Late Fathers brother wont sell

unforeseen

Wouldn't the OP or estate be paying for the court action as instigator?

Uncle is doing nothing wrong.

Executor22

You say that your late father and uncle bought the house.

Only your parents occupied the house (or does the uncle also occupy it)?

My father and uncle both lived at the house with uncle and his wife still living there with my mum.

Do you know the purchase price and how much each party paid?

feb 1988 for £300,000 both paid equally 150k each

Was there a mortgage?

There was, both named on it and as far as I can tell both made equal payments. Property is now unencumbered as the mortgage was paid off through the life insurance

You say that T-I-C "was instigated in 2015" - were they joint tenants before that?

Yes joint tenants and my uncle is 7 years older then my father so I believe he was protecting his wife just in case something happened to him first.


who maintained it

They both maintained it doing an extension, building conservatory.[/COLOR

Wouldn't the OP or estate be paying for the court action as instigator?

Uncle is doing nothing wrong.

I m not sure what you mean Unforseen. But as the executor I have paid thousands to get to this stage as he has ignored our letters for the last 9 months. The only course is the court action at the moment as he doesn't want communicate with us.

lisyloo

Uncle is doing nothing wrong.

I presume he meant Uncle is doing nothing illegal by refusing to sell and carrying on living in his home.
Morally it doesn't seem right to me and should have been thought through beforehand i.e. death is one thing that is not only forseeable but guaranteed.


Maybe Uncle had expectations (rightly or wrongly) that he wouldn't be kickde out of his home?

Executor22

I presume he meant Uncle is doing nothing illegal by refusing to sell and carrying on living in his home.
Morally it doesn't seem right to me and should have been thought through beforehand i.e. death is one thing that is not only forseeable but guaranteed.

Sorry, What isnt morally right ?


Maybe Uncle had expectations (rightly or wrongly) that he wouldn't be kickde out of his home?

Agree with you lisyloo to an extent, as we didnt want to go down this route at all. His verbal communication has made it abundantly clear that he wont sell or buy us out. On top of that the way he has behaved towards my mum has made it unbearable for her to live in her home while she is still grieving.

getmore4less

They bought a house together

If they paid £150k each for a £300k house why was there a mortgage?

Who was the life policy covering was it assigned to anyone or attached to the mortgage?
More on this once we know the details of the life cover
It could be there has been a big mistake.


The problem is they(brothers) both lived there with their wifes so survivor brother has a reasonable right and expectations to stay in his home

Was there any agreement on what happens when one of them dies?

I can see a forced sale being a problem as a judge may side with the brothers position more than the widow.


The Joint to TIC is significant only as it allows the property to be willed.
On the basis that everything that was paid was equal the brother will have a difficult claim to prove more than 50% beneficial interest.

Some fact that will be needed it trying to establish any differing beneficial interests

How big was the mortgage at purchase
Were any further advances taken out
How much was the house valued for probate purposes.
How much was the outstanding mortgage

xylophone

It would appear that both Uncle and his late brother paid equal shares in the purchase and in improvements and maintenance of the property they occupied with their wives.

Rather ironically, if the brothers had remained joint tenants, then the property would have passed to the Uncle regardless of any will.

However Uncle, on the assumption that he was likely to predecease his younger brother, severed the joint tenancy so that he would be in a position to bequeath his interest to his widow.

This enabled his brother (OP's late father) to do likewise.


It appears that there was no claim at the time of severance that Uncle's interest was any more than 50% nor is there any documentary evidence then or since of his interest being greater than 50%.


The Uncle's claim to owning more than 50% seems specious, arising from his anger that his late brother did exactly what he himself wished to do, ie protected the position of his widow.

The Uncle's attitude has caused such stress and distress that the OP's mother's well being is affected.

The judge could well take the view that the relationship between the occupiers has broken beyond repair and therefore either grant an order for sale or require the Uncle to buy out his brother's widow, or to accept her offer to buy him out.

xylophone

If they paid £150k each for a £300k house why was there a mortgage?

They took out a joint mortgage, putting down a deposit and sharing repayments equally?

Who was the life policy covering

It seems likely ( perhaps the OP can confirm) that it was on a joint life first death basis to cover the whole repayment on the death of either party.

silvercar

xylophone wrote: »

They took out a joint mortgage, putting down a deposit and sharing repayments equally?



It seems likely ( perhaps the OP can confirm) that it was on a joint life first death basis to cover the whole repayment on the death of either party.

Why was the insurance was used to clear the mortgage? Long gone are the days when insurance policies are assigned to the mortgage, so the insurance could have been kept by the beneficiary. If there was no explicit beneficiary to the policy, then according to the will, the deceased's wife should have inherited her husband's share and the uncle his. Important to look at who was the beneficiary of that policy, if it was written that the survivor is the beneficiary then the uncle could have kept all the money and not cleared the mortgage.

lisyloo

Sorry, What isnt morally right ?

I meant Uncle's behaviour although I don't know what was verbally agreed would happen on first death (or whether perhaps nothing was agreed and both sides had different expectations).


Up to you whether you want to get into discussing the morals or stick to the legals but my view is if you own half of something you shouldn't keep all of it.

Executor22

Why was the insurance was used to clear the mortgage? Long gone are the days when insurance policies are assigned to the mortgage, so the insurance could have been kept by the beneficiary. If there was no explicit beneficiary to the policy, then according to the will, the deceased's wife should have inherited her husband's share and the uncle his. Important to look at who was the beneficiary of that policy, if it was written that the survivor is the beneficiary then the uncle could have kept all the money and not cleared the mortgage.


Upon my fathers death the insurance company Aviva paid directly to the lender. The policy was under both their names. With the event of either passing away the remaining mortgage would be paid off.



Were any further advances taken out

Yes straight after they purchased the house it was remortgaged for 150k then a further remortgage in 1999 for £446k

How much was the house valued for probate purposes.

1.2m

How much was the outstanding mortgage

£67,000