Land locked parcel of land

davidmcn

G_M wrote: »

In OPs case, the Executors should surely have been managing the entire Estate properly. They sold one Title and made no provision for the other.

But the "other" title (i.e. that owned by the husband) didn't form part of the estate. The fact that in practice the deceased had allowed the husband access doesn't mean that his land benefited from any right of access.

EachPenny

davidmcn wrote: »

But the "other" title (i.e. that owned by the husband) didn't form part of the estate. The fact that in practice the deceased had allowed the husband access doesn't mean that his land benefited from any right of access.

I think the OP needs to go back and explore the outcome of the "long, costly court case" which resulted in the plot of land being transferred into the relative's sole name.

To me it seems unlikely that with the scrutiny of the Court the need for the relative to have rights of access to the plot of land would have been completely overlooked. It is of course possible that is what has happened, but arguably it shouldn't have been allowed to happen if professional advice was being given.

The transfer of the plot into the relative's sole name in a contested will situation suggests to me that his rights to the land were established. It would be a bit of a howler to acknowledge those rights, then not provide any means for him to benefit from them if the property he lived in (but didn't own) was subsequently sold or he moved out. The judgement (order?) appears to say would happen within 2 years and couldn't have known whether his health would have deteriorated to a point where he had no practical use for the land.

As it appears he was only entitled to one-sixth of the proceeds, rather than being a joint owner with a one-sixth share, he would have had no control over the subsequent disposal of the property. Therefore he wasn't in a position as a joint owner to insist on the sale making provision for access rights to his plot of land.

Which is why (if I'm picking up G_M's hint correctly) I'd have expected either the Court, the professionals, or the executors, to have some kind of responsibility to ensure the relative would have ongoing access to his land after the sale of the property.

lincroft1710

Although relevant bodies may have a "responsibility", I doubt if there is/was "a legal requirement or obligation". The Op's relative has been left with a useless piece of land which it seems even if it had access he will never use it and will only be of benefit to his heirs.

I think this is one of those cases where what is done is done and going down any legal route is only going to enrich the legal profession. To the OP I would say if you can sell to one of the adjoining neighbours, do so at whatever price you can get with the buyer paying all legal fees.

The situation is not one I would be happy with but I think the end would not justify the means, trying to get a R-O-W established or compensation for possible negligence would be far too costly even if it were possible.

EachPenny

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Although relevant bodies may have a "responsibility", I doubt if there is/was "a legal requirement or obligation". The Op's relative has been left with a useless piece of land which it seems even if it had access he will never use it and will only be of benefit to his heirs.

I think what I and some of the other posters are saying is perhaps there has been a rush to say the land is worthless because it has no access, without the OP first exploring whether that is actually the case.

For example if the Court awarded him the plot of land with a right of access, then someone has been remiss if that access hasn't been provided for.

It might not be worth going to court to sue someone over it, but as the OP is acting under LPA then it might end up being them who is found to have acted negligently by disposing of an asset at zero value without first checking the facts.

Oxtonite_62

Oxtonite_62 wrote: »

In her Will, her stepdaughter and stepson were appointed executors of her estate .

Sorry, I meant to say 'her daughter and son' (my relative's step son & daughter) were appointed executors of her estate.

Thanks for all the replies.....lots to think about!

lincroft1710

EachPenny wrote: »

For example if the Court awarded him the plot of land with a right of access, then someone has been remiss if that access hasn't been provided for.

The OP will obviously have to read the court decision very carefully to see if access was mentioned and if so, how was it to be obtained. But back garden land with possibly only pedestrian access, probably (if not definitely) no "hope" value is going to be of little value as a stand alone piece of land.

My point was that although "right" may be on the OP's relative's side, it may be too costly to obtain and it will only benefit the relative if the land is sold.

bouicca21

Assuming the land has no attraction for other neighbours wishing to extend their plots, does it not have an easement of necessity? If so, OP could use it for purposes that might encourage the house buyer to wish to acquire it. Underhand but possibly legal and workable.

lincroft1710

bouicca21 wrote: »

does it not have an easement of necessity? If so, OP could use it for purposes that might encourage the house buyer to wish to acquire it.

Which would negate "necessity".