Is executor obliged to follow conditions of wiil exactly

TcpnT

If there is enough capital in the estate, why not just change the distribution of the estate?

The two who want to keep the land can do so - the amount they receive from the rest of the estate can be reduced to cover the increase.

I don't think it would need a DOV to do this. Everyone would still end up with equal shares from the estate.

This was my suggestion when we discussed it. As far as I can see it would satisfy the terms of the will in that the estate has been split equally and that the land has not been sold so no agrrement to sell is required.

Do you think it is within the power of the executor to insist on this distribution if no agreement to sell can be reached?

getmore4less

Without seeing the full terms of the will no one can say for sure.

Malthusian

TcpnT wrote: »

Do you think it is within the power of the executor to insist on this distribution if no agreement to sell can be reached?

I think the answer is no. A DOV will be needed and all beneficiaries will have to agree as all of them are giving something up (two cash, two land).

Changing the way in which assets are distributed is still a DOV even if everyone still ends up with equal shares. In any case, the valuation of land is partly subjective. The beneficiaries need to come to an agreement as to how much cash the land-inheriting beneficiaries are going to give up. A professional valuation of the land will be needed, but the land-inheriting beneficiaries can't be compelled to accept it.

If they don't agree to a DOV the executor will have to distribute the estate as the Will orders and then try to force a sale once the Will is out of the equation.

This makes absolutely no sense for anybody because nobody gets what they want. The two beneficiaries who want the land will end up losing it anyway (unless they buy the land off the two who want to sell, which could have been done via a DOV in the first place).

TcpnT

Maybe I wasn't completely clear in the original post. The will only states that the whole estate should be divided equally between beneficiaries. It does not direct that the land needs to be divided between the four - only that it should not be sold without the agreement of all four

Dox

TcpnT wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't completely clear in the original post. The will only states that the whole estate should be divided equally between beneficiaries. It does not direct that the land needs to be divided between the four - only that it should not be sold without the agreement of all four

Then you definitely need the agreement of all four. That agreement might be forthcoming is the two who don't want to sell are offered cash in lieu by the other two - which means a DOV.

theoretica

Is the situation that two siblings want 1/4 each but not more and the other two want nothing? So any solution other than sale would end up with some people owning more than they want to? It might be worth discussing all other divisions (with the cash and other parts of the estate balanced out to equalise shares) to see if there is an acceptable solution. 3/4:1/4 if one person wants most of it. Or 1/4 each to the two who want that and then the remaining half split 4 ways so everyone gets 1/8 more than they wanted and feels equally hard done by, resulting in 3/8:3/8:1/8:1/8


This looks like the sort of thing that would be no trouble and in line with the will if the beneficiaries agree, but if they aren't happy I would want a lawyer to take the blame!

getmore4less

TcpnT wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't completely clear in the original post. The will only states that the whole estate should be divided equally between beneficiaries. It does not direct that the land needs to be divided between the four - only that it should not be sold without the agreement of all four

What is the exact wording?

Don't leave anything out except identifying information

DOV may not be needed..

unholyangel

TcpnT wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't completely clear in the original post. The will only states that the whole estate should be divided equally between beneficiaries. It does not direct that the land needs to be divided between the four - only that it should not be sold without the agreement of all four

I agree with the above, wording might help.

Either way your friend wants to tread carefully. I presume they are one of the beneficiaries that wants to sell. They need to stick to the will. They might be tempted to interpret it in a way favourable to them (we all do it at times) so they need to take a step back, evaluate and then cover their bases.

Malthusian

TcpnT wrote: »

Maybe I wasn't completely clear in the original post. The will only states that the whole estate should be divided equally between beneficiaries. It does not direct that the land needs to be divided between the four - only that it should not be sold without the agreement of all four

The executor needs professional advice, and a professional valuation of the land.

Once you have a valuation of the land, the two who want to keep it can decide whether they want to give up the required amount of cash. (Assuming there is enough in the estate but the OP hasn't said there isn't.)

If they don't they should all consent to the land being sold, and all four beneficiaries will get an equal share of cash, and can count their money secure in the knowledge that nobody got diddled.

If one or more beneficiaries dig their heels in at this point then the executor will need to transfer the land into the name of all four and distribute the estate that way. I don't know if they can go over their heads, ignore the clause in the Will and sell it anyway and distribute the cash (only a solicitor with the actual Will in front of them can answer that). But I do know it is pointless, as it opens the executor to an accusation of not following the Will when there is absolutely no reason to.

Once the estate has been wound up, the unwilling landowners can go to court to force a sale. This will be expensive, but that is the cost everyone will pay for the intransigence of the beneficiaries who wanted to keep the land but didn't want to pay a fair price for it. It can't be avoided. The only other option is for the two unwilling landowners to keep quiet and hold on to an asset they don't want, which is kicking the can down the road and will just cause more grief in the future.

Hopefully it will not go that far as by far the most sensible option is for either the two who want the land to buy out the other two, or if they don't want to pay a fair price, sell it to a third party and distribute the cash equally. There is plenty of other land in the country they could buy. I'm assuming it's not got the Fountain of Youth somewhere on it.

TcpnT

Thanks again for your comments and suggestions. I cannot post the actual wording in the will as I have not seen it. I am just reporting the situation as it was explained to me and I am not in a position to be able ask for anything more specific.

To answer some concerns above. The executor is in consultation with a solicitor and the land is being professionally valued so all will be above board.

The original question was hypothetical as discussions have only just started. The executor is just concerned that it could und up in a stalemate and was wondering what her options might be. I realise that the obvious answe is to ask her solicitor but the views of others are always interesting.