Evicting distant relation after probate

silvercar

Happened to a friend of mine, aging relative of 85 had right to live in the property until she died. She died at the age of 105 and lived in the house until her death (with carers in the end).

PixelPound

Ignore as not needed

moneyistooshorttomention

silvercar wrote: »

Seems the relation has the right to live there, and I would assume with that comes the right to say who else can live there. So grandson needs to wait his turn.

Doesn't matter if the registered owners are the trustees since the death, if the relative has the right to live there then that trumps grandson.

That brings up another question then - ie does this "life interest" the relative has get stated specifically in the Will as her being "sole inhabitant" (or words to that effect) of the house.

I'm wondering whether her right to live there is worded in such a way that it precludes grandson living there too? It would be useful to know how that bit got phrased.

moneyistooshorttomention

nic_c wrote: »

This is what we need to find out. Its not that the family want to kick the relation out, but that the relation wants to make the grandson homeless, even though he has lived there a year contributing to costs. She has certain obligations under the will, but banning the trustees means they have been unable to check as the will states they should.

When you say "banning the trustees" - I guess this relates to your earlier comment about them not being able to get in the house to get hold of jewellery that has been left to someone else.

Sounds like another question you need to ask a solicitor - ie how the trustees can get that necessary access to carry out their duties properly.

The thing is, too, that I wonder if the trustees might be deemed to be in breach of their duty (or some similar phrase) if they didn't fulfil the roles set for them by the deceased (even though it wouldn't be their fault).

If this woman wont even allow them in the house and to get hold of the jewellery that has been left to someone else - then what is she hiding? If the grandson is still living in his house-to-be could he wait till this woman is out and then locate the property that doesn't belong to this woman and give it to the trustees (it certainly wouldn't be theft or anything - as this property doesn't belong to the woman anyway - with the deceased having left it to someone else).

I'm getting the impression the grandson is scared of this woman and it would appear she is deliberately trying to be intimidatory and obstructive. Not easy to stand up to people like that - but it does look to be necessary.

xylophone

It seems to me that you need the scope of the Trustees' rights and responsibilities clarified first - the solicitor should be able to consult other colleagues if additional expertise in other areas is required.

Try a solicitor who is a member of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners?

http://www.step.org/member-directory

http://www.step.org/sites/default/files/Policy/settled-land-act-part-three.pdf

What seems to be clear (although with additional bits of information being dribbled out every day who knows......) is that the relative has the (exclusive?) right to live in the property for as long as she wishes and the responsibility to keep it in good repair.

There would appear to be no obligation on her to allow the grandson to live in the house as his interest is subsequent to hers?

Who has to insure the property, the tenant for life or the Trustees?

Cheeky_Monkey

Surely if the relative doesn't own the house, she has no legal right to 'ban' the Trustees from entering.

As your partner's son already lives there, why doesn't she just go round there (with or without her brother as joint Trustee) and her son can let her/them in.

It seems to me that everyone seems to be 'pandering' to this woman which is empowering her to behave any way she feels like.

moneyistooshorttomention

Cheeky_Monkey wrote: »

Surely if the relative doesn't own the house, she has no legal right to 'ban' the Trustees from entering.

As your partner's son already lives there, why doesn't she just go round there (with or without her brother as joint Trustee) and her son can let her/them in.

It seems to me that everyone seems to be 'pandering' to this woman which is empowering her to behave any way she feels like.

That is another possible way to handle it - and probably better, in fact, than the grandson trying to find the jewellery/etc. Let the trustees be the ones to have a look for it - he just lets them in. So that will be why this woman wants to throw the grandson out - ie before he "sees straight enough" to let the trustees in....It is clear now as to why she is trying that.

Some people can be VERY VERY "convincing" that they have all the rights in a situation/things must be as they want/etc/etc. Thankfully - there aren't that many of them around - but when a really determined one is encountered they can be extremely difficult to deal with. They will stand there and tell you a very convincing tale of how things are to the extent you get taken in whilst listening to why they really "are" the way this person wants. That gets followed by not realising that this is not the case until you've had a chance afterwards to "clear your head"/talk to other people about what happened/etc. The phrase "having your head turned" originated for a reason....:cool:.

These people can be very convincing in their assertions that "black is white" until you've had some hours to "clear your head" afterwards and see things as they really are. I think it highly likely this woman is a "head turner" (as I'm coming to call them).

Keep_pedalling

The other side of this of cause is that this relative may feel under unfair pressure to move out even though it appears that she has every right to live there as long as she wished, and unless the will states otherwise she cannot be forced to share her home with the grandson.

From the wording we have seen it would appear that the deceased did wish for her companion to be able to stay in what had become her home for as long as she wishes, so unless you have evidence that she had undue influence for adding that clause to her will there is not much you can do about it and the grandson does need to sort himself out alternative accommodation.

moneyistooshorttomention

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

The other side of this of cause is that this relative may feel under unfair pressure to move out even though it appears that she has every right to live there as long as she wished, and unless the will states otherwise she cannot be forced to share her home with the grandson.

From the wording we have seen it would appear that the deceased did wish for her companion to be able to stay in what had become her home for as long as she wishes, so unless you have evidence that she had undue influence for adding that clause to her will there is not much you can do about it and the grandson does need to sort himself out alternative accommodation.

That is another possible interpretation of events - but it doesn't explain why she is hanging onto this jewellery, etc, that has been left to someone else. That isn't a very nice thing to do.

Keep_pedalling

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

That is another possible interpretation of events - but it doesn't explain why she is hanging onto this jewellery, etc, that has been left to someone else. That isn't a very nice thing to do.

That assumes these items were actually bequeathed to anyone. If they were why is the stuff still in the house, the executors should have distributed those years ago and they must have had access to the house to value everything for probate, and the grandson has full access to the house. There is much to this saga that we don't know about.