Sale of house by Trustees

lunarjan

My eight cousins and I have a vested interest in a family property, which is part of a Trust. The Trust is now being wound up following the death of the last beneficiary. The original Trustees died, and one of my cousins appointed herself and her husband as the new Trustees.
I felt that we should all have had a vote on that. Earlier this year she announced she’d put the property on the market, again without asking any of us. I sent an email to the cousins explains my reasons against selling, and so did my brother, but no response. There has been no further information from the Trustees.

Today we’ve  just discovered by chance that the property is now under offer stc. Is there any way we can stall the process and request a family discussion?

AskAsk

so how do you replace trustees?

lunarjan

I think all beneficiaries would have to vote on that

AskAsk

so let me get this right.  the last beneficiary died and he voted for your cousin and her husband to be trustees?  at that point, who was trustee?

lunarjan

Of the original two trustees, one died a number of years ago, and the other one was the last beneficiary-when her health started declining her daughter used POA to move the Trust to Scottish solicitors as she had moved there. During this process she announced that she and her husband had appointed themselves as the new Trustees, on the advice of the previous solicitors. When I was a Trustee for the other side of my family, we were chosen by family vote, and we kept everyone informed at every stage. 

AskAsk

lunarjan said:

Of the original two trustees, one died a number of years ago, and the other one was the last beneficiary-when her health started declining her daughter used POA to move the Trust to Scottish solicitors as she had moved there. During this process she announced that she and her husband had appointed themselves as the new Trustees, on the advice of the previous solicitors. When I was a Trustee for the other side of my family, we were chosen by family vote, and we kept everyone informed at every stage. 

as the last beneficiary was the lady's mum, she could have voted for her daughter to be trustee, so her daughter getting the POA has the right to appoint herself as trustee because effectively she is acting as her mother.  as far as i understand, a trust is run by the trustees, so they have absolute power on what to do about the trust, subject to any conditions written down in the trust deed.
therefore, as a trustee, she is entitled to sell the house without consulting anyone else, unless the trust deed states that she must do so.  

so who is the beneficiary of the trust if the last one, the lady's mum, has passed away?  is she and her husband the beneficiaries now?

theoretica

If you and your brother wanted to continue owning the property, the proper thing would have been to buy it.  Trying to get other people to be reluctant part owners of a property does not sound like a good idea.

Annisele

I'm very confused by "I have a vested interest in a family property, which is part of a Trust" together with "following the death of the last beneficiary". Usually only beneficiaries have vested interests in trusts, and clearly you are still alive.

I wonder if what has actually happened is that the last of the income beneficiaries / life tenants has died? And you and your cousins are remaindermen/entitled to the capital of the trust?

Your rights, if any, depend very much on your actual position with respect to the trust. If you're not beneficiaries, then you likely have no rights to do anything. (But even then, if you're right to say the "last beneficiary" has died, and you are a beneficiary under their will, you might have some rights in that capacity.)

Can you get in touch with your other cousins and see if they can shed any light on what the true position is?

It's probably also worth paying the Land Registry £3 to work out who the Land Registry thinks are the legal owners of the property.

AdrianC

When you say "beneficiaries of the trust", I think there's some confusion between the people who the trust was set up to help - presumably, the people living in the house - and those who receive the funds once it's wound up. Let's call them the legatees, those due to be disbursed the legacy that was delayed by the establishment of the trust.

When you say "the original trustees died, and my cousin appointed herself and her husband as trustees", was there ever a point at which there were no living trustees? Or was their continuity, and your cousin was a trustee before the death of the previous trustees? Normally, trustees are responsible for appointing other trustees. The legatees would not normally have a say, except informally.

Once the originally-defined purpose of the trust - "to provide accommodation for Uncle Fred and Auntie Mabel during their lifetimes", f'rinstance - was over, the trustees took the only sensible and responsible action, to close the trust and sell the property. If you want the property to "remain in the family" for sentimental reasons, you should buy it for a fair market value. If other legatees agree with you, they can join you in the purchase. If any don't, you need to buy their proportions out.

What would your plan be for the property?
To run the trust as a residential lettings business? Always a terrible move to mix sentimental value with business - and do the numbers even stack up? Why should the trustees have those legal responsibilities?
To move into it as your home?
In either situation, why should other legatees have no choice but to delay access to what should now be their money in order to either provide you with a home or be unwillingly involved in a probably low-return business?

MobileSaver

lunarjan said:

My eight cousins and I have a vested interest in a family property,

Do you mean you have a financial interest or just an emotional interest in the property?

lunarjan said:

My eight cousins and I ... I sent an email to the cousins explains my reasons against selling, and so did my brother,

If you and your brother and the other seven cousins all have a financial interest why should the wishes of two of you carry more weight than the other seven? Or in other words, why should the other seven cousins go without their share of the sale proceeds just because you don't want to sell at the moment? Apologies if I have the wrong end of the stick as your initial post is a little unclear.

xylophone

Is the situation that a certain person owned a property and in his will, left that property in an interest in possession Trust? 

The will appointed two Trustees (one of whom was your Aunt) who were also the beneficiaries of the IIP?  You and several cousins (including the Aunt's daughter) were the remaindermen?

One of the Trustees died and after a time, the second Trustee/beneficiary ( your Aunt) became ill -  your cousin  held PoA for her mother  and took legal advice from the solicitors who originally acted for the Trust and as a result of that advice, your cousin and her husband became replacement Trustees?

Was the change of Trustees reflected in the record at the Land Registry?

The replacement Trustees moved to Scotland and replaced the original English solicitors with a Scottish firm?

Your Aunt has now died?

If all has been properly done, then the new Trustees have the right to deal with Trust assets as they see fit, subject to the terms of the Trust  Deed.

It would have been a courtesy for your Trustee cousin to call you  and her fellow remaindermen together for a discussion but she had no obligation to do this.

Indeed, with eight remaindermen and one house, it seems a perfectly logical decision to sell the property and distribute the proceeds?