Executor excluding benificiary

stator

I haven't read this thread, only page one, but get yourself a solicitor for goodness sake.

If people know you have a legal representative they are far less likey to try and take advantage of you and push you around.

moneyistooshorttomention

Correction - you personally feel like she is regarding herself as "entitled" (whatever that means in this context).

I've not noticed you trying to be helpful at all. Perhaps I can suggest you "get off her case"....

Cakeguts

The thing that I am still struggling to get my head round is the mortgage bit. When someone dies you have to inform all the banks and building societies that the dead person has accounts with that they have died. So why was the mortgage account not frozen? Why were mortgage payments continued to be accepted. and paid?

The other thing I can't explain is how someone can continue to live in a house that they don't own without being a tenant and paying rent?

The other thing that bothers me a lot is that it says that the OP told one of the brothers that they couldn't bring drugs into the house. I have absolutely no idea how the OP thought that they had a right to tell the brother about anything he could or could not bring into a house neither of them owned.

The OP also admits to trying to hold up the sale of the house. The whole thing is a mess caused by one person.

itchyfeet123

Cakeguts wrote: »

The thing that I am still struggling to get my head round is the mortgage bit. When someone dies you have to inform all the banks and building societies that the dead person has accounts with that they have died. So why was the mortgage account not frozen? Why were mortgage payments continued to be accepted. and paid?

That's a question for the executors.

Cakeguts wrote: »

The other thing I can't explain is how someone can continue to live in a house that they don't own without being a tenant and paying rent?

There's no law that says anyone has to charge rent. OP + siblings + grandad were living in the house when the mum was still alive. The arrangement continued. Again, the responsibility for formalising any arrangement should lie with the executors.

Cakeguts wrote: »

The other thing that bothers me a lot is that it says that the OP told one of the brothers that they couldn't bring drugs into the house. I have absolutely no idea how the OP thought that they had a right to tell the brother about anything he could or could not bring into a house neither of them owned.

We're talking about illegal drugs here. The two of them had equal rights to live in the property. His "right" to do as he pleases in his own home in this case would infringe on the OP's rights to, say, not be raided by the police, not be charged with possession, etc.

What I have absolutely no idea about is how OP's brother thought he had a right to assault OP and lock her in a bedroom.

LellSasha

Cakeguts wrote: »

The thing that I am still struggling to get my head round is the mortgage bit. When someone dies you have to inform all the banks and building societies that the dead person has accounts with that they have died. So why was the mortgage account not frozen? Why were mortgage payments continued to be accepted. and paid?

The other thing I can't explain is how someone can continue to live in a house that they don't own without being a tenant and paying rent?

The other thing that bothers me a lot is that it says that the OP told one of the brothers that they couldn't bring drugs into the house. I have absolutely no idea how the OP thought that they had a right to tell the brother about anything he could or could not bring into a house neither of them owned.

The OP also admits to trying to hold up the sale of the house. The whole thing is a mess caused by one person.

you are becoming quite ridiculous....

I have no idea why the mortgage wasnt frozen maybe because the 3 of us had applied for a joint mortgage to finish off mums and it was all going ahead until the middle brother wanted to use the house a drug den...
No normal human being is going to happily allow drugs and drug dealers in their home whether they own it or not and I cant even fathom how you think thats a reasonable point...!?!?!

you really have it in for me dont you...

moneyistooshorttomention

itchyfeet123 wrote: »

We're talking about illegal drugs here. The two of them had equal rights to live in the property. His "right" to do as he pleases in his own home in this case would infringe on the OP's rights to, say, not be raided by the police, not be charged with possession, etc.

What I have absolutely no idea about is how OP's brother thought he had a right to assault OP and lock her in a bedroom.

Quite frankly - I think someone/anyone has the absolute right to expect that no-one will do anything illegal (including drugtaking) anywhere near them. Hence OP had every right to tell someone sharing the same roof not to take drugs under them - and, obviously, all the more so as she could have ended up in trouble too about it. From what we've heard about that brother by now - he sounds eminently capable of lying to the police to make out that they were OP's drugs and nothing to do with him.

and....quite....what sort of person would assault someone and/or lock them in their bedroom? I rest my case....

