Siblings left family home

karmafi · 27-06-2021 4:21pm #1

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 · 27-06-2021 4:22pm

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

karmafi · 27-06-2021 4:30pm

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 · 27-06-2021 4:32pm

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 · 27-06-2021 4:37pm

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 · 27-06-2021 4:37pm

athlone573 wrote: »

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

Looks like it might the easiest solution.

karmafi · 27-06-2021 4:44pm

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 · 27-06-2021 4:52pm

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 · 27-06-2021 5:00pm

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 · 27-06-2021 5:02pm

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 · 27-06-2021 5:06pm

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 · 28-06-2021 10:18am

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 · 28-06-2021 10:38am

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 · 28-06-2021 11:29am

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 · 28-06-2021 11:34am

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 · 28-06-2021 3:41pm

Billgirlylegs wrote: »

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

If there is no will, there is no executor.

Billgirlylegs · 28-06-2021 4:49pm

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 · 28-06-2021 5:34pm

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 · 29-06-2021 4:55am

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 · 29-06-2021 11:13am

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 · 29-06-2021 11:48am

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 · 29-06-2021 11:52am

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 · 29-06-2021 11:53am

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 · 29-06-2021 11:58am

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 · 29-06-2021 12:03pm

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 · 29-06-2021 12:05pm

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 · 29-06-2021 12:06pm

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 · 29-06-2021 12:07pm

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 · 29-06-2021 12:13pm

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 · 29-06-2021 12:15pm

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 · 29-06-2021 12:20pm

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.

Bass Reeves · 29-06-2021 12:23pm

The executor needs to sit the two beneficiaries down and give it hem limited options. As they cannot agree that either bits the other out. Then it's down to the he executor to give them the options. Sealed biding is not an option as it's too risky for sour grapes.

Option 1 a closed sale/auction, both beneficiaries put up a bidding deposit of 10k. A solicitor accepts bids and highest bidder gets the house and the sale is completed.

Option 2 an open sale/auction where both can bid but so can other bidders

Option 3 an open sale/auction where neither can bid. However it would be virtually impossible for to police as one beneficiary could still buy the house through another party and transfer it into to his own name after.

Give them Option 1&2 and state in case of no agreement Option two will happem

coylemj · 29-06-2021 12:48pm

twowheelsonly wrote: »

A house (or anything !!) is worth what you are willing to pay for it.

Disagree, it's worth what the market is prepared to pay for it. 'You' is just one person. Who is constrained by how much he has to spend.

twowheelsonly wrote: »

By submitting a lower bid this brother is saying that in his opinion the house is worth X.

What you bid for something is what you hope you can get it for, it is not a declaration of it's true value.

Buddy Bubs · 29-06-2021 1:42pm

coylemj wrote: »

First thread, second sentence .....

I'm not buying the theory that either of them won't sell for any price....it's worth more to one than the other.

If its just being deliberately difficult and they are not behaving rationally then there's very little that can be done except make legal people rich and put themselves in the poor house.

coylemj · 29-06-2021 1:59pm

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

I'm not buying the theory that either of them won't sell for any price....it's worth more to one than the other.

Or, as I speculated in post #14 …

coylemj wrote: »

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'.

Buddy Bubs wrote: »

If its just being deliberately difficult and they are not behaving rationally then there's very little that can be done except make legal people rich and put themselves in the poor house.

Not true. The executor can give them a deadline to agree a price and one sells his half to the other, failing which the executor can sell the house by public auction and split the money between them.

Claw Hammer · 29-06-2021 3:03pm

the executor is only required to take account of the views of the beneficiaries, not take orders from them. It appears to me that the only reason either of them wants the house is so the other doesn't have it.

CoBo55 · 29-06-2021 3:09pm

Can the house be conveyed into both their names, the remaining monies distributed equally and leave them to it?

3DataModem · 30-06-2021 6:40am

athlone573 wrote: »

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

By having the executor removed from his position, on the basis that he is failing in his duties to execute the will. This is hard and expensive: https://www.irishexaminer.com/farming/arid-40208186.html

Once a year has passed (the grace period that applies in most cases) the executor becomes personally liable for any loss incurred by the beneficiaries due to his wilful mishandling of the estate. For example, if the housing market crashes 18 months after the death and the executor has clearly been delaying for no reason other than spite/malice/laziness despite the beneficiaries chasing them, they could be sued for the "loss" in value by the other beneficiary.

(Shaughnessy v Shaughnessy (2016) IEHC 303)

Peregrinus · 30-06-2021 6:46am

CoBo55 wrote: »

Can the house be conveyed into both their names, the remaining monies distributed equally and leave them to it?

