How can I find out if an executor renounced their role?

Newly_retired

I had professional advice, which was to evict the occupant and sell the house. Yes, in an ideal world. But would you want to upset someone whose mental health is very unstable, has tried to find alternative accommodation and failed. We all know what the rental situation is like. If B couldn’t find somewhere when C was alive to support them, I can’t see it happening now.

doodling

Hi,

If there is money to pay off D and E in C's estate then a DoV of C's will to pass the value of their share of the house plus the value of D and E's minor shares to B would allow B to buy the whole house from A's estate and D and E could get paid.  Unfortunately, unless they are very generous, I might expect C's beneficiaries to have things to say about B being given over half a house so that idea is unlikely to fly!

I hate to think what the Inheritance / Gapital Gains Tax situation will be - consideration of that will be important!

Unless B is very near to the end of their life then I think the only sensible option is to evict B.  Basically B is borrowing a lot of money from everyone else and those people need it back.  Is B's share of the house sufficient to allow them to get their own place?

RAS

What is it that makes the current property suitable for B, whilst other properties were unsuitable?

Or is it that B finds the idea of moving too difficult?

Newly_retired

Doodling, I like the theory, but it is not affordable. 

RAS. B was all packed up and ready to move to rental nine years ago, but wanted to stay local because of the MH support that was by then in place, after a two year wait. But as soon as it was known that rent would be paid from Housing Benefit, properties were withdrawn, apart from rat infested hovels.  So all parties agreed for B to stay put, though the property is too big for their needs. B is still on benefits and has built up a kind of life there. B would not be able to take the initiative to apply for a rental.   C helped out financially and in other ways. Other complications I can’t go into. 

I think C’s estate could and should buy E’s share out, after Probate, if all agreed. That would fix one issue. No DoV needed. 

Savvy_Sue

I think I would be minded to talk to B along the lines of looking to the future: you talk of them as vulnerable, does their living situation look tenable in the long term? are they able to keep the house in reasonable order? Would their inheritance enable them to move on? 

Not so much eviction, as encouragement ... including looking at renting sheltered accommodation! 

Newly_retired

Ideally, yes, I agree, Savvy Sue. But only D is in a position to do this and does not seem inclined to upset the apple cart. I cant see B’s  CPN getting involved.  B is too young for sheltered accommodation and there is nothing available for MH. It occurs to me that the issues will come to a head once C’s estate is distributed, some months down the line, as that is going to take B out of eligibility for means- tested benefits. 

doodling

Hi,

Newly_retired said:

Doodling, I like the theory, but it is not affordable. 

RAS. B was all packed up and ready to move to rental nine years ago, but wanted to stay local because of the MH support that was by then in place, after a two year wait. But as soon as it was known that rent would be paid from Housing Benefit, properties were withdrawn, apart from rat infested hovels.  So all parties agreed for B to stay put, though the property is too big for their needs. B is still on benefits and has built up a kind of life there. B would not be able to take the initiative to apply for a rental.   C helped out financially and in other ways. Other complications I can’t go into. 

I think C’s estate could and should buy E’s share out, after Probate, if all agreed. That would fix one issue. No DoV needed. 

It is not clear why you think a DoV is not needed.  What possible benefit is there to C's estate in lending (giving?) A's estate money so that E can be paid off?  It doesn't appear to be in the interest of C's beneficiaries - the executor of C's estate should be giving the executor of A's estate a serious kick to get A's estate distributed, not making loans to A's executor who already owes C's estate money.  I hope that all of C's beneficiaries are in agreement with that approach because a beneficiary not caught up in the complicated family dynamic could see it as maladministration which could place the executors of C's estate in some legal crosshairs.

Yes, I know that practically A's executor and C's executor are the same person, but they are managing two separate estates and they need to put the interests of the beneficiaries of the estate in the front of their mind when dealing with that estate.  Making payments / loans to non-beneficiaries (i.e. from C's estate to A's estate) is a highly questionable thing to do.

Newly_retired

I am not sure if you have understood the situation? Hardly surprising, since it is so complicated.
There is no executor of A's estate alive. C should have distributed to E but did not and has now died. C's role has to be taken up by C's executors. So they have a duty to both estates. B and D benefit from both estates. E only benefits from A's estate. F only benefits from C's estate. G, the third executor, is not a benefiiciary at all. Hence my idea of at least settling E's share. There are cash asssets in C's estate to do this.  B and D get an increased share of the property.( It still leaves me F, unsettled, and with a notional share in a property I don't want and will gladly sell, but not forgo.).
My solicitor told me it is not possible to do a DoV on C's will regarding this as it is not mentioned in his will. I am not convinced he is right, but IANAL ( I am not a lawyer).

Newly_retired

From gov.uk  "The beneficiaries of a person who has died may make a variation that changes that person’s entitlement from an earlier death. The variation must ( meet all the conditions above and) be made within two years of the date of the earlier death." 
The earlier death occurred ten years ago so it is too late, according to the above. 

doodling

Hi,

I do understand the situation.  There is currently an executor of C's estate and therefore there is an executor of A's estate.  I believe that happens automatically although I don't know whether some paperwork is required to evidence that.

The fact that there are different beneficiaries for the two estates means that those estates need to be treated as having their own interests.  The "goal" of A's estate is to get the house sold and distribute the funds to B, C, D and E.  The "goal" of C's estate is to collect all of C's assets and distribute them to B, D and F.  Lending money to A's estate is not part of the goal of C's estate and therefore is open to challenge.  (Some people might detect that I'm desperately trying to avoid expressing this in terms of trusts here).

Having said that, from what you have said, the only people who might challenge that approach are B (who won't because it will lead to them being kicked out of their house), D (who you claim is apathetic) and F (you, who can't sue yourself).

Are D and E's bequests from A absolute amounts of cash or are they expressed as a percentage of the house?  In the latter case you have no idea what that value will be (especially after CGT which if I was D or E would be arguing should come out of C's estate due to their maladministration of A's estate) and are completely stuck.

If D and E get an absolute monetary value then the answer, assuming that B's share is big enough and there is enough cash in C's estate is for B to receive an interim payment of their bequest from C as cash which they can then use to pay the executor of A's estate for a larger share of the house.  A's executor can them distribute that to D and E.  No DoV of C's estate is needed providing that it permits B's share to be all or part cash.

If you don't sell the house then, assuming you can fund D and E's bequests from A as I described above then you should be able to close off A's estate (assuming that the will permits B and C to receive a share of the house and doesn't mandate its sale).

Closing off C's estate will be more challenging - you may end up with all the beneficiaries having a part share in the house.  In some ways, that might be the answer on the basis that it then places the solution in the beneficiaries hands - any part owner can apply to court to force a sale.

I don't have any figures so what I describe may not be possible with the sums available.  Don't forget the potential effects of CGT and IHT.

 Newly_retired said:

From gov.uk  "The beneficiaries of a person who has died may make a variation that changes that person’s entitlement from an earlier death. The variation must ( meet all the conditions above and) be made within two years of the date of the earlier death." 
The earlier death occurred ten years ago so it is too late, according to the above. 

That is basically saying that beneficiaries can make a deed of variation on behalf the the deceased in respect of a previous death providing all the usual conditions for a DoV are met.

That doesn't help you here for the reasons you state