Inheriting Flat - Executor Clause

davidmcn

Robot27 wrote: »

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

What's more likely (though I doubt any of this is actually likely to have happened) is that something was done by the deceased during their much longer period of ownership, and which the executor doesn't know anything about. In which case any claims would be against the estate, and if the executor hasn't made provision for such liabilities then they could be held to be personally liable. That's the sort of thing they might expect beneficiaries to indemnify them from, given that you're getting the benefit of the property.

Robot27

davidmcn wrote: »

What's more likely (though I doubt any of this is actually likely to have happened) is that something was done by the deceased during their much longer period of ownership, and which the executor doesn't know anything about. In which case any claims would be against the estate, and if the executor hasn't made provision for such liabilities then they could be held to be personally liable. That's the sort of thing they might expect beneficiaries to indemnify them from, given that you're getting the benefit of the property.

Ok this makes sense.

This is all new to me and I thank you and everyone for giving my different angles of perspective.

AnotherJoe

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).......?

Then that surely is for the executor to sort out and for example, sell the property if that is the case. Rather than have the beneficiary write an open cheque

AnotherJoe

davidmcn wrote: »

What's more likely (though I doubt any of this is actually likely to have happened) is that something was done by the deceased during their much longer period of ownership, and which the executor doesn't know anything about. In which case any claims would be against the estate, and if the executor hasn't made provision for such liabilities then they could be held to be personally liable. That's the sort of thing they might expect beneficiaries to indemnify them from, given that you're getting the benefit of the property.

If that's the case, it's not what the words say which relate to the beneficiaries period of ownership.

davidmcn

AnotherJoe wrote: »

If that's the case, it's not what the words say which relate to the beneficiaries period of ownership.

I suspect it's sloppy grammar and they mean "claims made during the OP's period of ownership" (even though they've already said that) rather than the breach necessarily being during the OP's ownership. In any event, the OP's going to be liable for breaches of the leaseholder's covenants which occur while they're the owner.

I'm struggling to see how the clause could be construed in a way which is to the OP's detriment compared with the clause not being there at all.

They should bear in mind that in a "normal" purchase, they'll have had a solicitor carrying out due diligence to check for any liabilities attached to the property, whereas here they seem to be taking it on blind. Which might be fair enough given they're getting it for free, but there's the possibility of e.g. a massive bill coming in from the freeholders.

Robot27

I've had a reply from executor's solicitor clarifying the clause:-


"I can understand the query re the indemnity for breaches of the term of the lease. The likelihood is that were there to be any claim arising in relation to the property it would be made against the owner for the time being.


With a leasehold title there is however a slight anomaly in that a claim could be made against the holder of the freehold. The freehold owner would then in turn pass the claim on to the initial lease holder who would then pass it on to whom they transferred the property to etc down the line.


There is therefore a very remote possibility that in the future a claim might be made against THE EXECUTOR of the deceaseds Estate but as they will no longer have assets they would seek compensation for any such claim from yourself, as you received assets of THE DECEASEDS Estate. In every likelihood when you sell the flat on you will ask for a similar indemnity from the new purchasers in case a claim were ever made against you.

AnotherJoe

Well, even if that's correct, I'd say tough, AFAIK the executor doesn't have the ability to add arbitrary conditions on to bequests.
Suppose they added a condition, "here's Aunt Agatha's £100k but I'm not passing it on until you agree to dress up asa chicken in public every third Monday " o
If they wanted protection they shouldn't be an executor.
Note also that as it's worded, that clause gives the executor the right to claim (unspecified) compensation if anyone makes any claim against them. It doesn't say if there's a successful claim.
I'd tell them to take a long walk off a short pier and do what the will says without adding any additional conditions.

mrschaucer

Robot27 wrote: »

In every likelihood when you sell the flat on you will ask for a similar indemnity from the new purchasers in case a claim were ever made against you.[/I]

And the new purchaser's eventual purchaser would have to do the same, and so on ad infinitum? That sounds seriously weird.

davidmcn

mrschaucer wrote: »

And the new purchaser's eventual purchaser would have to do the same, and so on ad infinitum? That sounds seriously weird.

In a normal sale you'd have a contract containing these sorts of provisions (and as I mentioned above, due diligence so you're more likely to know of any potential problems).

AnotherJoe

But this isn't a normal sale. Its not even a sale. The executor is charged with transferring the property. Not with adding on conditions to CTA.
As it happens, I am selling a flat, as and when the contracts come through I shall be searching to see if this is standard.