Inherited House Blockage

rogueylawyer

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

But going back to the blockage question:

The siblings have probate.

The will says everything to be divided equally.

A does not appear to wish to do that.

Can A therefore be removed as an executor? Is that what the solicitor told OH and B would be very expensive? Is that more or less expensive than forcing a sale through the court?

Sitting down with A and working through the possible scenarios, with the costs which will reduce EVERYONE's share of the estate, may bring a reality check.

Sorry Sue can I just clarify the costs point. If A defends the application and is unsuccessful then a court may award costs against him personally, and would therefore be borne by his share of the estate.

Further, the valuations obtained should be an open market value as at the date of death, and not a discounted value. The parties may agree a discount between themselves, and generally a discount of 10% may arise where a sale is progressing without estate agents etc.

I would strongly suggest formal legal advice if A refuses to move ahead, for exactly this reason.

Savvy_Sue

rogueylawyer wrote: »

Sorry Sue can I just clarify the costs point. If A defends the application and is unsuccessful then a court may award costs against him personally, and would therefore be borne by his share of the estate.

And that may be something worth pointing out to A, that they could lose out more as a result of not doing what the will says.

rogueylawyer wrote: »

I would strongly suggest formal legal advice if A refuses to move ahead, for exactly this reason.

Well, the OP said they had taken some, but we're not clear what exactly they asked, or what the advice was beyond that action would be expensive.

rogueylawyer

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Well, the OP said they had taken some, but we're not clear what exactly they asked, or what the advice was beyond that action would be expensive.

I'd certainly say that the benefits may outweigh the costs. I'm not clear whether the solicitor OP spoke to was a specialist in this area. OP - if you add in your details here http://actaps.com/membership.cfm you can find a suitably qualified contentious probate specialist to speak to again.

malc_b

I thought it might be worth clarifying that the value for probate is what you can sell it for. So for jewellery it would be what it would fetch, not what a replacement costs in jewellers, and not the insurance value (which is the cost to replace it). Similarly the probate value of a house is what it would sell at, not the price the estate agent would market it at (which would/should be higher). Selling a house involves costs which would be a charge on the estate so if the house is just taken over by one party then these costs would be saved so the house should be a lower price (i.e. probate value - selling costs). Plus the value is at the time of death so you need to back track the current valuation to allow for house price increases.

I'd suggest you need to work out the figures. What is the difference, what your share of this difference is, and how that compares to the cost of taking action. And maybe try to reach a compromise for the sake of family harmony.

sneekymum

I fear it is far too late to save the family harmony.

The big problem with taking a compromise is that A has no money to back up their offer.

g6jns_2

sneekymum wrote: »

I fear it is far too late to save the family harmony.

The big problem with taking a compromise is that A has no money to back up their offer.

The solicitor is talking rubbish. You can have squatter evicted and force the sale. The full costs can be taken from the squatter's share. Also rent should be deducted.

sneekymum

OH & B have no idea about what's going on with the house - whether it is insured, who is paying the bills etc. and yet it is being occupied by A.

Would it be a good idea for them to resign as executors as they cannot effectively do this job?

Crabapple

sneekymum wrote: »

OH & B have no idea about what's going on with the house - whether it is insured, who is paying the bills etc. and yet it is being occupied by A.

Would it be a good idea for them to resign as executors as they cannot effectively do this job?

I'd say not - being Executors gives them a lot more power. If they renounce (not easy once the Grant has been issued anyway) then the brother in the house holds the property and all the authority.

I'm sorry to say it because it is going to be a pain but I think the brother needs a Solicitor's letter explaining that the others need proof of insurance etc, who is paying bills, rent of y per month whilst he occupies, and that unless he agrees to sell the house with the other Executors in the near future they will take action to force a sale.

g6jns_2

Crabapple wrote: »

I'd say not - being Executors gives them a lot more power. If they renounce (not easy once the Grant has been issued anyway) then the brother in the house holds the property and all the authority.

I'm sorry to say it because it is going to be a pain but I think the brother needs a Solicitor's letter explaining that the others need proof of insurance etc, who is paying bills, rent of y per month whilst he occupies, and that unless he agrees to sell the house with the other Executors in the near future they will take action to force a sale.

Sound advice. The longer you let it drag on the more difficult it will be.