Will Trust has ended

Loretta

Not sure if this is the correct place but it did not seem to fit anywhere else

I'll keep it as brief as I can

Father died 1965, left a trust, widow to receive substantial lump sum and then receives income for life from trust, on her death the trust ends and the proceeds are divided between his 2 daughters. Always understood that when widow dies the property would be divided between the 2 sisters and that would be the end of it.

Widow dies 1996. Solicitor dealing with her estate and informs sisters that trust has now ended and he will do legal stuff etc and the property will then be put in names of both sisters and it would be up to them what they do about it, either one buys the other out, or it is sold or it remains let and the sisters share the rent.

Is each sister given their share seperately ie they each own their own half share? One sister's solicitor has now advised her that both sisters now own all the property jointly and equally.

I don't think that is is correct as it is completely inpractical. Apart from one maybe wanting to sell etc, how would each sister leave their share to their own children? Solicitor advised that when on or both sisters die the property would then belong to the children of both sisters, all 6 of them and will continue like that presumably forever! maybe one day hundreds of people owning it!!

Solicitor also advised that property coud only be sold to a sister, neither sister could sell their share or even leave their share to their children

This sounds like a complete nonsense as the solicitor who is now giving this advice wrote to both sisters in 1996 to say the trust has now ended.

I am reluctant to go to yet another solicitor, and pay again, just to hear that one or other of the previous solciitors is right or wrong! How could anyone one know which one is right and what could be done anyway if one solicitor is giving this advice?

Anyone know anything about this sort of thing? or know where proper advice could be sought?

A real legal muddle

Thanks,

jonesMUFCforever

How was the transfer of the property made to the sisters?
Are they tenants in common or joint tenants?

If joint tenants then the survivor inherits all of the property upon death of one of them.
If tenants in common then both will have (presumably) equal shares which can be left to whoever they wish via their wills.

Loretta

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

How was the transfer of the property made to the sisters?
Are they tenants in common or joint tenants?

If joint tenants then the survivor inherits all of the property upon death of one of them.
If tenants in common then both will have (presumably) equal shares which can be left to whoever they wish via their wills.

The solicitor has not yet, after 6 years, transfered the property into anyone's name, probably another problem and a complaint to the Law Society!

Solicitor is saying that property can only be tranfered as joint tenants. I don't know who decided this but it makes no sense as both sisters have their own children and would want to either sell and raise the cash to do what they want with it or leave their half to their own children. 6 children would never be able to share this and as the years go by there could be 50 or 100 people all sharing! When I have said this no one seems to think it odd!

Surely this is straight forward and I can't understand how it has all got so complicated unless someone is not being honest and something is going on here which unless I am missing something simple could be what it is about

localhero

Loretta,

If the property hasn't been transferred yet, it is easily resolved by one of the sisters requesting that the property is to be transferred as tenants in common.

It is vital however, that both sisters should make Wills to determine whom their respective shares of the property are to pass to upon their death.

Before either of them were to die - with the likely result that a sale would be inevitable (and things got messier still), I would suggest that it might be more practical for one sister to buy the other one out or for it to be sold.

Loretta

localhero wrote: »

Loretta,

If the property hasn't been transferred yet, it is easily resolved by one of the sisters requesting that the property is to be transferred as tenants in common.

It is vital however, that both sisters should make Wills to determine whom their respective shares of the property are to pass to upon their death.

Before either of them were to die - with the likely result that a sale would be inevitable (and things got messier still), I would suggest that it might be more practical for one sister to buy the other one out or for it to be sold.

The property has not been transfered yet, I don't know whose name it is in, presumably in my late father's name or in the name of the trust.

I have requested that the solicitor who is acting for the trust (which no longer exists) and my sister to transfer the property in to both names and he says no as it is not in his clients best interests, end of conversation. It seems that you can get your own way by being obstructive and hoping the other side will simply run out of money

Have been told by solicitor that the whole property would belong to both sisters in total and upon the death of one the property would go into the sole name of the survivor, I don't believe that though

What a muddle

localhero

Hi Loretta,

So what's been happening to the property since 1996?

At that stage the property should have been transferred to you and your sister (one or two forms involved at the Land Registry).

And how can transferring it as tenants in common not be in the interests of his client? (who's been dead 12 years!)

I don't know the full facts so shouldn't rush to judge, but I feel you're getting a rough ride here.

So if the property does get transferred as joint tenants, then your own solicitor is right. Legally it will pass to the other co-owner upon the death of one of them.

That can be remedied by either sister by giving notice to the other and sending a RX1 to the Land Registry. This can be done for free, but I don't feel you should have to. For, it would be simpler for the solicitor to transfer it as tenants in common in the first place.

I think communication is key here, you and your sister need to decide what's going to happen to the property. Kept as an investment by both, sold, etc and to perhaps write to the solicitor requesting that he/she transfers it as tenants in common.

It sounds a real unnecessary shambles - perhaps a letter of compaint to the firm and/or to the Law Society may also be in order.

Loretta

localhero wrote: »

Hi Loretta,

So what's been happening to the property since 1996?

At that stage the property should have been transferred to you and your sister (one or two forms involved at the Land Registry).

And how can transferring it as tenants in common not be in the interests of his client? (who's been dead 12 years!)

