Sale of property left in will...

Carraig95

Hypothetical question...

When a single parent and full registered owner of a house passes away and leaves the house to, we'll say, 4 adult children, each one having a exact equal share in every way, what happens if three children are interested in possibly selling the property and one child isn't? Let's say, they are interested in renting the house out for a number of years to tenants and equally distributing the rent amongst the four siblings, and selling the house at a later date when or if the market strengthens.

Does that person legally have to give in to the other siblings and sell the house? Or does an agreement have to be reached by all four siblings as to what to do with the property?

234

There is a strange species of professional who are steeped in the knowledge you require. If you need any further encouragement it can be found here.

Procrastastudy

To be fair it's a properly phrased hypothetical which makes a nice change.

Not legal advice but persona experience of a similar situation in the family - as always seek legal advise this is probably wrong.

Anyway - no its 25% (or what ever yours whoever) and you have to reach a decision by consensus not by majority. If you do rent it out bear in mind there may be significant costs involved in taxes etc. Also having another property may have implications I'm not aware of.

Carraig95

234 wrote: »

There is a strange species of professional who are steeped in the knowledge you require. If you need any further encouragement it can be found here.

With all due respect to your sarcastic comment, the strange species of 'professional' you speak of managed to withold money from the hypothethical children after the death of a parent. The children's money was invested on behalf of the 'professional' for the solicitors personal gain.

There is currently a court case pending against said 'professional'. So pardon me if I am a little bit sceptical about paying extortionate fees to someone who could end up taking advantage at the death of a loved one.

Carraig95

Procrastastudy wrote: »

To be fair it's a properly phrased hypothetical which makes a nice change.

Not legal advice but persona experience of a similar situation in the family - as always seek legal advise this is probably wrong.

Anyway - no its 25% (or what ever yours whoever) and you have to reach a decision by consensus not by majority. If you do rent it out bear in mind there may be significant costs involved in taxes etc. Also having another property may have implications I'm not aware of.

Thank you very much for your prompt response. Sure 'tis purely a hypothetical situation anyways...!!!

Procrastastudy

Carraig95 wrote: »

With all due respect to your sarcastic comment, the strange species of 'professional' you speak of managed to withold money from the hypothethical children after the death of a parent. The children's money was invested on behalf of the 'professional' for the solicitors personal gain.

There is currently a court case pending against said 'professional'. So pardon me if I am a little bit sceptical about paying extortionate fees to someone who could end up taking advantage at the death of a loved one.

Now you've gone and ruined it!

Most legal professionals are on the level - I would highly recommend having a word with a few people, getting a recommendation - and making it quite clear from day 1 you're the boss.

234

Carraig95 wrote: »

With all due respect to your sarcastic comment, the strange species of 'professional' you speak of managed to withold money from the hypothethical children after the death of a parent. The children's money was invested on behalf of the 'professional' for the solicitors personal gain.

There is currently a court case pending against said 'professional'. So pardon me if I am a little bit sceptical about paying extortionate fees to someone who could end up taking advantage at the death of a loved one.

Well since it's all hypothetical I'm sure you didn't mind. Anyway, if any of these hypothetical children ever want to see some hypothetical revenue from this hypothetical property then they might want to, hypothetically speaking of course, see a solicitor. A good one obviously, ask for recommendations from friends, family members, etc.

Carraig95

Ah fair enough!!!! Your opinions are appreciated!

I know there are plenty of good legal professionals out there, just the children in the fictional story got stuck with a solicitor (as this was the solicitor of the parent) who was know to play loose with morals and were left quite bitter.

Either way, I'm pretty sure that no movement can be made on the selling of the property unless all four come to a general consensus. Hypothetically, of course

Thanks!

Milk & Honey

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Anyway - no its 25% (or what ever yours whoever) and you have to reach a decision by consensus not by majority.

I don't know where you got this from. The executor can sell it. The executor is only obliged to take into account the views of the beneficiaries. Even if the executor doesn't sell it, any one of the four could bring a partition suit and force the sale of the property.

Procrastastudy

Milk & Honey wrote: »

I don't know where you got this from. The executor can sell it. The executor is only obliged to take into account the views of the beneficiaries. Even if the executor doesn't sell it, any one of the four could bring a partition suit and force the sale of the property.

Hence much qualifying and statement that this was just from personal experience. Also why you got a sarcy answer first OP ref charter - better that than wrong advice - luckily this was a hypothetical and I stand corrected.

Carraig95

Milk & Honey wrote: »

I don't know where you got this from. The executor can sell it. The executor is only obliged to take into account the views of the beneficiaries. Even if the executor doesn't sell it, any one of the four could bring a partition suit and force the sale of the property.

So, if there were to be a number of siblings who wished to sell, while another one or two wished not to, the ones wishing to sell can force the sale of the property?

The property in this purely fictional scenario has been held in trust for a number of years and is about to be transferred over to the adult children.

No.2

Carraig95 wrote: »

So, if there were to be a number of siblings who wished to sell, while another one or two wished not to, the ones wishing to sell can force the sale of the property?

The property in this purely fictional scenario has been held in trust for a number of years and is about to be transferred over to the adult children.

I had understood that in such circumstances section 50(1) of the Succession Act 1960 would apply and the wishes of the (adult) majority of beneficiaries of that particular asset would prevail. Section 50 states:

50.—(1) The personal representatives may sell the whole or any part of the estate of a deceased person for the purpose not only of paying debts, but also (whether there are or are not debts) of distributing the estate among the persons entitled thereto, and before selling for the purposes of distribution the personal representatives shall, so far as practicable, give effect to the wishes of the persons of full age entitled to the property proposed to be sold or, in the case of dispute, of the majority (according to the value of their combined interests) of such persons so, however, that—
(a) a purchaser shall not be concerned to see that the personal representatives have complied with such wishes; and
(b) it shall not be necessary for any person so entitled to concur in any such sale.

Milk & Honey

No.2 wrote: »

I had understood that in such circumstances section 50(1) of the Succession Act 1960 would apply and the wishes of the (adult) majority of beneficiaries of that particular asset would prevail. Section 50 states:

50.—(1) The personal representatives may sell the whole or any part of the estate of a deceased person for the purpose not only of paying debts, but also (whether there are or are not debts) of distributing the estate among the persons entitled thereto, and before selling for the purposes of distribution the personal representatives shall, so far as practicable, give effect to the wishes of the persons of full age entitled to the property proposed to be sold or, in the case of dispute, of the majority (according to the value of their combined interests) of such persons so, however, that—
(a) a purchaser shall not be concerned to see that the personal representatives have complied with such wishes; and
(b) it shall not be necessary for any person so entitled to concur in any such sale.

The executor does not follow the majority. He gives effect to the wishes as far as practicable. If the executor transfers the property to the beneficiaries any one of them can bring a partition suit and force a sale. If one of the beneficiaries wants a sale an executor would be entitled to view it as a practical solution to sell the property himself and distribute the proceeds. It would save a lot of work and expense. If any of the beneficiaries want to they can buy it themselves.