We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Late Fathers brother wont sell
Comments
-
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.
Neither should one party force the other to sell, unless that was part of the agreement.
What is not clear is why the wife(s) agreed to this in the first place and were unaware of any agreements on the property.0 -
Just had an update from my solicitor- He has agreed through his solicitor to the order and wishes not to go to court now. Put the house on the market and agrees that it has always been a 50-50 split.
Now I hope he doesn't do the same thing with family business/commericial property which my uncle and my father both owned 50-500 -
Executor22 wrote: »How much was the house valued for probate purposes.
1.2m
£600k to do the buyout?
or
get forced out of your home you have lived in for 30 years
No wonder the brother is not happy.0 -
Ideally there should have been an agreement, but if there was none they yes they should be forced to sell rather than hold onto valuable assets that does not belong to them. I believe that's what a court would say.Neither should one party force the other to sell, unless that was part of the agreement.
Why do you think that it's moral to deprive someone of their assets for the long term?
The fact that it's a home makes no difference, you own half of it not all of it and should have forseen death (that the ONE thing we can all forsee).
I know we are talking morals but you do know your wrong legally?0 -
get forced out of your home you have lived in for 30 years
No wonder the brother is not happy.
Perhaps he should have bought his own home then?
rather than sharing one when it's eye wateringly obvious the other party might want it back at some stage (guarnateed in fact).0 -
Neither should one party force the other to sell, unless that was part of the agreement.
If the relationship has broken down beyond repaid can someone be expected to live under those conditions
What is not clear is why the wife(s) agreed to this in the first place and were unaware of any agreements on the property.
Not sure asked my mother and she said her and my uncles wife never got involved when the two brothers were discussing this topic.0 -
£600k to do the buyout?
or
get forced out of your home you have lived in for 30 years
No wonder the brother is not happy.
To be frank we said he could have house for 500k and he didnt take the offer. Its because hes been trying to get a larger share of more then the 50%. That is just greed on his part.0 -
Long gone are the days when insurance policies are assigned to the mortgage,
It seems that the mortgage was taken out in 1988 so it is not impossible that the policy was assigned?0 -
Ideally there should have been an agreement, but if there was none they yes they should be forced to sell rather than hold onto valuable assets that does not belong to them. I believe that's what a court would say.
Why do you think that it's moral to deprive someone of their assets for the long term?
The fact that it's a home makes no difference, you own half of it not all of it and should have forseen death (that the ONE thing we can all forsee).
I know we are talking morals but you do know your wrong legally?
Is this in reply to me or getmoreforless lisyloo?0 -
But it does belong to the uncle - just as much as it belongs to the widow.Ideally there should have been an agreement, but if there was none they yes they should be forced to sell rather than hold onto valuable assets that does not belong to them.
The widow still has the asset she was left - a half share in the uncle's home.Why do you think that it's moral to deprive someone of their assets for the long term?
She can't quickly and easily convert that asset to cash, but it was never a liquid asset to start with.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.1K Spending & Discounts
- 244.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards