house to achieve maximum price - legally enforceable

Aranyani

bouicca21 said:

Once it’s sold you will have no need to have any further contact with your brother and his family. Put that resentment in a virtual box and seal it off.

And I expect the brother and his family will have no desire to prolong the contact with the OP, or to provoke any more interference from her, so there is absolutely no reason why they would do anything that would give her any excuse to harass them or accuse them of anything. 

Savvy_Sue

MoneySeeker1 said:

Re house being left empty over winter. The house isn't that old - it's noticeably younger than I am! So I don't see it as likely the roof would start "going" or anything over the winter. Windows and exterior doors are all upvc okay.

Also the house is "used" to being cold. My mother would never use enough heating and the house was always cold in the winter because of that - so it's not used to being "warm and cosy" anyway - and it's survived all these years with a proper level of heating it only happening in the last few years.

Never mind what the house is used to: if I was buying a house and looked at two similar properties, I'd find one which felt 'warm and welcoming' more attractive than one which felt chilly. So getting it sold before the cold seeps into the walls sounds very sensible.

Plus the point about insurance and the need for weekly checks is very valid: I understand your brother doesn't live particularly close, and I'm absolutely certain you've got no intention of helping out with those weekly checks - I know, you'll plead distance and lack of transport, but the alternative to one of the family doing them is generally paying someone else to do them. And the money for that comes out of your (plural) inheritance. 

I must admit, when I posted this morning, it had not occurred to me that by selling it 'on the cheap' the OP's brother was depriving himself as well as her of his rightful inheritance, so I suspect that he and his wife would like to get the whole process over and done with. Perhaps the relationship has already broken down to the extent that the brother won't care about his own inheritance as long as the OP doesn't get as much as she's expecting, but that seems extreme. 

My own experience of selling a house as part of probate was that we had an 'interesting' house, awkwardly laid out, extended several times over the years, with some potential legal issues over the car parking area. Oh, and VERY close to an area which had flooded within the previous few years - think 'the army were out last night putting sandbags around front doors' close and 'this road is closed due to flooding' close. 

We were, frankly, worried that it might be difficult to shift, but we put it on the market as soon as we could, actually around this time of year. We continued to pay the gardener to keep the outside tidy, and as this was someone we knew and trusted they also did the weekly checks. But it was a cost to the estate. 

We were astonished to receive an offer almost immediately, not for the full price but close enough, from a developer. My co-executor and I agreed to accept the offer, and told the beneficiaries - note that we didn't have to, but as a matter of courtesy. It then took several months for the tortuous process to run its course, and at any moment I expected to receive a call to say it was off.

At one point one beneficiary expressed the view that perhaps we had been too hasty in accepting that first offer, maybe we should have accepted but kept it on the market, maybe we should withdraw from this sale and re-market. I smiled sweetly and said that if they had the time and energy to re-market the house, they were welcome to make us an offer: indeed if they wanted to buy it themselves and do it up for a fat profit, I was sure no-one else would object. Note that this beneficiary had at least been helping with the house clearance process, which I suspect the OP has declined to do - I know, distance and lack of transport. 

So if I were the OP's brother I'd agree with Gers, and if I knew she was likely to kick up a fuss about this I'd probably want to pre-empt her complaints with a letter from a solicitor pointing out how I was fulfilling my responsibilities as executor, and entitled to use my best judgement in so doing, and reminding her of her rights as beneficiary - which are rather more limited than she imagines. 

Of course any exchange of solicitors' letters is going to cost money, reducing the eventual inheritance for both of them.

Grumpy_chap

MoneySeeker1 said:

My parents estate should have been left equally between my brother and myself - but, in the event, my mother left the lions share to my brother and his children and I'm getting less than 50%.

Mine is still a noticeable size inheritance that's due - but am having to wait for it until the house is sold.

Is the unequal split because some amount is left to grandchildren and then the remainder split between your brother and yourself, but an imbalance in the number of children between siblings?

