Executor excluding benificiary

Cakeguts

RADDERS wrote: »

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.

Thank you. I wasn't sure because I seem to remember that we once made an offer of the whole amount. That made it easier to compare to offers from other people because you could see straight away what the difference was or not.

moneyistooshorttomention

Cakeguts wrote: »

Thank you. I wasn't sure because I seem to remember that we once made an offer of the whole amount. That made it easier to compare to offers from other people because you could see straight away what the difference was or not.

Easy enough to get out a calculator and say "What I'm offering is £x for the house as a whole. Now deduct from that the £y I own of it anyway and that leaves £z left to pay".

For instance - if a house is worth (for the sake of argument) £150,000 and someone already owns one-third of it (as their share of inheritance) then they need to find £100,000 for the two-thirds they havent been left. So they just say - "I'm offering £100,000 to cover that missing two-thirds and that means I'm covering a price of £150,000 for the house as a whole so to say. So compare my £150,000 I'll be covering/paying with the £149,999 that stranger is offering for it - as they are in a position of not owning any of it already".

Cakeguts

There are problems with this thread. The bit I don't understand is why anyone would allow a brother to lock them in their room etc and say nothing so that they could get a joint mortgage with this same brother?

moneyistooshorttomention

I guess, like many relationships, it goes "up and down" and sometimes he acted normal and other times not.

Difficult to think how anyone could prevent someone locking them in their bedroom if its a first floor bedroom and there is no convenient roof to climb out on or drainpipe to shin down. Don't know why they wouldnt use a mobile phone to call for help.....perhaps it was downstairs. Perhaps she did phone for rescue - and that's why other people know about his violence...

I get the point about (during one of his "normal phases") she might have agreed to go for joint mortgage. It sounds like she only intended to have that joint mortgage for long enough to change the ownership of the house on from the Estate - and then try (from a position of greater security in some respects) to offer to buy him out with a mortgage. I can get the logic she is using on that - though I personally think that would have been a very risky strategy to employ and not one I would advocate personally.

hunters

Cakeguts wrote: »

There are problems with this thread. The bit I don't understand is why anyone would allow a brother to lock them in their room etc and say nothing so that they could get a joint mortgage with this same brother?

There is very little in the thread that makes any sense right from the first post.

LellSasha

Cakeguts wrote: »

There are problems with this thread. The bit I don't understand is why anyone would allow a brother to lock them in their room etc and say nothing so that they could get a joint mortgage with this same brother?

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I get the point about (during one of his "normal phases") she might have agreed to go for joint mortgage. It sounds like she only intended to have that joint mortgage for long enough to change the ownership of the house on from the Estate - and then try (from a position of greater security in some respects) to offer to buy him out with a mortgage. I can get the logic she is using on that - though I personally think that would have been a very risky strategy to employ and not one I would advocate personally.

what I dont understanf is y u are still here picking holes in things i clearly explained earlier on...

the assumption that there was an agreement to keep quiet was right I did it in order to secure the mortgage...to get the execs out of the picture...once this happened it would have been much harder for the brother to have put the house on the market at the drop of a hat...he would of had to have gotten a solicitor (which he wouldnt have gone to the effort of)...to get myself and the youngest brother to sell...this would have bought me some time to get myself straight to put in for a mortgage to buy him out rather than be on pins that the execs can step in and take the house at any time...

the DA victim support team had advised me about an occupational order which would have been the next step to get me safe whilst I worked towards buying him out...I wasnt going to put up with the DA forever..only until the house was secure...then I had options...

why is that so hard to understand...

moneyistooshorttomention

Have you had a chance to investigate re seeing a solicitor yet?

jamesd

Cakeguts wrote: »

The bit I don't understand is why anyone would allow a brother to lock them in their room etc and say nothing so that they could get a joint mortgage with this same brother?

The mindstate and psychology of abusive relationships. Doesn't necessarily seem logical from the outside if there's no experience and knowledge of how such things work.

Cakeguts

LellSasha wrote: »

what I dont understanf is y u are still here picking holes in things i clearly explained earlier on...

the assumption that there was an agreement to keep quiet was right I did it in order to secure the mortgage...to get the execs out of the picture...once this happened it would have been much harder for the brother to have put the house on the market at the drop of a hat...he would of had to have gotten a solicitor (which he wouldnt have gone to the effort of)...to get myself and the youngest brother to sell...this would have bought me some time to get myself straight to put in for a mortgage to buy him out rather than be on pins that the execs can step in and take the house at any time...

the DA victim support team had advised me about an occupational order which would have been the next step to get me safe whilst I worked towards buying him out...I wasnt going to put up with the DA forever..only until the house was secure...then I had options...

why is that so hard to understand...

No it wouldn't. Executors that is. They would still have had to make sure that your offer was the best offer. That is their job.

Anyway I don't think you need to worry about this anymore because you are not going to be buying that house so you would be better to spend time looking for somewhere to live that you can afford with your inheritance. You may have to rent somewhere until you can get a mortgage.

moneyistooshorttomention

Cakeguts wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Executors that is. They would still have had to make sure that your offer was the best offer. That is their job.

Anyway I don't think you need to worry about this anymore because you are not going to be buying that house so you would be better to spend time looking for somewhere to live that you can afford with your inheritance. You may have to rent somewhere until you can get a mortgage.

What OP is referring to is she had hoped to have a joint mortgage with the brothers originally - at which point the house would have been sold by those executors. The siblings would have owned the house jointly and the executors would have finished with the disposal of the estate and completely fulfilled their duties and would have been out of the picture. Once the house is sold (one way or another) the executors won't have any say any longer - whether that house is sold to a stranger or to OP in combination with brothers or to OP on her own.

I think it's unduly defeatist to say she isnt going to be able to buy that house. It ain't over until the fat lady sings. In this case it won't be over until someone (be it OP or be it the strangers) owns this house. Until that time - it's all still to play for imo. There are some of us (me for instance - in a very different context) where we've been told quite would-be "authoritatively" that "You've lost" and responded with "It ain't over until the fat lady sings" and gone on to win. Most people aren't that determined when push comes to shove - but the odd few are.

OP could threaten to take the executors to court to get them replaced by impartial executors that arent frightened of Druggie Brother for instance. A solicitor could send a letter to the strangers wanting to buy the house pointing out the difficulties they would have doing so in the circumstances (reluctant beneficiary/sitting tenant/whatever). The executors could have a fit of conscience and develop a backbone to stand up to Druggie Brother. Who knows?

Right now - OP needs to see a solicitor and they can explain her options to her. OP is the only one that will fully know the dynamics of how the relationships are between them all and will be the only one to know Druggie Brother well enough to know if he has any sort of conscience and/or weak spot/Achilles Heel tucked away anywhere whereby he might back off from being so unreasonable.

Time will tell.