Well, I think I finally found out what the delays were about

UncleMorpheus

Hi,

So last year I made a post as to why I couldn't figure out my the other inheritor's solicitor was dragging his feet, seemingly taking months to complete the simple task of filling out one form. See:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6569125/is-the-3rd-year-anniversary-significant

It turns out the other inheritor and his solicitor were intent on trying to charge me "rent", or "mesne rent" to be exact, for my stay in the deceased's house, the house I now half own through the will, for the 2 years+ we've been in dispute, from the day, and ON the day the deceased died!:

To explain, on the day the deceased died, I was living with them in their house, and my agreement with them, being a close relative, was I was staying there as informal rent-free agreement, in return for helping them in various ways around the house and garden, as they were old and disabled. I assumed this informal agreement would stand after the deceased passed, until the estate was finally settled.

To be clear, this "rent" demand has come completely out of the blue after over 2 years of dispute with the other inheritor. Not one mention of it before, not one mention I might be running up some sort of debt in the last two years+, so it's at least dishonesty through omission.

Now if I had been the one dragging my feet you could maybe say there might had some sort of level of argument here - although once the estate's settled, I won't or shouldn't be paying any rent anyway, as I SHOULD have enough to buy my own house, so it's not really a good argument. But it's actually been the other side, the other inheritor and his solicitor that's been taking forever of matters, particularly over the last 9 months. Like I say, 4 months to fill in one form. And more months of delay after that. In the autumn of last year, I was even pressing them for some progress!

So I now seem to have most definitely discovered the motive for this feet dragging! It seems the so-and-so other inheritor, and his solicitor have been deliberately trying to run up this, up until now, completely hidden bill.

From the screen grab of the letter the terms "mesne rent" and "damages for trespass" appear to be both technical, legal terms, both of which seem highly inapplicable in this instance. Wikipedia says of the closely related mesne profits:

"The concept is feudal in origin"

"The mesne profit represents the value (living rent-free, profits earned from the land, etc.) the ejected tenant received from the property between the time the court ordered the eviction and the time when the tenant actually left the property."

I should say that although there was court action in regards to who should be administering the estate, this court action was in no way connected to my stay in the house, and I have in no way been evicted or ordered to leave the house by a court, to date, so if the Wikipedia entry is accurate for all situations, then the claim of "mesne rent" in no way seems to fit, or have any validity to the current situation.

To be clear, under the will, I am half owner of the property, and this claim for "rent" is for 50% of the market rate, because the other inheritor is the other half owner.

So to be clear, I think there's three things in my favour:

1) I had an informal agreement with the deceased to live rent-free in the familial home, no other agreement was made after they died

2) I was not told I was running up this alleged debt for over 2 years

3) The inheritor who is claiming this debt seems to have deliberately run up this debt in recent months with deliberate delays, before informing me of it's existence

So, does anyone know, is the other inheritor and their solicitor "trying it on", here? Has anyone come across claims for "mesne rent" before? And would they have much of a case if we went to court over it?

Thanks for any help.

Flugelhorn

it would not be unknown for a person in your situation to be paying 50% of market rent during this time

p00hsticks

Who was paying for the utilities, house insurance council tax etc since the death ? Was it you or did it come from the estate ?

UncleMorpheus

p00hsticks said:

Who was paying for the utilities, house insurance council tax etc since the death ? Was it you or did it come from the estate ?

I've been paying utility bills entirely myself, as well as the Council Tax since the death. The house insurance is being paid by the estate.

400ixl

Why would you think you could live in the property without paying rent to the other inheritor? Or at least not discussed the topic with them.

They are well within their rights to charge you rent for their portion of the house if you are occupying it.

Hoenir

UncleMorpheus said:

I assumed this informal agreement would stand after the deceased passed, until the estate was finally settled.

Purely from an outside observational perspective. Did you take the time to discuss your assumption with anybody?  Your "dispute" having only extended your stay in the property.  With the outcome of it's you that has financially benefitted. 

Brie

Have you considered responding by asking for half the bills to be paid by the other inheritor?

mattojgb

Brief observation, neither of you own the property, it belongs to the estate of the deceased. I think it would be up to the executor to charge rent.

UncleMorpheus

Brie said:

Have you considered responding by asking for half the bills to be paid by the other inheritor?

If you mean the utility bills, then, I'm happy to have paid the bills I have, as I felt they were my responsibility. I was living there, so I paid the Council Tax, and was using the electricity, etc. so I was happy to pay the utility bills. I didn't expect the other inheritor to pay for my electricity usage, etc. So I don't really want to do that. I don't think it would be actually fair on the other inheritor.

What I expected was the agreement I had with the deceased to stand, and I'm absolutely certain the deceased would have wanted it to stand to the estate was settled. Sadly, though, it wasn't thought of, and covered by the will. I think that's what would be fair on me, in my opinion.

UncleMorpheus

Hoenir said:

UncleMorpheus said:

I assumed this informal agreement would stand after the deceased passed, until the estate was finally settled.

Purely from an outside observational perspective. Did you take the time to discuss your assumption with anybody?  Your "dispute" having only extended your stay in the property.  With the outcome of it's you that has financially benefitted. 

Well no, if I have to pay this rent demand, then it'll have financially benefited the other inheritor, to be accurate. As stated, the delays seem to have recently been very deliberate on their side. Over three months to fill out one form?

I accept it was an assumption on my part, but the other inheritor's solicitor made no effort to inform of this hidden debt in over 2 years.

It seems a natural assumption, though, as I recently informed a close relative to both of ours, and they were pretty shocked. As I know the other inheritor well, let's just say I was less shocked...

UncleMorpheus

400ixl said:

Why would you think you could live in the property without paying rent to the other inheritor? Or at least not discussed the topic with them.

They are well within their rights to charge you rent for their portion of the house if you are occupying it.

Because that was the standing agreement with the deceased?

I'll repost from my original post:

1) I had an informal agreement with the deceased to live rent-free in the familial home, no other agreement was made after they died

2) I was not told I was running up this alleged debt for over 2 years

3) The inheritor who is claiming this debt seems to have deliberately run up this debt in recent months with deliberate delays, before informing me of it's existence

Usually it's the case, and maybe also the law, that if you're running up a debt, you should be informed of this debt, not it be hidden and kept from you for over 2 years. In those previous two years, the other inheritor or his solicitor never brought it up and therefore I made the assumption none existed. Don't you think that's odd? Surely this is at least dishonesty by omission? I think that at best makes this claimed debt contentious.

Anyway, I'm more interested in professional, informed opinions, or from people who've had experience of this situation, not personal opinions, but thanks for your input all the same.