Will Execution Impasse.

RetSol

and now this repossession warning has come to fruition.

What has happened exactly? 

calleyw

Is your brother able to understand that the longer this goes on and the longer he holds up the selling of the house that costs will rack up that the estate will have to pay and in the end him and everyone else gets less.  There have been so many posts like this over the last few months.  Where adult children have returned home and seem to think that no matter what the will states as they are living there its now theirs and tough to everyone else involved.

Wish you all the best with getting this sorted.

Yours

Calley x

RetSol

Essentially, the solicitor has warned of repossession where the time limit for conclusion of the estate has passed.  This seems to me the at the solicitor might not be confident in a pre deadline estate resolution

Ask the solicitors, in the light of all the circumstances mentioned in this thread (and the size of the loan), what course of action is likely to be in the best interests of the beneficiaries generally. 

RetSol

Someone mentioned earlier that the court costs, protraction costs could be applied against D's portion by the solicitor.  Estate is about £500k

No.  The costs of administering the estate will come out of the estate. 

Robin9

AgitatedCat said:

................., kitty on lap

Share all your concerns, your thoughts, mutter bad things under your breath  ........   with kitty.   Use the soppiest of voice and kitty will sit there, soaking it all up, purring away .

Manxman_in_exile

AgitatedCat said:

RetSol said:

Someone mentioned earlier that the court costs, protraction costs could be applied against D's portion by the solicitor.  Estate is about £500k

No.  The costs of administering the estate will come out of the estate. 

I'm dismayed by your answer, as it is most likely true.  Alas, it seems incredulous that my share was suffer a penalty due to a sibling's obstinance.  

I think you were confused by doodling's post on 14 May at 5:08pm:

"There should be a step 2a where the executor takes the repossession costs (but not the sale costs) incurred by the equity release company and adds those back onto the amount available to be divided up, and a step 3a where the executor subtracts the repossession costs from the amount being paid to D.  This means that D pays for the additional costs incurred due to his unwillingness to leave.  You need to ask the executor whether they will be doing that, and if not, why not.  A problem arises if that would leave D with a negative amount of money - in theory he could be sued for the remainder... "

I'm not sure what doodling meant by the first "should", but it's not legally correct.

Also, you've mentioned several times that the problem sibling has "mental health" issues, and you've been asked the question whether he could or should be classed as vulnerable, but I don't think you've answered that question.   He could have MH issues and be highly intelligent and be totally aware of what his situation is and the effects of his behaviour on others, or he could have MH issues and, despite appearing to understand his situation, not have a clue as to what is going on and be extremely vulnerable.  Whereabouts between the two does he lie?

(I suspect he's more towards the former as I don't see how he could amass savings running into six figures otherwise)

doodling

Hi,

Manxman_in_exile said:

AgitatedCat said:

RetSol said:

Someone mentioned earlier that the court costs, protraction costs could be applied against D's portion by the solicitor.  Estate is about £500k

No.  The costs of administering the estate will come out of the estate. 

I'm dismayed by your answer, as it is most likely true.  Alas, it seems incredulous that my share was suffer a penalty due to a sibling's obstinance.  

I think you were confused by doodling's post on 14 May at 5:08pm:

"There should be a step 2a where the executor takes the repossession costs (but not the sale costs) incurred by the equity release company and adds those back onto the amount available to be divided up, and a step 3a where the executor subtracts the repossession costs from the amount being paid to D.  This means that D pays for the additional costs incurred due to his unwillingness to leave.  You need to ask the executor whether they will be doing that, and if not, why not.  A problem arises if that would leave D with a negative amount of money - in theory he could be sued for the remainder... "

I'm not sure what doodling meant by the first "should", but it's not legally correct.

Why is not not legally correct?  Surely if the estate incurs avoidable costs as a result of someone remaining in the house unlawfully then those costs are recoverable from whoever caused them to be needlessly incurred?  Unless D has been paying rent then he has very few legal rights to be there and in theory could be evicted by simply locking him out of the house next time he leaves it (I don't recommend this course of action unless you are very certain of your legal position as if you get it wrong illegal evection is a serious crime).
What if D, in a fit of pique destroyed everything of value in the house?  That would clearly be criminal damage (everything other than D's personal possessions belongs to the executor), are you saying that a suitable sum could not be deducted from the monies due to D?
To put it another way, if it was me rather than D who was refusing to leave the house, could I be sued for the costs of evicting me?  Why does the fact the D is a beneficiary make any difference (other than the fact that its really easy to recover costs from them as they will be due money from the estate)?

calleyw

AgitatedCat said:

RetSol said:

Someone mentioned earlier that the court costs, protraction costs could be applied against D's portion by the solicitor.  Estate is about £500k

No.  The costs of administering the estate will come out of the estate. 

I'm dismayed by your answer, as it is most likely true.  Alas, it seems incredulous that my share was suffer a penalty due to a sibling's obstinance.  

And that is why I asked is your brother able to understand the implications that everyone will get less money if he carries on like this and that includes him self.  Often when people realise its going to cost them they often change.  But as has been mentioned by others you have not stated if he can understand the implications.  Getting a letter from the solictor sent to him so its in black and white and he can't say he didn't know.  Yes it will cost you the going rate what ever that is.  But it might bring home what he is doing. 

I get the feeling he thinks if he stalls long enough he will get the house as everyone will get bored and go away. A repossession is going to be more way more stressful for him than just letting you sale the house which gives everyone time to get sorted. 

Yours

Calley x

Keep_pedalling

One thing is certain and that is that the ER company are going to get their money including any additional costs the occupant is going to cause them. It is not their concern the he may be vulnerable or not, and it is almost certain that your father broke the terms of the loan by allowing him to live there. 

xylophone

If D continues obdurate, in one way or another this will end up in court.

I am assuming that probate has been granted.

The solicitor, as executor, has the right (and indeed the duty) to  settle the estate.

It would seem that the terms of the will require him to sell the property in order that the  ER loan  can be repaid and the bequests/ legacies paid.

He  will be aware that if there is a repossession of the property, the ER company's main concern  will be  to achieve a price which will cover the loan and  ant costs incurred by the ER company.

In that sense, "market value" is immaterial as far as the ER company is concerned and therefore any repossession may well be to the detriment of the beneficiaries.

The executor solicitor may therefore be deemed negligent in not having approached the court for an order for sale well in advance of the repossession becoming a virtual certainty?