Probate, a house and a difficult sibling

SevenOfNine

FreeBear wrote: »

However, based on the fact that the OP has lived in the property for X years providing care and support for the mother, there may well be grounds for a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act. Whilst intestacy rules would provide a 1/3 share of the estate, it may be possible to claim the house in its entirety and forgo any of the remaining residual.

Still an expensive proposition with no guarantee of success, but the suggestion could be used as a warning shot across the bows of No.3 if No.2 is in agreement. And yes, I believe there is case law to support such a claim (recall reading a judgement a while back involving an intestate IH claim).

Miss_underztood wrote: »

I lived at home with our mum and cared for her in her last year

Either Op means they only lived at home for mum's final year to care for her. Or they lived there for several years but only needed to provide care during final year of mum's life. Either way I'd say OP's 'warning shot' might miss its mark entirely & hit OP in their own foot!

Ganga

A way around the rent problem,speak to the other sibling who is not wanting rent and if they agree,work out the rent,say £90 a week,all three of you would be entitled to a third each,you do not need to pay yourself and if the third party ( who is on your side ) does not want any you would only have to pay the one causing trouble £30 a week till you sell the house.
If they want you out straight away point out that they will have to make sure that the house is insured whilst empty and secure etc, this will cost money,might be cheaper to let you stay till sold.

Miss_underztood

I have always lived there, its been the last 12 months I have cared for my mum.

Yorkshireman99

Miss_underztood wrote: »

I have always lived there, its been the last 12 months I have cared for my mum.

Were you finacially dependent on your mother?

pollypenny

I can't understand the OP's reluctance to pay rent. Does she want to sponge off her siblings?

Keep_pedalling

pollypenny wrote: »

I can't understand the OP's reluctance to pay rent. Does she want to sponge off her siblings?

I think it was about not wanting sibling 3 getting their hands on the OPs cash. In which case I hope she is not replicating her mother's negligence and now has her own will in place.

SevenOfNine

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Were you finacially dependent on your mother?

If she was then there doesn't seem to have been a reason for it. All bills are now in her name & she can also afford to pay sibling 3 rent but doesn't want to. Seems financially 'able' now.

OP could try to claim that I suppose, but sibling 3 won't have much trouble punching a hole in it.

YM - there's a way of making the obtaining of LoA a little difficult, am I right in saying sibling 3 can lodge/instigate something with the probate office? I think you've discussed it on previous threads? Can't think of the correct terminology or explanation myself. Put me straight if I'm incorrect.

FreeBear

SevenOfNine wrote: »

YM - there's a way of making the obtaining of LoA a little difficult, am I right in saying sibling 3 can lodge/instigate something with the probate office? I think you've discussed it on previous threads? Can't think of the correct terminology or explanation myself. Put me straight if I'm incorrect.

No.3 could enter a caveat and then make an appearance - Not entirely sure this would work with an intestate estate... I suppose it would depend on the reason given.

Another alternative would be for No.3 to apply for LoA - Having two applications in the pipeline would really throw a spanner in the works.

Malthusian

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

I think it was about not wanting sibling 3 getting their hands on the OPs cash. In which case I hope she is not replicating her mother's negligence and now has her own will in place.

If the OP stays in sibling 3's property and doesn't pay them rent then it is them getting their hands on sibling 3's cash. Sibling 3 has an asset which could be worth six figures, and whether they kept the house and rented it out, or sold it and invested their share in something else, it would generate a yield of thousands per annum. By staying in the house without paying them rent the OP is confiscating that yield from them and putting it in their own pocket.

If the OP dislikes their sibling and doesn't want to pay them rent then they can buy out their share or rent from a different landlord.

But an excellent point that the OP should consider their own wishes given that their siblings may otherwise be in line for their money if they die intestate (assuming no spouse, children or living parents).

Yorkshireman99

SevenOfNine wrote: »

If she was then there doesn't seem to have been a reason for it. All bills are now in her name & she can also afford to pay sibling 3 rent but doesn't want to. Seems financially 'able' now.

OP could try to claim that I suppose, but sibling 3 won't have much trouble punching a hole in it.

YM - there's a way of making the obtaining of LoA a little difficult, am I right in saying sibling 3 can lodge/instigate something with the probate office? I think you've discussed it on previous threads? Can't think of the correct terminology or explanation myself. Put me straight if I'm incorrect.

Sibling 3 could issue a caveat to try and delay the LOA grant but if they do then they will have to justify it and if it goes to Court they will probably end up paying costs if they can't make a valid case.