EDIT; FWIW- I dont think Cakeguts "has it in for you" - they probably are someone who hasnt had much experience (luckily for them....) of just how awful some people can be and can't quite believe it. Some of us have, unfortunately, learnt that there are some pretty awful/selfish characters out there in the world.

LellSasha

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Quite frankly - I think someone/anyone has the absolute right to expect that no-one will do anything illegal (including drugtaking) anywhere near them. Hence OP had every right to tell someone sharing the same roof not to take drugs under them - and, obviously, all the more so as she could have ended up in trouble too about it. From what we've heard about that brother by now - he sounds eminently capable of lying to the police to make out that they were OP's drugs and nothing to do with him.

and....quite....what sort of person would assault someone and/or lock them in their bedroom? I rest my case....

thank you very much..
Im pretty done with defending myself to some of these people. I asked my questions and a lot of people have had the decency to offer something constructive whether it was the outcome I wanted or not...the others well seem as though they have nothing better to do and want to raise STUPID points to support their own twisted view.
I cant thank you enough for your understanding today its been a long day and Im done with the ramblings of idiots who havent walked a day in my shoes.
A couple of people and I now have a better understanding we have some numbers to call and a list as long as my arm to take care of in the morning ..I shall let you know how this all unfolds
take care of yourself and thank you x

LellSasha

itchyfeet123 wrote: »

That's a question for the executors.



There's no law that says anyone has to charge rent. OP + siblings + grandad were living in the house when the mum was still alive. The arrangement continued. Again, the responsibility for formalising any arrangement should lie with the executors.



We're talking about illegal drugs here. The two of them had equal rights to live in the property. His "right" to do as he pleases in his own home in this case would infringe on the OP's rights to, say, not be raided by the police, not be charged with possession, etc.

What I have absolutely no idea about is how OP's brother thought he had a right to assault OP and lock her in a bedroom.

thank you very much these are all questions added to my list of things to chase in the morning. Thank you for the help you have offered today.

Cakeguts

LellSasha wrote: »

you are becoming quite ridiculous....

I have no idea why the mortgage wasnt frozen maybe because the 3 of us had applied for a joint mortgage to finish off mums and it was all going ahead until the middle brother wanted to use the house a drug den...
No normal human being is going to happily allow drugs and drug dealers in their home whether they own it or not and I cant even fathom how you think thats a reasonable point...!?!?!

you really have it in for me dont you...

It isn't ridiculous because when your mother died you should have given the executors the account number for your mother's mortgage and then the building society or bank would have frozen the account because the account holder was no longer alive. Once someone is dead they don't own the house anymore and they don't have a mortgage account for a house they don't own. You seem quite capable of asking about buying the house here and finding bridging loans and mortgage advisers yet not capable of asking a bank or building society what to do about the mortgage account of someone who had died.

Cakeguts

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Quite frankly - I think someone/anyone has the absolute right to expect that no-one will do anything illegal (including drugtaking) anywhere near them. Hence OP had every right to tell someone sharing the same roof not to take drugs under them - and, obviously, all the more so as she could have ended up in trouble too about it. From what we've heard about that brother by now - he sounds eminently capable of lying to the police to make out that they were OP's drugs and nothing to do with him.

and....quite....what sort of person would assault someone and/or lock them in their bedroom? I rest my case....

EDIT; FWIW- I dont think Cakeguts "has it in for you" - they probably are someone who hasnt had much experience (luckily for them....) of just how awful some people can be and can't quite believe it. Some of us have, unfortunately, learnt that there are some pretty awful/selfish characters out there in the world.

Yes I do know how awful people can be and I also know that there are numerous reasons why people start taking drugs so I don't judge them. Living with a drug addict must be awful but living with drug addict in a house that neither of you own means that you can move out without any financial implications. All I was trying to point out is that one sibling does not have the right to tell the other sibling how to live in a house that doesn't belong to either of them.