Regardless, you will still receive a "sizeable" inheritance and having to wait until the house is sold is probably normal as the only way to release the funds from the estate for distribution.

MoneySeeker1 said:

My brother/his wife were made executors of the Will by my parents and they are the ones marketing our house through an estate agent. I am obviously keeping an eye on this and it's priced pretty accurately for its location/condition (ie needing modernising).

house has to "priced up" by 3 different estate agents and then the average taken 
Reason being brother/his wife have been talking about possibility of selling the house to a developer behind my back and I will only agree to it being sold to a "normal buyer" (ie one that intends to live in it themselves) and certainly not to any buyer that tries to get it at a bargain price (at my expense).

You say the house is being marketed at about the correct price for location and condition.  Sale to a developer rather than a "normal buyer" does not mean sale at below market value. 
If your brother was to exclude the consideration of sale to a developer and that results in lower sale price, how would you feel about that?
If the house is sold at a bargain price, it is not only at your expense, but even more so at your brother's expense as he gets over half.

It is not clear why you think the property is being sold too cheaply, nor who would gain from that.  You even say it is priced correctly.

If it is a choice between a quick sale for a few £££ less, or waiting for maximum £££ at some future point, the quick sale may offer some benefits:

• lots of market uncertainty at present
• "bird in the hand or bird in the bush?"
• costs to keep the house in good condition, heating, insurance, garden maintenance until sold
• risk of any repairs arising, e.g. winter storm
• "someone" has to visit the vacant property periodically to tend to it - will that person charge the estate for their time?
• risk of squatters for empty property

Given due consideration of the above, a quick sale may be prudent.  Any costs of time come from the value of the estate, so reduce the amount realised from higher house sale value

Gers

@Grumpy_chap

Your comment hits the nail on the head! There's a very long and incredibly tone deaf thread on here from the OP about the subject. If you need an insight to the meanderings of  her thoughts then it's there. 

Is the unequal split because some amount is left to grandchildren and then the remainder split between your brother and yourself, but an imbalance in the number of children between siblings?

Brynsam

MoneySeeker1 said:

I know I have the legal right (as someone getting a noticeable inheritance from my parents estate) to ensure it's sold for correct price (and not bargain price) and am keeping an eye on this. 


Can anyone give links please to the details of how major beneficiaries (such as myself) have this legal right to ensure house is sold at a fair price and not a "bargain" price? With me being due to get less than 50% of the estate - then I can't afford to have our house downsold.

You don't, so nobody can give you the links to your imaginary 'right'. The executors have various obligations, but if in their discretion a quick sale at a reduced price is a better idea than having the house hanging around for ages in an uncertain market, they are entitled to do just that.

Marvel1

Grumpy_chap said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

My parents estate should have been left equally between my brother and myself - but, in the event, my mother left the lions share to my brother and his children and I'm getting less than 50%.

Mine is still a noticeable size inheritance that's due - but am having to wait for it until the house is sold.

Is the unequal split because some amount is left to grandchildren and then the remainder split between your brother and yourself, but an imbalance in the number of children between siblings?

Yes, there is a another thread from the OP, can't be bothered to find it, but example:
- Son of deceased is having 25%
- OP of deceased is having 25%
- Grandchild (Nephew/niece of OP) of deceased is having 25%
- Grandchild (Nephew/niece of OP) of deceased is having 25%

The OP as username is not happy and hence the word they use "should" Believes it should be:
- Son of deceased has 50%
- OP of deceased has 50%
- The 50% left to their brother be shared amoungust his children, not the OP.

They can't their head around, the deceased can leave their estate to whoever they want.

74jax

MoneySeeker1 said:

My parents estate should have been left equally between my brother and myself - but, in the event, my mother left the lions share to my brother and his children and I'm getting less than 50%.

My brother/his wife were made executors of the Will by my parents.

I know I have the legal right (as someone getting a noticeable inheritance from my parents estate) to ensure it's sold for correct price (and not bargain price) and am keeping an eye on this. 

