Evicting distant relation after probate

bouicca21

So much of this doesn't add up. Death 5 years ago, probate 3 years ago, grandson moved in 1 year ago, things 'came to a head' when relation asked him when he was moving out, and only now are the trustees moaning about keepsakes. Plus the 'distant relation' turns out to be the testator's sister or sister in law.

Masses of resentment here but the testator's wishes seem to be clear. Whether the relation has another house is irrelevant. Grandson may be peeved, but he has to suck it up and move.

getmore4less

I can't see the trustees have a right of entry.

IF there was any suspicion of coercion this should have been addressed 5 years ago and before the grant or within 6months of that at the latest.

FedUpExecutorLeeds

My mother died in 2010. Probate and estate were settled in 2011. Grandson did indeed move back into the house 1 year ago after his marriage broke down. He didn't force his way in, he asked and my Aunt allowed him to stay. I thanked her for allowing that.

We are not moaning about keepsakes, merely stating that we have not been allowed my Mothers possessions because my Aunt think they are hers. I personally would like my Mothers possessions to remain in situ until the house comes back into her offsprings possession so I can go through it at my own pace just as I should have been able to in the first place.

No resentment only frustration. We have never harassed or bothered my aunt because we honestly believed that she would move out of the house naturally, in her own time as apart from my Mother and my Son she has no other relatives or friends in the area.

Details may have been a bit sketchy but my partner was doing this off his own volition without having a total grasp of the situation.

Hope this clarifies the situation ..... although I'm sure some trolls will continue to poke sticks!!!!!

getmore4less

One advantage of the life interest it avoids a massive future CGT bill as it will be the primary residence.

There may be an angle that if her other properties could be subject to CGT because of this, the down side is she may realise if there is already CGT so she has to die for her and her kids not to suffer losses

Dird

I guess the grandson could keep inviting groups of guys round & playing music loudly. Surely if the grandson cannot change the locks then she also cannot lock out the owner who also lives there. But then I imagine some bitter, lonely, old woman who probably had good memories with the deceased and friends in the area and it makes me feel sad that you're trying to force her out. There must be a reason that made her start living with her in the first place, maybe a bad memory from the area she owns.

This issue is probably not as black & white as OP makes out.
I assume her other house is probably being let out since she hasn't lived there for years? That means she can't simply return to it.
Also, family roots isn't everything. If she's lived there for years she's probably made friends in the area & might prefer it to the her house's area. And if she owns up north but lives in the leafy south then she's not going to be able to simply sell up and move (even if no tenants) given the price difference

Mojisola

Dird wrote: »

I guess the grandson could keep inviting groups of guys round & playing music loudly. Surely if the grandson cannot change the locks then she also cannot lock out the owner who also lives there.

The grandson has no right to stay in the house until his Great Aunt decides to move out of the house or dies.

Dird

Mojisola wrote: »

The grandson has no right to stay in the house until his Great Aunt decides to move out of the house or dies.

If he is now the owner and there's no tenancy agreement then surely he does?

DandelionPatrol

Dird wrote: »

If he is now the owner and there's no tenancy agreement then surely he does?

If and only if. But he isn't

DandelionPatrol

getmore4less wrote: »

I can't see the trustees have a right of entry.

IF there was any suspicion of coercion this should have been addressed 5 years ago and before the grant or within 6months of that at the latest.

Leaving aside the coercion

I would say that the executors do have a right of entry in order to compile an inventory and to secure or property not explicitly ceded to the great aunt. Which should have been done a long time ago and cannot be a repeated excuse.

I would also think that they should have a right of entry as trustees to ensure that the requirement for the great aunt to maintain the property is being fulfilled. They are the legal freeholders and I think that their rights in this respect would equate to the rights of a private landlord. Such visits should not be excessively frequent.

xylophone

Fed up executor - see my post 67.
Have you and your fellow trustee taken expert professional advice?

Is your aunt's an "immediate post death interest" and if so does her position in respect of IHT on her own death need clarifying?

See http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm16061.htm