Siblings left family home

karmafi

2 siblings have been left their family home, which neither have lived in for some time but both have expressed an interest in buying the other out. Both are adamant they want they house and are not reaching an agreement as to who buys who out.
What is usually the situation in cases like this?

Tia

Deeec

The best solution would be to sell it with neither sibling being allowed buy it.

karmafi

Deeec wrote: »

The best solution would be to sell it with neither sibling being allowed buy it.

Can they legally be excluded from buying or would it just be a formal agreement?

athlone573

karmafi wrote: »

Can they legally be excluded from buying or would it just be a formal agreement?

Put it up for auction and let them bid against each other

Allinall

It’s the duty of the executor of the will to divide up the estate.
They obviously can’t cut the house in two, so in the absence of an agreement between the beneficiaries, the house would have to be sold, and the proceeds split.

Obviously either sibling would be entitled to buy the house, once they paid market price.
They would then receive 50% back as their inheritance.

karmafi

athlone573 wrote: »

Put it up for auction and let them bid against each other

Looks like it might the easiest solution.

karmafi

Allinall wrote: »

It’s the duty of the executor of the will to divide up the estate.
They obviously can’t cut the house in two, so in the absence of an agreement between the beneficiaries, the house would have to be sold, and the proceeds split.

Obviously either sibling would be entitled to buy the house, once they paid market price.
They would then receive 50% back as their inheritance.

Thank you for that , yes I do think that is the sensible option. Its just a shame to see the house possibly ending up with neither sibling.

Atlantic Dawn

Get both to agree to a coin toss as to who can buy at agreed market rate, otherwise let it go to open market or auction in which case either can buy but will be competing with others.

coylemj

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Get both to agree to a coin toss as to who can buy at agreed market rate ......

The fault in that proposal is that the person who loses the coin toss can back out of the agreement. Because a contract based on chance (in this case, the toss of a coin) is void. So there is no way to force him or her to fulfill the deal.

Put it up for auction, that's the only way to ensure that it achieves 'market rate'.

Flinty997

Put it on the open market. I'm not entirely sure why you'd give a sibling a "deal" that the others won't get.

Bicyclette

athlone573 wrote: »

Put it up for auction and let them bid against each other

Either that or have a closed bidding event with just the two of them participating. Get an independent solicitor to organise it. Get both of them to sign an agreement that the highest bidder gets the house and must buy out the other person.

karmafi

Thanks all for your input on this, it is appreciated.
I'd imagine it'll have to go to auction. It seems like the fairest option.

antoinolachtnai

All the technical options are really there laid out.

There will be a winner and a loser. There is nothing wrong with this providing both parties can live with it.

The job of those helping this family to make sure that they can in fact both live with it and that this disagreement does not lead to a wider dispute.

It is important that both parties understand and have discussed the possibilities, preferably with each other. For example, unless both parties are happy with the possibility that some third party will outbid then both then they might not want it going to public auction!

If they can discuss and understand each others points of view, so much the better

The important thing is that everybody can move on after this.

coylemj

karmafi wrote: »

Thanks all for your input on this, it is appreciated.
I'd imagine it'll have to go to auction. It seems like the fairest option.

+1 on the face of it, the sealed bid option suggested by poster bicyclette (post #11) has it's merits. It eliminates the cost of advertising and auctioneer's fees. But there is a risk that the sibling who submits the lower bid, could, in true 'sore loser' fashion decide that he could have made more money if the place had gone to public auction. So he could sue the executor for his perceived financial loss. All he has to do is get a couple of paper valuations claiming the place is worth more. And the executor wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Because he'd have a job trying to convince a judge that the higher bid from a restricted pool of just two bidders represented the true market value of the house.

It's worth bearing in mind that the motives of each of the siblings could be less 'I want the house' and more that 'he doesn't get it'.

So if the executor doesn't want to get hit in the crossfire, I'd say the only safe way to dispose of the house is via public auction.

Billgirlylegs

karmafi wrote: »

2 siblings have been left their family home, which neither have lived in for some time but both have expressed an interest in buying the other out. Both are adamant they want they house and are not reaching an agreement as to who buys who out.
What is usually the situation in cases like this?

Tia

How was it "left" ie is there a will and how was the bequest worded

If there is a will, then the executor of the will "stands in the shoes" of the deceased owner takes instruction from the will and deals with all assets.

If there is no will...............

Claw Hammer

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

If there is no will...............

If there is no will, there is no executor.

Billgirlylegs

Claw Hammer wrote: »

If there is no will, there is no executor.

I meant if there is no will, resolving this will not happen.

Claw Hammer

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

I meant if there is no will, resolving this will not happen.

If there is no will, there will have to be a grant of administration. The result will be the same. Either they behave like family members should or the place will be sold.

Peregrinus

And (on the assumption that the two siblings are the nearest relatives who are between them equally entitled to the entire estate) the two siblings are equally entitled to apply for a grant of probate. Either one applies with the consent of the other, or they both apply jointly. Which means they'll need to agree about the application for the grant. Which, realistically, they won't do, unless they can agree about how the house is to be dealt with.

So the options are:

(a) They reach agreement.

(b) They don't reach agreement; one of them heads off to court; expensive court proceedings ensue; the court orders the sale of the house at auction, the payment of the legal costs out of the sale proceeds, the division of whatever is left between the two siblings.

(c) They don't reach agreement; neither of them goes to court; the house moulders until it falls down; then the ruins moulder.

coylemj

Peregrinus wrote: »

And (on the assumption that the two siblings are the nearest relatives who are between them equally entitled to the entire estate) the two siblings are equally entitled to apply for a grant of probate.

