Property costs charged to Estate

NinjaTune

I'm wondering if anyone can hep re: what costs can be charged to the Estate before the remainder is distributed to the beneficiaries.

Background
Married man died intestate (due to will being deemed invalid).  Widow remained/remains living in the property.  Estate accounts have been issued prior to distribution of Estate in accordance with intestacy rules.

What work to the property can be charged against the Estate?  Is it just urgent work to prevent the property deteriorating?  The following work appears to have been charged to the Estate.

NinjaTune

Also this:

NinjaTune

and this ...

JGB1955

Was the house owned as joint tenants?  If so, I would have thought that the widow would take on all expenses to do with the house from date of death.  

NinjaTune

JGB1955 said:

Was the house owned as joint tenants?  If so, I would have thought that the widow would take on all expenses to do with the house from date of death.  

I'm 99.9% sure the house was in his name only, I don't believe she was named on the deeds.

There was a significant legal battle over the will which resulted in it being deemed invalid and therefore it went down the intestacy route.  The widow continued to live in the house, and still does.

xylophone

The value of the property fell entirely within the statutory legacy (or the statutory legacy plus half the remainder of the estate)?

It seems to me that up to the point where Letters of Administration were granted  so that the property could be transferred to the widow, any necessary expenses to insure and maintain  the property (but not to improve it) should be borne by the estate.

NinjaTune

xylophone said:

The value of the property fell entirely within the statutory legacy (or the statutory legacy plus half the remainder of the estate)?

It seems to me that up to the point where Letters of Administration were granted  so that the property could be transferred to the widow, any necessary expenses to insure and maintain  the property (but not to improve it) should be borne by the estate.

Property valued at 295k
Estate prior to various deductions (including the expenses I've mentioned) was 375k
Estate after deductions is 311k (she's racked up about 35k in legal fees alone)
Widow gets first 250k plus 50% of residual amount, just over 30k

I'll need to check when the Letters of Administration were granted as I'm sure that was prior to these works being carried out.

It seems to me that the majority of the work was to improve rather than maintain.  Widow's solicitors claim it was to make the property habitable, however, it was perfectly habitable anyway and she's been living there prior to (and since) her husband's death.

NinjaTune

Work was carried out in 2020, Letter of Administration was granted in July 2019.  the difference re: amount of the estate is a discrepancy in the original 'drive by' valuation and a second valuation arranged by the widow a couple of years later.  As you can see, this has been dragging on for over 4 years

getmore4less

I would think if the expenses are valid then for distribution purposes the property should be valued with those changes or sold.

NinjaTune

getmore4less said:

I would think if the expenses are valid then for distribution purposes the property should be valued with those changes or sold.

This is what I was thinking, assuming the expenses are valid, i.e. that the property should be valued at 295k + cost of improvements.

Basically I think the widow has been getting home improvements at the cost of the other beneficiary involved.

NinjaTune

UPDATE

I've downloaded the title from Land Registry.

The property was registered in the widow's name in January 2020 - all the above work was done after this date (June and August 2020).

Does this mean that, as she was the legal owner at that point, the work cannot be charged against the Estate funds and shuold be paid for herself?