Difficult Inheritance

Margot123

OP, you will get more experienced advice on this specialised board: http://http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=217

-taff

^ your link is broken. And I've already posted a link to it.

AdrianC

GH80 wrote: »

Two years ago my mother-in-law passed away, leaving 3 daughters (I am married to one) and 1 son equal share in the family house.... The house was valued at the time at £160,000 but now is in the £170k - 200k range.

So your wife's share of the property is about £50k's value.

The brother was the executor and transferred 4 siblings names onto the deeds.

As it was a difficult time for all, we did not lean too heavy about getting our share of the house.

You've got it. She is one of four joint owners - presumably, joint tenants rather than 25%-each tenants in common?

We had asked to get bought out at the time but we were refused, I believe one sibling said they were not giving us her inheritance.

<scratches head>

Now that 2 years have gone past, we are a bit fed up. We are looking to move house soon as we have a young family so could use the money, and are also concerned about the extra 3% stamp duty we are likely to face as the wife is named on the deeds on the mothers family home.

Not quite - your wife is one of four joint owners of HER other house...

Secondly, my wife is being excluded from all dealings by her other two sisters. I think they believe my wife is not entitled to her share as they still live in the house.

She HAS her share. "Her share" is joint ownership of the house, not 1/4 of the value in cash.

Is this legal to exclude a co-owner?

Joint tenants, or tenants-in-common?

GH80 wrote:

However, one of the sisters had mentioned that the deceased mother had told her that she wanted to change the will to let her live in the house, but the will was not changed.

Oh, well. Perhaps she should have done that while she was alive.

moneyistooshorttomention

At another level - I wonder how the sisters would react to it being made plain that they have to have agreement from the other 2 joint owners any time they want to do (or not do!) any maintenance work on this jointly-owned property.

Maybe the house needs new windows? new kitchen? essential work on roof? etc and the two non-resident owners have decided it is going to be done and the 2 resident owners are refusing to do it.

How would that scenario pan out?

Do the 2 resident owners realise they cannot make any decisions whatsoever about a house without the 2 non-resident owners agreeing to it? I wouldnt have thought they wanted to get into a "battle of wills" any time any decision needs making (or avoiding....).

AdrianC

I'm wondering if maintenance costs are being split four ways... No mention. Does that mean no maintenance is being done, or that the residents are simply taking it on themselves?

Thrugelmir

An executor has a legal duty to act in the interests of the beneficiaries.

"We had asked to get bought out at the time but we were refused".

In whose interest were the executors acting?

You mention the brother, who was the other executor as there must have have been at least one other.

moneyistooshorttomention

Another thought being - that the resident part-owners should be paying rent to the non-resident part-owners.

Say a market rent for the house is £500 per month for the sake of argument.

The resident part-owners don't have to pay themselves £250 they would be due for. But what about the £125 to brother and £125 to yourself that they are due to pay?

They seem to have got off rent-free for 2 years by the sound of it - when, on those figures, they would owe the other 2 part-owners £250 per month x 24 months = £6,000 owed between yourself and the other non-resident part-owner.

I wonder how the figures work out between the fact that, on the other hand, the 2 non-resident part-owners are, presumably, not paying their 50% of Council Tax and insurance bills?

unforeseen

Thrugelmir wrote: »

there must have have been at least one other.

Based on what logic? Only one need be named in the will.

G_M

unforeseen wrote: »

Based on what logic? Only one need be named in the will.

Indeed. And OP said

The brother was the executor and....

singular.

steampowered

Is this something that might be resolved (or at least progress made) by going round to discuss it with the sisters over tea and cake?

It may be that your wife could suggest the sisters take a small mortgage to buy her out.