Inheriting Flat - Executor Clause

Robot27

I am inheriting a flat and the transfer deed is about to go through.

I am the beneficiary of the will and it is the executor who is dealing with everything (via his solicitor). I have received the transfer deed form to sign and everything seems run of the mill.

On the cover letter sent via the executor's solicitor there is a paragraph which is confusing me slightly...

"At clause 11 of the Transfer Deed there is a covenant to be given by you to the effect that you will during your ownership of the Property comply with the terms of the Lease and compensate THE EXECUTOR if any claim is made against him for any breach of the Lease whilst the property is in your ownership".

Once the property is under my ownership, I don't understand why there would be a claim against THE EXECUTOR? I have asked the solicitor for a laymans example.

I'm sure this is all normal, but I would appreciate any advice.

Tom99

Sounds like the executor is making sure there is no claim for a breach against him as executor.
As you say I can't see why anyone would claim against the executor after the property has been transferred to you.

AdrianC

All it's saying is that you need to follow the lease - which, obviously, you do - and that you can't claim from the executor if you get hit for not doing so.

Would you ever try to? Probably not. But some might. Let's say they might try and claim they couldn't possibly know, because the executor didn't explain to them... Remember, you don't actually need to have right (or even logic) on your side to launch a claim - and claims can be expensive and time-consuming to defend. With this in place, there's a very easy "BUT YOU AGREED" to point to which should shut the hard-of-thinking down fairly quickly...

AnotherJoe

Are you sure about that Adrian? Because it doesnt seem to be written as if it's guarding against the OP making a claim against the executor it's about anyone else making a claim against the executor because the OP did something bad regards the lease. Which seems very strange.
And also I wonder if that's supportable (obvS IANAL) because the executor is charged to pass on the property according to the will and what gives them the right to tag on conditions?if the executor is uncomfortable about repercussions of what they do they shouldn't be one.

Robot27

AdrianC wrote: »

All it's saying is that you need to follow the lease - which, obviously, you do - and that you can't claim from the executor if you get hit for not doing so.

Would you ever try to? Probably not. But some might. Let's say they might try and claim they couldn't possibly know, because the executor didn't explain to them... Remember, you don't actually need to have right (or even logic) on your side to launch a claim - and claims can be expensive and time-consuming to defend. With this in place, there's a very easy "BUT YOU AGREED" to point to which should shut the hard-of-thinking down fairly quickly...

I hope it's just as you initially stated... that I would follow the lease and that I wouldn't hold the executor responsible for anything (of which I can't think of anything that I would do)

Robot27

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Are you sure about that Adrian? Because it doesnt seem to be written as if it's guarding against the OP making a claim against the executor it's about anyone else making a claim against the executor because the OP did something bad regards the lease. Which seems very strange.
And also I wonder if that's supportable (obvS IANAL) because the executor is charged to pass on the property according to the will and what gives them the right to tag on conditions?if the executor is uncomfortable about repercussions of what they do they shouldn't be one.

You have hit the nail on the head of my nervousness.

1) the executor is just following the instruction on the will and surely in this role a claim can't be made against the executor (if I was that way inclined) - adding conditions is not their duty? ... Perhaps I am being too simplistic?

2) the fact that this clause of compensation is mentioned makes me think "what has gone on to be concerned about repercussions" ??

G_M

So the freeholder cannot make a claim against the executer.

I'm trying to think out of the box: Let's suppose the OP is aged 40 when he inherits. Let's suppose the lease contains a restriction against anyone under 60 (55 whatever) owning the lease ie it's in a 'retirement development'.

The freeholder holds the executer, as seller/transferor, responsible for transferring the property to the OP...........?? Particularly if the Title contained a covenant signed by the deceased that prohibited selling/transferring to an under 60 (or somesuch).......?

Slithery

It's making me slightly nervous and it's not even my transaction, get it checked out properly...

I wouldn't class it as normal...

davidmcn

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Are you sure about that Adrian? Because it doesnt seem to be written as if it's guarding against the OP making a claim against the executor it's about anyone else making a claim against the executor because the OP did something bad regards the lease. Which seems very strange.

Are they not getting at claims made by third parties about breaches of the lease prior to the transfer to the OP? i.e. anything done by the executor during the administration, or by the deceased. I'm not sure why anybody would pursue the executors rather than the current leaseholder but it might be possible. I can't really see a practical problem with providing the indemnity.

Robot27

G_M wrote: »

So the freeholder cannot make a claim against the executer.

I'm trying to think out of the box: Let's suppose the OP is aged 40 when he inherits. Let's suppose the lease contains a restriction against anyone under 60 (55 whatever) owning the lease ie it's in a 'retirement development'.

The freeholder holds the executer, as seller/transferor, responsible for transferring the property to the OP...........?? Particularly if the Title contained a covenant signed by the deceased that prohibited selling/transferring to an under 60 (or somesuch).......?

I'm hoping it's just something as simple as that.

Robot27

davidmcn wrote: »

Are they not getting at claims made by third parties about breaches of the lease prior to the transfer to the OP? i.e. anything done by the executor during the administration, or by the deceased. I'm not sure why anybody would pursue the executors rather than the current leaseholder but it might be possible. I can't really see a practical problem with providing the indemnity.

I'm hoping this clause by the executor's solicitor is just to cover the executor for the period they have dealt with the administration up until the point the property goes into my name.

But it also makes me paranoid that they may have done something intentionally / unintentionally untoward during the administration of the property

I have emailed the solicitor asking for clarity.