I don't know the full facts so shouldn't rush to judge, but I feel you're getting a rough ride here.

So if the property does get transferred as joint tenants, then your own solicitor is right. Legally it will pass to the other co-owner upon the death of one of them.

That can be remedied by either sister by giving notice to the other and sending a RX1 to the Land Registry. This can be done for free, but I don't feel you should have to. For, it would be simpler for the solicitor to transfer it as tenants in common in the first place.

I think communication is key here, you and your sister need to decide what's going to happen to the property. Kept as an investment by both, sold, etc and to perhaps write to the solicitor requesting that he/she transfers it as tenants in common.

It sounds a real unnecessary shambles - perhaps a letter of compaint to the firm and/or to the Law Society may also be in order.

My mother and sister were the 2 trustees, I was 16 when my father died. Neither of them have ever worked or dealt with money.

I don't really know what has been happening to it, that's how little I know. At first after a year or two when my sister was saying she didn't have a solicitor and that one was dealing with the estate, and of constant nagging, during which I was told it was nothing to do with me, I finally got some information as to where the rent was going and that seemed to be on legal fees, surveyors, valuers and people like that but several times which I don't believe any property would need more than once and when I queried the expense and why I was also paying for it for so long I was told to mind my own business basically

I was sure that putting the property into joint names was just a formality and was going to 'just happen. Once it was ready to go I would presume that we would have both been advised that there were two ways of doing this and be advised which would be the best way in our own individual circumstances.

I would have thought that this solicitor's job over the years has been to advise the 2 trustees, my mother and sister and to administer the trust if the asked him to. After my mother died perhaps I should have been asked if I would like him to deal with the trust and did I mind him acting for my sister at the same time. He should have decided whether he was going to act for my sister or administer the winding up of the trust, not both at the same time. If he was administering the trust he should have been acting for both of us beneficiaries as long as it was all going smoothly. If at any time each sister wanted something different, although I don't think this happened because i don't know what she wants and she probably doesn't either, that is the way she is, she always agrees with the last person she spoke to,

I just wanted another opinion, I thought i was being treated badly but I didn't want to be paronoid. I think a compliant to the Law Society is the next step

I am wondering if they have using some of the money themselves. My mother was 86 when she died and in very good health right up to the end. My sister has been in very poor health, heart attack at 29 etc and me being 10 years younger than my sister and always fit and well, I think that with a bit of acting, being old and being unwell they could have been have put forward a very good case to have some money in advance maybe several times, but I don't know anything about how all that works but i would imagine that at some stage someone would have had to ask me or at least let me know.

I just wanted to know if someone else thought that this was wrong

Thanks for taking the trouble to answer this rather garbled story!

Mojisola

Loretta wrote: »

I was told to mind my own business basically

Can't help with the legal side - but what's happening is very much your business! What on earth has happened to your inheritance since 1996?

I do hope you can get this put straight quickly.

Poosmate

Hi Loretta

Wow! What a mess!

I did think it unethical for the solicitor dealing with the trust to be acting on behalf of your sister too, but you then mention in post #7 that your mother and sister were the 2 trustees. So I guess if she's the surviving trustee he is right to be acting on her behalf.

You have "always understood" (your post #1) that when your mother died the property would be divided equally. Is this an assumption or have you seen it in black and white?

Have you still got the letter informing you that the trust had ended? What I am thinking is that if your sister was trustee, then as the surviving trustee does that mean she is the sole beneficiary? And that the letter was just that "for information purposes only".

I think you need to examine the original trust paperwork if you haven't already done so.

I'm sorry if I seem too inquisitive but my family may have the same problem in the future and as there are 4 children involved and 4 grandchildren (+3 stepgrandchildren - not sure if they would have a claim on our property) I think it could get very messy. When my dad died intestate in 1978, leaving the property to mom and us 4 kids (property is in Ireland and so covered in Irish law), my older brother (then 14), made a comment that the property would be his then (being the oldest born son). He's also commented on it recently which is alarming because he hardly contributes to the upkeep of the place or visits it very often (about twice in last 1 yrs). Yet he seems to believe when mom dies it will be his "as of right" being the first born (the heir). Moms made a will - he's not going to like it - he'll get a quarter like the rest of us!

Anyway, that kind of thinking is kind of old fashioned nowadays but you are talking about a man who made this trust in the mid '60's when that kind of thinking wasn't quite so old fashioned.

I'm sorry, it's probably not what you want to hear but if there is a possibility this is what's happened you probably need to change your approach. I don't know how trusts work and if they are the same as a will which can be contested.

Just a few thoughts of mine and I do hope you get your share.

All the very best of luck to you.

Poo

Debt_Free_Chick

If the solicitor insists on registering the title to the sisters as joint tenants, then let them.

Once that happens, one sister can serve a notice on the other to sever the joint tenancy and re-register the title as tenants in common. Simple & cheap to do.

Debt_Free_Chick

localhero wrote: »

That can be remedied by either sister by giving notice to the other and sending a RX1 to the Land Registry. This can be done for free, but I don't feel you should have to. For, it would be simpler for the solicitor to transfer it as tenants in common in the first place.

Sorry - hadn't spotted this when I posted pretty much the same thing.