Inheriting 50% of house with Sibling as Co-Owner/Occupier?

G_M

Who owned the other 50%?

xylophone

Who owned the other 50%?

The house was originally owned by mother and father as TIC.

As I said above, on father's death his 50% went to the sibling still living at home. (The middle aged lady to whom I refer above.)

His widow (obviously) retained her share. She developed MS, becoming increasingly disabled. The live in daughter cared for her.

She left her 50% solely to that daughter, not to her married child/grandchildren.

AnotherJoe

Sea_Shell wrote: »

Thanks for all those replies. Food for thought. Lots of "what if's" at the moment as i'm just over-thinking (too much) ahead to possibilities for the future (not actually happened yet), but I can envisage being in this position, hopefully not for many, many years though!!. However armed with this information, if it came to it i'd try my best so that all parties know the ramifications of their decisions.

The down-side of these types of forums I guess....you see the pickle some people are in, gain a little knowledge and you start to consider all the what-ifs.

I'm also keen to hear from anyone who's been on the receiving end of this sort of thing, as either sibling, and what their experiences were.

Thanks again.

Not me but there was a thread here a few months back, three siblings, two wanted to keep the house and rent it out but were refusing to buy out the third sibling (the poster here) who just wanted the money.

And then another long running thread again a few months back, two siblings, one wanted money one wanted to live in the house & couldn't afford to buy out other sibling. That one dragged on a long time from what I recall.

This could be fixed if the wills were written such that the house should be sold. End of.

That would still leave open the possibility of it being sold to one of the siblings but bypasses the messy "well mum left the house to both of us so she obviously didnt want it sold" excuse for not selling.

xylophone

This could be fixed if the wills were written such that the house should be sold. End of.

I sometimes wonder whether the Testator has such an emotional tie to the property that he wants to keep a child in it, by hook or by crook!

In the case of the house to which I refer above, father had bought the land and built the property.

Sea_Shell

How would that solve the problem. If the estate is 99% the property, and is being occupied at the time by one sibling? You'd still have to force a sale wouldn't you?

AnotherJoe

Sea_Shell wrote: »

How would that solve the problem. If the estate is 99% the property, and is being occupied at the time by one sibling? You'd still have to force a sale wouldn't you?

Only if the sibling was not willing to sell despite that being against the direct terms of the will, thus , it should be a far easier process since they have no reason to argue against it since the testator specifically orders it sold. On what grounds would they challenge morally or legally?

So if they do challenge (which is now much more unlikely) it should be a faster and easier and cheaper court case.

Sea_Shell

What if intestate?

elsien

If the sibling is living there rent free (and assuming employed rather than on benefits) they should be in a position to build up savings over the years to give them more options in the future. Including buying out.

xylophone

What if intestate?

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/death-and-wills/who-can-inherit-if-there-is-no-will-the-rules-of-intestacy/

The siblings would share the estate - if one were living in the house and unwilling to move, then if the other beneficiaries wanted to sell, an application to the court would be required.

getmore4less

You will tend to be pointed to examples where this has gone wrong as those that are happy with an arrangement are unlikely to have posted its all going well(there will be loads).

It is down to the individuals involved and their priorities.

Starting with the parents.