Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Forced Sale of House

  • 18-11-2017 4:52am
    #1
    Astaluka
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6 ✭


    [font=Arial, sans-serif]Hello, i hope someone can help me with a question. If a property is left in a last will and testament to 3 sons divided up 40%,30% and 30%, do all 3 people need to be in agreement to sell the property or can one of the individual\'s force a sale? There is no specific instructions in the will regarding the house except the percentages of how it's divided. The executor of the will does not live in the house, the youngest sibling does. Thank you.[/font]


Comments

  • #2
    lifeandtimes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,021 ✭✭✭lifeandtimes


    Best advice is to speak with a solicitor.

    But if the family are on good terms it may be wise to have a sit down with all them and see if someone wants to buy the other shares off the other 2 siblings?


  • #3
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,989 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    If the co-owners cannot agree about how to deal with a property, then any one of them can head off to court looking for an order for sale. The prospects of getting one are usually good; the courts recognised that having property "paralysed" and neglected because the co-owners cannot agree on what should be done with it is not good, and they will seek to break a deadlock.

    The usual ways of breaking a deadlock is that some of the co-owners buy out other co-owners, so that the property is held by a one person or by group of people who agree about what to do with it. If for whatever reason (usually lack of funds to make the purchase) that's not viable, then the default is to sell the property and split the proceeds among the co-owners.

    Either of these solutions generally plays out in a more satisfactory and cost-effective way if it happens without court proceedings, so if at al possible the co-owners should get together and try to agree a way forward on one of these two bases.


  • #4
    myshirt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    Given the youngest sibling is still in the house, I'd be looking at any promissory estoppel to make sure that sibling gets the house and the two others get nothing.


  • #5
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,989 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    myshirt wrote: »
    Given the youngest sibling is still in the house, I'd be looking at any promissory estoppel to make sure that sibling gets the house and the two others get nothing.
    The OP doesn't suggest that any express or implied promise was made to anybody, and without a promise it's hard to see how you're going to get to promisory estoppel.


  • #6
    myshirt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,245 ✭✭✭myshirt


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The OP doesn't suggest that any express or implied promise was made to anybody, and without a promise it's hard to see how you're going to get to promisory estoppel.

    The op in fact doesn't suggest anything around it. I would simply ask the question of a young person living in the home, why was it the case?

    Any prospect of promissory estoppel might be killed immediately, but I would ask it nevertheless, especially given that person is still there and a dispute is arising.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    coylemj
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,620 ✭✭✭✭coylemj


    myshirt wrote: »
    The op in fact doesn't suggest anything around it. I would simply ask the question of a young person living in the home, why was it the case?

    Maybe they stayed at home to look after the surviving parent who is now recently deceased. Maybe the other siblings asked him/her to do this. He/she may not yet have saved enough to buy a house.

    You're making it sound like they're squatting in the place. There's all sorts of good reasons why they may be still living at home.
    myshirt wrote: »
    Any prospect of promissory estoppel might be killed immediately, but I would ask it nevertheless, especially given that person is still there and a dispute is arising.

    There you go again - who said anything about a dispute?


Advertisement