Inheritance -

shivprobate

Hi All

Hoping to get some legal advice regarding the execution of a will, text is as follows:

" I [John + standard will wording around being of sound mind etc] hereby nominate, constitute and appoint my lawful son [Paul] to be the executor of this, my last will. I direct my said executor to pay all of my just debts, funeral and testamentary expenses as a first charge out of my estate. In that case also, I will divise and bequeath my dwelling house and all the realty which I own at [location ROI] unto my aforesaid lawful son, and same to be his property absolutely, but charged however with the payment of [200k] unto my estate and same is to be divided equally among [9 people] and same to be divided between them in equal shares and to share and share alike same as tenants in common and not as joint tenants and same to be their property absolutely. As the rest residue and remainder of my estate as whatsoever kind and wheresover situate, seized possessed of or entitled to, I will divise or bequeath equally amongst same persons [9people as above] and same to be divided between them in equal shares and to share and share alike same as tenants in common."

What does this mean? The interpretation is that Paulgets the property and has to pay circa 22k to each of the 9 named people; or could it be (with the tenants in common etc) that we all have a share in the house?

Also the situation has now devolved to the point where Paul (who owns 2 properties, has retired early, is based in Portugal to avoid paying tax on his already significant earnings, and is in the process of buying a house there), is claiming to not have enough money to pay me the 22k which the will states he must. He has not paid anyone else and everyone is too afraid to ask for their share as he is saying he will have to sell the family home in order to pay even one portion of the 22k.

So my first question is (i) is the will saying that Paul absolutely owns the property and must give everyone 22k, or does everyone own the property?

(ii) if paul owns the property, i suppose he is within his rights to threaten to sell same as he 'cannot afford' to pay out 22k? (to avoid dipping into his own pockets)?

(iii) as paul is based in portugal to avoid paying tax, does anyone think that selling the house is an empty threat, because selling the property will cause him to incur even more tax on his assets via capital gains tax?

The house is definitely worth over half a million, perhaps even 1 million as it was built in the 1800's, is relatively well maintained and has 7 bedrooms and by the sea with an orchard. Paul's two other properties are in Sweden and must be worth .75m put together. The portuguese property is about 300k. I understand that he may be cash poor, asset rich right now.

My ideal situation is that everyone in the family (the 9 named people and John) have an equal share in the property, as it makes paying for the upkeep of same less painful and means we're not pouring money into something which we don't own but want to keep in repair from the emotional attachment.

nuac

Mod
Is this a genuine case? I wonder.
If genuine there may be sufficient information to identify properties and persons concerned
Will leave open for general discussion subject to forum rule on legal advice

Peregrinus

When you leave property to X, "charged with" payment of of a stated amount to Y, X and Y do not become joint owners of the property. Rather, X owns the property, but he owes the stated amount to Y and, if he doesn't pay it, Y can take enforcement proceedings which can include getting a court order for the sale of the house, and the payment of the the stated amount to Y (and the balance of the sale proceeds to X).

In other words, Y isn't a co-owner of the house. His position is more like that of a lender with a mortgage over the house.

This doesn't change if Y is a group of people rather than just one person.

So, any of the nine people can take court proceedings for the payment of what is owed to them (or they can all bring proceedings together, which will be more efficient) and seeking an order that, if they are not paid, the house is to be sold so that they can be paid out of the proceeds.

As they are not co-owners of the house they would be mad to spend any money maintaining or repairing it. That's just making a gift to the owner. They do not care if it degrades in value, so long as it does not degrade to a point where it is worth less than 200k.

shivprobate

Peregrinus wrote: »

When you leave property to X, "charged with" payment of of a stated amount to Y, X and Y do not become joint owners of the property. Rather, X owns the property, but he owes the stated amount to Y and, if he doesn't pay it, Y can take enforcement proceedings which can include getting a court order for the sale of the house, and the payment of the the stated amount to Y (and the balance of the sale proceeds to X).

In other words, Y isn't a co-owner of the house. His position is more like that of a lender with a mortgage over the house.

This doesn't change if Y is a group of people rather than just one person.

So, any of the nine people can take court proceedings for the payment of what is owed to them (or they can all bring proceedings together, which will be more efficient) and seeking an order that, if they are not paid, the house is to be sold so that they can be paid out of the proceeds.

As they are not co-owners of the house they would be mad to spend any money maintaining or repairing it. That's just making a gift to the owner. They do not care if it degrades in value, so long as it does not degrade to a point where it is worth less than 200k.

Thanks a mill for this. Thought it was the case but wasn't sure