under inheritance dep act... this is one way. However really there needs to be a administratorso I can challenge them.... but also yes it will take a long time whichever way and a lot of money as no one is prepared to move. Amd as said before no administrator.... hence original question. Some one must know!

It is evident that everyone knows but you. You have been repeatedly told the correct answer but you simply refuse to accept it. Asking again and again will make no diference. Loubel's post is unhelpful and does not help you one bit. In fact you don't want answers unless they agree with you. If you were to apply to be administrator you would have to swear an oath in front of a Court official that you will administer the will according to the law but it is clear that you have no intention of doing so. If, despite all the advice that you have received from here and elsewhere you pursue this matter in court you will inevitably fail and the only person it will cost money is you.

loubel

g6jns wrote: »

Loubel's post is unhelpful and does not help you one bit.

I do not see how telling the OP to seek legal advice is unhelpful?! While intestacy law may be clear on who inherits, there are nonetheless ways that people can claim an interest in a property that they do not legally own. This is specialist litigation and the OP has given very little information so no-one on here can tell them whether they might have a case. That is why they need to spend some money on proper advice to establish their position.

In case it was not previously apparent, I do not believe that the OP should apply to administer the Estate if they intend to take legal action against it or do not wish to administer it correctly.

g6jns_2

loubel wrote: »

I do not see how telling the OP to seek legal advice is unhelpful?! While intestacy law may be clear on who inherits, there are nonetheless ways that people can claim an interest in a property that they do not legally own. This is specialist litigation and the OP has given very little information so no-one on here can tell them whether they might have a case. That is why they need to spend some money on proper advice to establish their position.

In case it was not previously apparent, I do not believe that the OP should apply to administer the Estate if they intend to take legal action against it or do not wish to administer it correctly.

You may not have read the entire thread and the previous one from the same poster. She has claimed several times to have taken legal advice but has ignored all the advice given off and on this thread. It is difficult to conclude anything other than that she is just seeking somebody to agree with her. From what she has said her case is quite hopeless but sadly she just cannot accept that she is wrong. A number of people have tried to help here but her story is often confused and contradictory. Every time someone new makes a suggestion she grasps at the straw of hope. It is very sad but I just don't see what anyone on here can do to help her.

Pricivius

In an attempt to set out the situation to try and clarify matters for the OP:

A owns 50% of property as tenants in common with A's Brother.
A is married.
A dies without leaving a will.
A's 50% share of property and any other assets will be inherited in line with the laws of intestacy.
A's wife therefore inherits A's 50% share of the property and any other assets up to the value of £250,000, at which point it gets a bit more complicated and other beneficiaries become involved.
A's Brother continues to own his 50% share as tenants in common with A's wife (presuming her 50% share was worth below £250,000).

1. Is that correct?
2. OP - which part of the above are you not understanding?