Reason being brother/his wife have been talking about possibility of selling the house to a developer behind my back and I will only agree to it being sold to a "normal buyer" (ie one that intends to live in it themselves) and certainly not to any buyer that tries to get it at a bargain price (at my expense).

In your other thread you state the split between yourself and your brother and grandchildren.  Has this changed?  Why do you believe it SHOULD have been split between you and your brother?  The other thread tries to explain an estate can be left to whoever the deceased wants, but in this new thread you seen to believe it should be different.  I'm wondering if something else has come to light?  If it has, then is your brother still executor?  I'm only asking as you already have 2 pages of replies and if you then come back and say well it SHOULD be equally because xyz, it will save us giving the wrong information.
You keep mentioning knowing something is legal, but can't find it to 'prove'.  Could you get a free half hour with a solicitor perhaps?
If it helps, I have worked for 30 years in new build and estate agency.  I'm not familiar with a law asking for 3 valuations, I'm not saying it isn't law, but not one I've come across, it's good practice (whether an estate or private sale) to get many quotes anyway.  As an estate agent selling a property, I would always engage with the executor and their solicitors.  Every single offer will be put forward and the buying status of that prospective purchaser.  I'm not sure why you won't sell to a developer, and only someone who will live in it.  I'm sure what this achieves?  To be completely honest I would never ask someone when they put in an offer if they plan on living in it either.  
Regarding the property being cold and empty, surely you can see this is a disadvantage?  Even if you parents did live in it with no heating, they would have had body heat, I'm guessing a hot meal or drink etc, the TV might have been on.  Doors opened and closed to 'air'.  The toilet flushed etc. 
The executor will take all this in to account and take the best offer within the timescales.  Sadly you don't really have a say, despite thinking you do.  But this is where your free half hour with a solicitor will come in.  Maybe we are all wrong and in half an hour you can be armed with facts and move forward.
Regarding having rafted a letter to send once this is all over, if it makes you feel better then go ahead.  But they might just bin it, not read it, be so thankful you feel the same way etc.  Would it not be better to take the high road, finish up the estate and move on with your life and don't look back?  Even to post a letter.  The best way to move forward is just that.

xylophone

Mine is still a noticeable size inheritance 

Rather an odd way to put it?  You mean that you expect to receive a substantial (not inconsiderable) inheritance once the estate's most valuable asset ( the deceased's house), has been sold?

The executors have the legal right to deal with the estate.

They have a duty to the beneficiaries of that estate (which includes themselves and their children).

Why should they not put their best efforts into achieving the best possible price for the property?

Why not just have some patience, be grateful for the money when it comes through, courteously thank your brother when you have received it and just get on with your life without further recriminations?

What on earth is the point of some grand epistolary flourish declaring that you will never darken their door again?

bouicca21

xylophone said

What on earth is the point of some grand epistolary flourish declaring that you will never darken their door again?

I suspect Money thinks it will help her cope with a lifetime of simmering resentment.  It won’t of course. I suspect it will actually make her feel worse.  But her long posting history suggests she rarely if ever changes her mind once it is made up, so we can advise her to move on until the proverbial cows come home, it will make no difference.

AnotherJoe

OP, you sound like the obnoxious relatives of a friend of mine (her acting as an executor) who gave her a huge amount of grief about the price they "should" have sold a property for despite the fact that no one wanted to buy it at that price, and when she did eventually find a buyer (a builder, who obviously made a low offer) and they got him to up his offer a bit and then agreed, the ORs threatened to sue on the grounds that the house "should" have sold for more. Despite two years of no one wanting to buy it at the "should sell for" price waiting all that time precisely  because those ORs insisted it must not be sold for less than the "should" price. (in retrospect of course her mistake was to let them have a pseudo veto over the price)

All done and dusted now but I shall tell her, that her ORs arent the only ones out there who thinks its dead easy to sell a place for the "should" price. Perhaps EA blurbs instead of "offers over" or similar ought to put "Should sell for £x"