Can I delay confirmation?

BobQ

This is very confusing and not explained clearly.

If the executors agree with each other what order things will be done in and if they are the only beneficiaries, the executors have a lot of discretion on timing.

If the executors and beneficiaries do not agree then the solicitor's advice becomes important.

The solicitor is there to advise the executors who appoint the solicitors. The executors do not need to use the solicitor who drew up the will unless the will appoints that solicitor as one of the executors

Donury236

BobQ wrote: »

This is very confusing and not explained clearly.

If the executors agree with each other what order things will be done in and if they are the only beneficiaries, the executors have a lot of discretion on timing.

If the executors and beneficiaries do not agree then the solicitor's advice becomes important.

The solicitor is there to advise the executors who appoint the solicitors. The executors do not need to use the solicitor who drew up the will unless the will appoints that solicitor as one of the executors

Yes, that is what I thought, that as it was all between my sister and I we could sort out the time frame, but it seems to be a no go as she wants her cash ASAP. Which puts a definite kibosh on the paying her in monthly instalments idea - one my dad did bring up a lot.

The solicitor was the one that said I need to sell ASAP and the only options are I buy it at the time of confirmation (though we do not know when that is, nor has how soon after been stated nor can I get a more precise time frame out of them - or even a ruddy house valuation at the moment), or we agree to sell it. I have suggested that my sister and I agree to inherit 50% each and then my partner and I get a mortgage to buy her half - thus putting him on the deeds and solving the mortgage issue.

The house coming to me was to benefit his grandchildren - as my sister keeps reminding me - and so this is why I am getting upset that they are adamant there are no other options, when there are.

Solicitor is not executor at all, they just wrote and kept the will and I think it was just assumed they would deal with it as dad had always used them and was friends with one of the partners.

Keep_pedalling

Trying to control your assets from beyond the grave is never a good idea. I cannot see why you owning the house, or taking your inheritance in cash makes any difference to your children, unless your father thought you might blow the lot if you had cash instead.

Is the house one you would choose to by if it did not have these family connections? If not sell and move on, I can see this thing causing a major rift between you and your sister, and no house is worth that.

relaxtwotribes

Tom99 wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I read the will as saying you have to confirm you want to buy within two months not that you have to complete the purchase within two months.[/FONT]

I disagree. The wording is "..only if the said xxx intimates her intention to buy the said dwellinghouse to my Executors within two months of the date of my death." There are two verbs in the sentence: intimates and buy. The time restriction appears after the second verb and so it is linked to "buy" not to "intimates".

If the wording intended to apply the time limit to "intimates" then the sentence would read something like "...only if the said xxx intimates to my Executors within two months of the date of my death her intention to buy the said dwellinghouse."

Or, "...only if within two months of the date of my death the said xxx intimates to my Executors her intention to buy the said dwellinghouse."

Because there are two actions (intimating and buying) there should be two separate time periods to enact them. So, two months to intimate and a further period, say, three months to complete the purchase.

Noting also that in the original sentence the words "to my Executors" are badly placed.

Tom99

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

I disagree. The wording is "..only if the said xxx intimates her intention to buy the said dwellinghouse to my Executors within two months of the date of my death." There are two verbs in the sentence: intimates and buy. The time restriction appears after the second verb and so it is linked to "buy" not to "intimates".

If the wording intended to apply the time limit to "intimates" then the sentence would read something like "...only if the said xxx intimates to my Executors within two months of the date of my death her intention to buy the said dwellinghouse."

Or, "...only if within two months of the date of my death the said xxx intimates to my Executors her intention to buy the said dwellinghouse."

Because there are two actions (intimating and buying) there should be two separate time periods to enact them. So, two months to intimate and a further period, say, three months to complete the purchase.

Noting also that in the original sentence the words "to my Executors" are badly placed.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I agree its open to different interpretations but following your logic that the purchase must be completed in two months there would be no need for the word 'intimates'.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I read 'intimates to buy' as a single action and two month as as the timescale to do so.[/FONT]

AnotherJoe

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

I disagree. The wording is "..only if the said xxx intimates her intention to buy the said dwellinghouse to my Executors within two months of the date of my death." There are two verbs in the sentence: intimates and buy. The time restriction appears after the second verb and so it is linked to "buy" not to "intimates".

If the wording intended to apply the time limit to "intimates" then the sentence would read something like "...only if the said xxx intimates to my Executors within two months of the date of my death her intention to buy the said dwellinghouse."

Or, "...only if within two months of the date of my death the said xxx intimates to my Executors her intention to buy the said dwellinghouse."

Because there are two actions (intimating and buying) there should be two separate time periods to enact them. So, two months to intimate and a further period, say, three months to complete the purchase.

Noting also that in the original sentence the words "to my Executors" are badly placed.

It doesn't say buys from executors, it says intimates intention to buy to executors.
If it was buying there would be no need for "intimates", and no need for "to" .
You dont buy something "to" someone you buy it "from" them.
But you do intimate meaning "to" someone.

Add to that 2 months is a wholly unrealistic timescale to buy when probate will take longer than that so its clear, even if not that well worded, what the intention was. It would have been even clearer if a timescale to buy was there, but it wasnt but that doesn't affect the meaning and it doesn't mean you can make up a time, such as three months to buy, thats just a loophole in this poorly worded will.

relaxtwotribes

Tom99 wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I agree its open to different interpretations but following your logic that the purchase must be completed in two months there would be no need for the word 'intimates'.

[/FONT] [FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I read 'intimates to buy' as a single action and two month as as the timescale to do so.[/FONT]

Yes, I agree that there is no need for the "intimation" as the sentence creates an option that expires two months after the date of death. So, it is buy within two months and if not done then the option has expired.

AnotherJoe

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

Yes, I agree that there is no need for the "intimation" as the sentence creates an option that expires two months after the date of death. So, it is buy within two months and if not done then the option has expired.

The only option it creates is the need to intimate within two months.
Once that is done, there no timescale to buy.

relaxtwotribes

AnotherJoe wrote: »

The only option it creates is the need to intimate within two months.
Once that is done, there no timescale to buy.

That is just nonsensical and plain wrong.

"I direct my Executors to give my said daughter xxx, aforesaid, the option to buy the said dwellinghouse....but only if..."

The need to intimate is not an option. The intimation is simply a condition that must be satisfied for the option to be validly exercised.

Tom99

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

The need to intimate is not an option. The intimation is simply a condition that must be satisfied for the option to be validly exercised.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]To be validly offered not exercised.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The words 'to buy' describe what is to be intimated.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The words 'to my executors' describe how that intimation is to be executed.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The words 'within two months' dictate the timetable for providing that intimation.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Having intimated within the stipulated two months the executors are then directed to offer an option to said daughter which presumable said daughter is free to take up or not.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]There is no mention of when completion of the purchase is to take place if the offered option is accepted.[/FONT]