Executor excluding benificiary

bouicca21

I think if I were executor of an estate that had been faced with 1. An attempted purchase by a group of beneficiaries that failed, 2. An attempted purchase by an investor that failed, 3. A beneficiary who wants to purchase but has only been working part time, would have to rely on a bridging loan until she became mortgageable and was recently so Ill that even after discharge from hospital she was bedridden, I'd be looking for A N Other who was proceedable and enable me to wind up the estate ASAP.

That is of course assuming the whole thread isn't fictitious.

marksoton

LellSasha wrote: »

how when if he is legally bought out of the house I need nothing further to do with him?
I dont have to leave the house also for connections to be severed....

Dear lord. You're creating your own drama.

moneyistooshorttomention

That's assuming an executor that has no compassion at all and/or is terrified out of their wits by the brothers.

I'm hazarding a guess at the executor having been terrified out of their wits by the brothers. Drug-taking brother sounds seriously *expletive deleted* to me.

Many people arent strong enough to stand up to people like Druggie Brother. I don't think Uncle is. On the other hand - OP obviously is and I wish her luck with resolving this.

Sometimes normal people get abnormal siblings. Sh*t happens....

I think she is trying very hard to "normalise" her life and she obviously wants that house a lot to give up studies and get a job to ensure she gets it.

Cakeguts

I can see why mother thought it was a good idea to have an executor who wasn't a beneficiary.

moneyistooshorttomention

Cakeguts wrote: »

I can see why mother thought it was a good idea to have an executor who wasn't a beneficiary.

Good idea in principle obviously - which I fully agree with and have personal reasons for thinking it should be an impartial person (and not one of the beneficiaries!). If that means paying a solicitor to do it = so be it and at least they are impartial. At the least it means other beneficiary/ies nervously aware that executor beneficiary might take advantage of their position.....don't ask me how I know.....

In practice - it would have helped if mother had picked a stronger person (ie someone able to stand up to Druggie Brother) as an executor. But - I guess she may have been a bit short of choice for working out just who to use that was efficient/strong/fair-minded/etc and just had to take what seemed like "next best option" then - ie Uncle.

I've made darn sure and certain it's my solicitor that is going to be executor of my will come the time - even though that means that bit less money in the estate after their charges.

moneyistooshorttomention

Actually that has got me wondering re executors.

Where there is a quarrel between beneficiaries of a Will and the executor has proven untrustworthy (for whatever reason) then I wonder whether there is a process whereby a beneficiary can enforce a change of executor from someone known "personally" to being a solicitor instead (in order to ensure the executor is unbiased/not subject to pressure/etc)??

I don't know if there is such a possibility or no - but it must often be the case that, for whatever reason, an executor can't be trusted (be it because they give way to pressure from Druggy Brother or they are a beneficiary themselves and might find a way to "sway things in their favour" because of holding that office).

Does anyone know if there is such a possibility? A sort of "vote of no confidence" in the executor?

EDIT; no sooner thought - than answered. There is.

https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/money/personal-finance/inheritance/can-you-remove-an-executor

AdrianC

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Actually that has got me wondering re executors.

Where there is a quarrel between beneficiaries of a Will and the executor has proven untrustworthy (for whatever reason) then I wonder whether there is a process whereby a beneficiary can enforce a change of executor from someone known "personally" to being a solicitor instead (in order to ensure the executor is unbiased/not subject to pressure/etc)??

Yes, it's possible - but it needs a court to order the removal and the appointment of somebody else.

Cakeguts

I have a question that I don't know the answer to but I expect someone will. In order to distribute an estate the executors have to have all the funds in and all the tax and expenses paid? So if for example someone who is a beneficiary offers to buy the house their offer needs to be the whole selling amount not an offer with what they think they will inherit from the estate subtracted from it?

moneyistooshorttomention

OP doesnt "think" she will inherit one-third. She knows she will - as the Will said so.

I've always understood that if a house is left as inheritance to more than one person that the other person only has to find a mortgage (or capital) for the bit they havent been left. In this case - she's been left one-third - so only has to get a mortgage for the other two-thirds.

The other scenario wouldnt make sense - ie of her having to get a mortgage for the whole house (even the one-third she owns), buy out her brothers and then instantly repay that one-third of the mortgage she didnt need (because that was on "her" bit).

RADDERS

Cakeguts wrote: »

I have a question that I don't know the answer to but I expect someone will. In order to distribute an estate the executors have to have all the funds in and all the tax and expenses paid? So if for example someone who is a beneficiary offers to buy the house their offer needs to be the whole selling amount not an offer with what they think they will inherit from the estate subtracted from it?

That is incorrect, all they need to do is pay the extra that they are not inheriting. This happened to my husband his sister bought the house and it was just the amount for her half.