Even if possible, this isn't a good solution because it leaves the two beneficiaries, who cannot agree, tied to one another and each dependent on the other in order to preserve/enhance/make use of the inheritance they have received. The stand-off will likely continue, the house will continue to deteriorate, and both will continue to lose value. There's a sporting chance that, sooner or later, it will occur to one or other of them to blame the executor for this state of affairs, which was easily avoidable.

Whereas if you sell the house and divvy up the money, each sibling gets a capital payment that he can deal with as he pleases, without needing the agreement, approval or co-operation of the other. No guarantee that they will be happy about that, but at least it avoids needless destruction of value and draws a line under the whole sorry business.

30-06-2021 10:22am

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

I’m curious to know would one sibling be in a much stronger position than the other to buy the property?

If so then it’s likely a forgone conclusion if house went for auction or sale. Depending on the property location it could go for much more than asking price due to current market and possibly neither of them would be in a position to buy it. If both have considerable means then it sounds like the property will go for silly money way over asking price as the two play auction chicken with each other.
They might need to take all this into account and decide is it worth it. IMHO, it’s best it’s sold on to someone else and proceeds divided equally- that’s if they want to remain on good terms in the future.

Claw Hammer · 30-06-2021 11:14am

CoBo55 wrote: »

Can the house be conveyed into both their names, the remaining monies distributed equally and leave them to it?

The executor could do that if were were no debts in the estate but each would have to be willing to accept being a joint owner, at least at the start. As joint owners either could force the sale. Most likely, in such a scenario, the executor would put the house on the open market. Either of them could bid in the knowledge that they will only have to pay half the amount of money they bid, thus giving them an advantage over other potential purchasers.

karmafi · 30-06-2021 1:51pm

Hi all ,
just to clarify both siblings are executors and the estate is to be split equally between them.
Thanks again for all the input &#55357;&#56397;

coylemj · 30-06-2021 4:32pm

karmafi wrote: »

Hi all ,
just to clarify both siblings are executors and the estate is to be split equally between them.

That sounds like it could get very messy. A lot of us assumed that the executor was a third person. Who would legally be in a position to make a decision to sell the house and divide the proceeds.

Is each of them still holding out to buy out the other sibling's half? If so, looks like the legal profession will be the eventual winner of the standoff.

antoinolachtnai · 30-06-2021 5:31pm

coylemj wrote: »

That sounds like it could get very messy. A lot of us assumed that the executor was a third person. Who would legally be in a position to make a decision to sell the house and divide the proceeds.

Is each of them still holding out to buy out the other sibling's half? If so, looks like the legal profession will be the eventual winner of the standoff.

This is not really a problem that legal advice or even a judge can properly solve. What is really needed is skilled and thoughtful mediation.

Won’t be cheap but cheaper and likely to have a better outcome than any alternative.

CoBo55 · 30-06-2021 5:59pm

karmafi wrote: »

Hi all ,
just to clarify both siblings are executors and the estate is to be split equally between them.
Thanks again for all the input ��

Oh Lord that's a tricky one, where do you stand in all of this, are you related?

athlone573 · 30-06-2021 6:10pm

At least and if I'm not wrong, you can't sue yourself so the potential for protracted and expensive litigation is diminished.

CoBo55 · 30-06-2021 6:34pm

Does the Will state that specifically? It's unusual that a clear directive isn't made regarding the house, house sold and everything divided equally etc.

karmafi · 30-06-2021 7:19pm

Unfortunately no other directions other than everything split equally.
Realistically though a bitter battle will only lead to a sibling split and a costly lesson learned.
Sitting down for mediation would definitely help get both to lay their cards on the table and hopefully a resolve can be found.

Peregrinus · 01-07-2021 3:18am

athlone573 wrote: »

At least and if I'm not wrong, you can't sue yourself so the potential for protracted and expensive litigation is diminished.

Not at all; it's enhanced. If the siblings are unable to agree and there is no separate executor who can break the deadlock by, e.g., selling the house then really the only way this gets resolved is in court.

You can't sue yourself but if the executors are deadlocked either of them can apply to court looking for directions on the administration of the estate that will lead, by an amazing coincidence, to the estate being administered the way they want. And the co-executor can oppose that application, and cross-apply for the directions they want. And it all kicks off.

athlone573 · 01-07-2021 10:50am

Amnt I glad this is the legal discussion forum and not the legal advice forum so.

Claw Hammer · 01-07-2021 11:59am

athlone573 wrote: »

At least and if I'm not wrong, you can't sue yourself so the potential for protracted and expensive litigation is diminished.

You can't sue yourself but that doesn't mean there can't be acrimonious litigation concerning the estate. They may be joint executors but they are separate legal personalities as beneficiaries.

Siblings left family home

Comments