Sale of Inherited property - requires BOTH co-owners to aggree otherwise court order required to 'fo

Blindalley

Property inherited by two siblings, title deeds currently in deceased's name . Siblings are both Executor and 50/50 beneficiary to house.  I assume either party could refuse to accept buyout of other's share or sell to a third party?  If one side wanted to force' things they would need to go for a court order ( must this be funded by that party privately or can they use Estate funds? )  and of course 'win' the court oder. Thanks for any replies.

TBagpuss

What is the wording of the will? Does it explicitly leave the house as a house, or is it  a case of leaving the estate as a whole to be split (in which case the executors as executors probably have a duty to sell in order to be able to distribute the estate to themselves as beneficiaries, so the default would be to sell unless you agree otherwise. 
If the will expressly leaves you each 50% of the house then then like any other joint owners, if one of you want s to sell and the other doesn't, the person wanting to sell can force a sale via the court, and the person refusing to sell would probably end up paying all the costs. 

getmore4less

Another snippet of relevant information in the other thread.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6265703/council-tax-estate-liable-until-names-on-deed-changed#latest

probably best to keep it all together in one thread as this could get protracted.

what is the current position of the 2 siblings,  yourself and the one living in it.

What do you each want to do with this property?

naedanger

Blindalley said:

Property inherited by two siblings, title deeds currently in deceased's name . Siblings are both Executor and 50/50 beneficiary to house.  I assume either party could refuse to accept buyout of other's share or sell to a third party?  If one side wanted to force' things they would need to go for a court order ( must this be funded by that party privately or can they use Estate funds? )  and of course 'win' the court oder. Thanks for any replies.

If the will states the house must be sold and the proceeds distributed then I would have thought the estate should bear the cost of litigating to force what the will required.

However if the estate is silent on what is to happen to the property then I would have thought the action is between beneficiaries and they each pay their own costs unless the court decides otherwise (e.g. because they believe one party behaved unreasonably).

But this is just my supposition

Blindalley

Thank you both naedanger and getmore4less. Much appreciated.

"What is the wording of the will?" it is 'silent and generic' ie  all to be divided equally with NO specific instructions

Blindalley

@ getmore4less "What do you each want to do with this property?" At this stage it was about being best informed . Other sibling will live there , both as co-owners and no immediate desire to sell.

Keep_pedalling

Blindalley said:

@ getmore4less "What do you each want to do with this property?" At this stage it was about being best informed . Other sibling will live there , both as co-owners and no immediate desire to sell.

The longer you leave this the harder it is going to be resolved. I certainly should not want the property put in my name if I had no intention of living in it. Although there is no reason to rush a sale I would make it quite plane that unless the other beneficiary  buys you out that you want it sold.

naedanger

If the beneficiaries cannot agree on what is to happen to the property (e.g. should it be sold, put in both names, etc) and the executors don't then know what to do with it, then I think they could both jointly instruct a solicitor to resolve the matter or provide impartial advice to the estate. The costs for that could all be borne by the estate.

Where I don't think the estate should bear the cost is if an executor (being a beneficiary) asks for advice on how to seek their preferred outcome or instructs the solicitor to seek that outcome. Then I think the solicitor is giving advice to the beneficiary rather than the estate.

getmore4less

Blindalley said:

@ getmore4less "What do you each want to do with this property?" At this stage it was about being best informed . Other sibling will live there , both as co-owners and no immediate desire to sell.

That has issues  like
non resident owner potentially creates a CGT liability 
Who is responsible for maintenance,
what if the one living there want to change something substantial or lets the place start falling apart.
Does the resident one pay rent
etc.

Blindalley

naedanger said:

If the beneficiaries cannot agree on what is to happen to the property (e.g. should it be sold, put in both names, etc) and the executors don't then know what to do with it, then I think they could both jointly instruct a solicitor to resolve the matter or provide impartial advice to the estate. The costs for that could all be borne by the estate.

Where I don't think the estate should bear the cost is if an executor (being a beneficiary) asks for advice on how to seek their preferred outcome or instructs the solicitor to seek that outcome. Then I think the solicitor is giving advice to the beneficiary rather than the estate.

Thankyou .  Yes I would agree . It was looking at the extreeme case where if a court order was required to force the sale, that the party applying for the court order must do this with private funds or they could try to use Estate funds. At the moment its amicable. Was looking at 'worst case scenarios' . I know a buyout solution is best if It can be achieved.