There is nothing to indicate that this is a case of intestacy. It was never suggested by the OP and only raised as a possibility by poster Billgirlylegs in post #15.

The OP said the two siblings were 'left' the house. Which I would take to indicate a bequest i.e. there is a will.

Peregrinus

coylemj wrote: »

There is nothing to indicate that this is a case of intestacy. It was never suggested by the OP and only raised as a possibility by poster Billgirlylegs in post #15.

The OP said the two siblings were 'left' the house. Which I would take to indicate a bequest i.e. there is a will.

My mistake; I thought the OP had confirmed that there was no will.

If there was a will, it will presumably have named an executor. That person can apply for a grant. If the will was drafted with even a moderate degree of competence, the executor will have a power of sale. In which case he can say to the siblings "You can agree to ask me to transfer the property to the two of you jointly, or you can agree that one of you will buy the other out and you can tell me to transfer the property to that one. If you don't instruct me to do one or other of those things within 6 months I'm going to sell the property by public auction, discharge the expenses of the estate and divide the net proceeds between the two of you."

Buddy Bubs

Sibling A will have a price where they are happy to sell their half to sibling B

Sibling B will have their price to sell too.....

Once this is established, it will fall into place....

SusanC10

Peregrinus wrote: »

My mistake; I thought the OP had confirmed that there was no will.

If there was a will, it will presumably have named an executor. That person can apply for a grant. If the will was drafted with even a moderate degree of competence, the executor will have a power of sale. In which case he can say to the siblings "You can agree to ask me to transfer the property to the two of you jointly, or you can agree that one of you will buy the other out and you can tell me to transfer the property to that one. If you don't instruct me to do one or other of those things within 6 months I'm going to sell the property by public auction, discharge the expenses of the estate and divide the net proceeds between the two of you."

What if one of the Siblings is the Executor ?

Peregrinus

SusanC10 wrote: »

What if one of the Siblings is the Executor ?

He can refuse to agree to sell his share to the other sibling at any price. The other sibling can, and presumably will, likewise refuse.

That narrows the options down to two: he can transfer the property to himself and his sibling in joint names, or he can sell and divide the proceeds. He would be mad to do anything but the latter.

He should get written confirmation from the other sibling that the other sibling is not willing to sell his share of the property to him, and (ideally) that the other sibling does not wish to be a joint owner of the property with him.

coylemj

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

Sibling A will have a price where they are happy to sell their half to sibling B

Sibling B will have their price to sell too.....

Once this is established, it will fall into place....

First thread, second sentence .....

karmafi wrote: »

Both are adamant they want they house and are not reaching an agreement as to who buys who out.

Calahonda52

They could easily spend 100k on legal and other fees just screwing around here, all of which will come from their inheritance.
Have seen it many times.

athlone573

Let's call them Bill and Ben and assume Bill is the executor

Presumably Bill has a set of keys and is stalling the process

If Ben wants the property (or wants it sold) how can he force this? High Court? Who pays the legal costs?

coylemj

SusanC10 wrote: »

What if one of the Siblings is the Executor ?

athlone573 wrote: »

Let's call them Bill and Ben and assume Bill is the executor

All of the posts tendering advice to the OP have assumed that the executor is a different person.

We've now been deflected by speculation that there is no will or that one of the siblings is the executor.

I'm pretty sure that the OP would have indicated at this stage if one of the siblings was the executor.

athlone573

Fair enough then it makes the decision easier, the executor then just needs to make sure they fulfill their legal obligations to get a market price and I assume they would prefer not to cause unnecessary aggravation while doing so.

twowheelsonly

coylemj wrote: »

+1 on the face of it, the sealed bid option suggested by poster bicyclette (post #11) has it's merits. It eliminates the cost of advertising and auctioneer's fees. But there is a risk that the sibling who submits the lower bid, could, in true 'sore loser' fashion decide that he could have made more money if the place had gone to public auction. So he could sue the executor for his perceived financial loss. All he has to do is get a couple of paper valuations claiming the place is worth more. And the executor wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Because he'd have a job trying to convince a judge that the higher bid from a restricted pool of just two bidders represented the true market value of the house.

It's worth bearing in mind that the motives of each of the siblings could be less 'I want the house' and more that 'he doesn't get it'.

So if the executor doesn't want to get hit in the crossfire, I'd say the only safe way to dispose of the house is via public auction.

It would be hard for him to win his case based on the highlighted part of your post.
A house (or anything !!) is worth what you are willing to pay for it. By submitting a lower bid this brother is saying that in his opinion the house is worth X. It would be very hard for him to claim in court that in his opinion the house should be worth X + 1.

IMO, put the house on the open market or to public auction and if either of the brothers really wants it they'll buy it. Better to do this ASAP. Plenty of houses around the country have been left to go to wrack and ruin precisely because of this situation.

Calahonda52

twowheelsonly wrote: »

It would be hard for him to win his case based on the highlighted part of your post.
A house (or anything !!) is worth what you are willing to pay for it. By submitting a lower bid this brother is saying that in his opinion the house is worth X. It would be very hard for him to claim in court that in his opinion the house should be worth X + 1.

IMO, put the house on the open market or to public auction and if either of the brothers really wants it they'll buy it. Better to do this ASAP. Plenty of houses around the country have been left to go to wrack and ruin precisely because of this situation.

Sueing and winning are two different things: I have one in my relations where its going on 15 years and the legals are close to 1.5 million: okay big estate but nothing distributed yet.