FIL died intestate

leespot

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

The bottom line is that she has no right to anything but the amount under the intestacy rules. A valuation by a RICS or similarly qualified surveyor will be required to apply for letters of administration and probate. That may be different from the one in the divorce proceedings. In the end if the parties do not cooperate they will risk losing money.

It's not an ideal situation really, but at the moment the only one being unreasonable is the widow. She wasn't living at the house before FIL died, she'd been moved out for about 6 months or so. She'd initially told the girls their dad would have wanted them to have something from the estate and that she would see that it happened.

Fast forward a couple of months after the funeral to where we are now and she's changed her mind and wants to move the new guy in keeping everything for herself and her two sons. My partner and her sisters are still grieving, understandably. The widow had long left the relationship so is perhaps seeing things differently and has somewhat less of an emotional attachment to the proceedings.

Yorkshireman99

She has no right to occupy the house. What has happned about insuring the property and preventing vandalism.

leespot

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

She has no right to occupy the house. What has happned about insuring the property and preventing vandalism.

We have no idea about any of that yet to be honest. The widow had a rental as far as we know which she has moved out of and back into the house. In terms of preventing vandalism that isn't likely as it's where the boys live - they're 10 and 14. Nothing malicious is expected in that context to be honest, although I suppose in a situation like this "never say never" is probably prudent.

Yorkshireman99

leespot wrote: »

We have no idea about any of that yet to be honest. She had a rental as far as we know which she has moved out of and back into the house. In terms of preventing vandalism that isn't likely as it's where the boys live - they're 10 and 14. Nothing malicious is expected in that context to be honest, although I suppose in a situation like this "never say never" is probably prudent.

Nevertheless someone needs to get a grip on the situation. Applying for letters of administration is a priority but the wife is likely to be the one who has to do it. In view of the two children what has happened regarding looking after them? Are Social services aware? Someone might need to apply to the court to protect the interests of the children. All potentially very messy and expensive.

leespot

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Nevertheless someone needs to get a grip on the situation. Applying for letters of administration is a priority but the wife is likely to be the one who has to do it. In view of the two children what has happened regarding looking after them? Are Social services aware? Someone might need to apply to the court to protect the interests of the children. All potentially very messy and expensive.

The widow is their mother - that's why she's moved back in to the house. It is very messy, and she has said she will be applying for the letters of administration etc.

Yorkshireman99

leespot wrote: »

She is their mother - that's why she's moved back in to the house. It is very messy, and she has said she will be applying for the letters of administration etc.

Somebody needs to make sure that she does not try it on regarding the distribution of the estate. The children's entitlement will have to be held in trust until they are 18.

getmore4less

securityguy wrote: »

That sounds on the bleeding edge of legality. We have had this discussion recently about whether residual beneficiaries are entitled to their share in cash rather than in other (potentially illiquid) assets, but to convert the entitlement of minors to the assets of their father into minority shares in a house which no-one intends to sell seems incredibly harsh. Normally, a trust for a minor beneficiary would be empowered to advance money ahead of majority for purposes of education or other good things - in essence, the things their late father would have paid for had he not died - and to replace that with a part share in a house is clearly not to their advantage. The trustees for the minors would be derelict in their duty, morally if not legally, if they permitted this.

it is not clear what is happening but the kids were living with the FIL.

My assumption is that is the house being discussed.

If the minors were going to remain living in the house them becoming part owners to avoid the sale of the house their home would likely be a reasonable and acceptable investment for the trustees to use for their share of the estate.

getmore4less

securityguy wrote: »

Quite. Although "intestate" implies there wasn't a will to start with: wills (other than those prepared in contemplation of marriage to a specific person) are voided by marriage, but are not voided by divorce, so had there been a will the FIL in this case wouldn't have been intestate, rather would have had a will which they might not have chosen.

New does not exclude first.

leespot

getmore4less wrote: »

it is not clear what is happening but the kids were living with the FIL.

My assumption is that is the house being discussed.

If the minors were going to remain living in the house them becoming part owners to avoid the sale of the house their home would likely be a reasonable and acceptable investment for the trustees to use for their share of the estate.

The widow had an affair and subsequently moved out of the home, left the kids with the FIL. She's moved back in since the funeral and has decided she wants the house for her, her new partner, and her two boys. Nothing for my partner and her sisters. She has enough money to buy them out if she needs to, and the idea of the boys becoming part owners (if that is possible) is something we'd like to have happen - to protect their inheritance.

getmore4less

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

She has no right to occupy the house. What has happned about insuring the property and preventing vandalism.

The house is the home of two minors it is reasonable for the person with parental responsibility to move in with them.