Tenants in common: Who should pay?

JLWeale

getmore4less said:

Only three of the adult children got involved,  it is beginning to look like(very limited info) as well as G&B being "done over" the other kids are as well if they are beneficiaries.

The other 2 adult children didn't have financial means at the time to buy in, & when they did, the other 3 'locked' them out. I agree ref them being "done over" as beneficiaries since G's estate was reduced by paying for the upgrades to the property

JLWeale

trevormax said:

I can't see why the estate should pay anything towards the cost of decorating the house after his death. I'm not an expert in matters of dealing with a deceased estate, however this seems like it would not even be allowed.

Presumably, it is the three children with an interest in the property who are claiming that the deceased estate should pay towards the cost of improving the house.
 
If there are other beneficiaries involved (other children for example), then their interest in the deceased estate is diminished by the three children using the money to improve the house, whilst the three children benefit from the use of the deceased estate. 

What the other beneficiaries need to examine is if the use of the deceased estates share/money increases the value of the house by more than what they used of the deceased estate to pay for the improvements. e.g.

house value £100,000 split as 8.5% deceased (£8,500), 30.5% to each of the three children (£30,500)
cost of renovations £5,000 incurred by deceased estate.
value of house post renovation £120,000 split as 8.5% deceased estate minus £5,000 (£10,200 - £5,000 = £5,200) and 30.5% to each child (£36,600).
As you can see here, the children have gained ££6,100 each and the other beneficiaries have lost a percentage of £3,300. 

The fairest solution is for the total cost of renovations to be added up, and then each "owner" pay their share based on their percentage of ownership. So if there is a cost of £5,000 to renovate, the the deceased estate pays 8.5%, and each child pays 30.5% of the cost. Then when the house sells, they each claim their respective percentage of the money realised. 

HOWEVER, if the three children are the only beneficiaries of the estate, then it makes no difference because no other people lose out. 

Thank you for the calc example & I wholeheartedly agree. The other 2 adult children didn't have the financial means at the time to 'buy in'.

Added wrinkle: Of the 3 adult children who 'invested', 2 (Ann & Helen) were the nominated executors of G's estate. The improvement to the house & its subsequent sale occurred *before* G's will was probated, so my argument would be that when the money was taken out of G's estate to pay for all of the redecorating & re-carpeting, A & H were acting as 'investors', not potential executors, i.e. in their own interest & not in the interest of the estate

davilown

Make sure the % aid recalculated to take into account the discount that the original owners had.

TripleH

It could be argued that the executors have failed to carry out their duties correctly (based on the information provided) by possibly distributing assests against the terms set out in the will to their betterment.

(This is my interpretation of reading the information provided and I may be wrong).

This might be one for the probate board as it is a wills issue rather than housing?

This may well lead to a big split in the family with horrible repercussions.