Can Deed holder dispute sale?

xylophone

If the brothers owned the home before their mother died, the ownership of the house would have nothing to do with the mother's will?

If this is the case, I see no reason why a court should refuse an order for sale?

John, Patrick and Jonty would then receive the money they were owed from the sale of their asset - one could argue that this would be fairest to Jonty who has no part in his brothers' ongoing dispute.

jonty151

Thanks for replys Sorry I should have made clearer my mother didn't own the property myself and my two brothers have owned the property since 1987 I believe it was for inheritance tax reasons. My brother Patrick lives in the property alone.
From the above replys then I can force a sale which I would like to do and there would be no chance of my brother John (executor of my mothers will) trying to prevent the funds from the house sale being distributed until the theft case involving my brother Patrick has been completed given that my mother had zero financial interest in the property. Although would a judge not say because Patrick would receive money from the sale and he is the subject of an ongoing theft/fraud case etc all money from the sale must be frozen until end of theft/fraud case? Anyway my head is sore I will sleep on it see if it's any clearer tomorrow!

mrginge

This story is full of holes

G_M

Then I don't see the relevance of your mother's death, the will, or the dispute. Why raise it at all - it's a red herring!

* 3 sibings jointly own a property.
* 2 of them wish to sell
* the 3rd, who lives in the property, does not

Can the 2 force the 3rd to sell?

That now seems to be the question, yes?

I did ask for this clarification back in post 3 :

Since the property is registered in all 3 names, I'm guessing Probate has been granted? ie the property belonged to mother who died, and the Executers transferred the property into the 3 names? Else why would % ownership of the property be linked to mother's will?

Distribution of the sale funds, if a sale takes place, is nothing to do with inheritance, and not the business of the Executer. You (3) own the property so you 3) get the sale funds, in whatever proportions you own.

Again, see my earlier question:

How is the property owned? As Joint Tenants, or as Tenants In Common?

It's really frustrating trying to help when

* irrelevant facts are provided, confusing matters
* relevant questions are ignored, and
* other relevant facts are drip-fed

:mad:

princeofpounds

Thanks for the additional detail. Given this appears to be an entirely separate issue to the will/probate, and also to the potential theft, then you should be able to force a sale. Unless something unusual has occurred, a court would not link the house asset to the theft case.

However if one of the others objects, you will end up in court asking for an order for sale. You will now have three legal cases, one for each brother. Which is a distressing symmetry.

Socksey

As the will and sale of the house are not connected... can you possibly sell and put the disputed amount in escrow? or something like that?

princeofpounds

can you possibly sell and put the disputed amount in escrow?

There isn't a disputed amount, in terms of the house. Only in terms of the estate and the allegedly stolen money.


I think what is a more practical risk is that the brother who is attempting to prosecute/sue (I don't know which) the alleged thief tries to freeze the sale or the proceeds (or part of the proceeds) of the sale, to ensure that if they do get a judgment on the theft there are some resources to enforce it against.

Socksey

Yes, I understood that.
Which is why I suggested putting the disputed amount into escrow so that it is ringfenced from all of you until after the will is sorted.
Then you could just sell the house and at least have some of the proceeds now.

AdrianC

But if the executor involves the estate into a legal battle, the estate may incur legal costs, which may well reduce the distribution any beneficiary outside the dispute may receive.

Any theft case is between the estate and one brother, so that's a possibility.
Any breach of the executor's duty is more likely to be between that executor personally and the brother, so that's actually the lesser risk - but still not impossible, I don't think.

princeofpounds

Yes, I understood that.
Which is why I suggested putting the disputed amount into escrow so that it is ringfenced from all of you until after the will is sorted.

I can understand why you suggest that as a potential solution to head off someone trying to oppose a sale. But I would be very careful with it. Because it conflates the house issue with the theft and the estate, when legally it is nothing to do with either.


Maybe you are right and you could get a better result managing that conflation voluntarily rather than waiting for someone else to do it. But I suspect it would add extra complications.