7 Siblings inherit house

Irenec

Hi there,

I'm new to the board so hopefully I'm posting this question in the right place.

My Mother-In-law died last year and left the family home in Donegal to 7 siblings with equal shares, I think it's going to get messy my question is can one or more of the siblings force a sale of the house if the others don't want to sell. I know the best solution would be for the siblings who want to keep the house to just buy the other brothers and sisters out, but I'm not sure it's going to be as simple as that.

All the siblings live in Scotland and none of them live or want to live in the house.

Thanks
Irene

Marcusm

The executor is the person charged with gathering in and distributing the assets amongst the beneficiaries of a will. An executor will take account of the wishes of beneficiaries but I do not think there is anything precluding an executor from selling the house and distributing the cash rather than distributing in specie. If one of the beneficiaries was an executor, they may have more influence on what happens, ie whether to sell or not. If the property itself is transferred out into 7 names, effectively all of them would have to agree to a sale as it is highly unlikely that any 3rd party would purchase part of the house.

bduffy

In these cases one of the seven will be assigned the Executor who will have responsibility for sorting out the estate. Have a look at the Citizens Information link below:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/death/the_deceaseds_estate/dealing_with_the_deceaseds_estate.html

Duties of Executor/Administrators
Generally, you are obliged to distribute the assets as soon as possible after the death (within a year if possible - you may be sued by the beneficiaries if you do not distribute the estate within a year). This may not be possible if there are legal issues to be decided).

Jo King

bduffy wrote: »

In these cases one of the seven will be assigned the Executor who will have responsibility for sorting out the estate. Have a look at the Citizens Information link below:

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/death/the_deceaseds_estate/dealing_with_the_deceaseds_estate.html

Duties of Executor/Administrators
Generally, you are obliged to distribute the assets as soon as possible after the death (within a year if possible - you may be sued by the beneficiaries if you do not distribute the estate within a year). This may not be possible if there are legal issues to be decided).

The executor may not be one of the seven. Often a solicitor is appointed executor.
To answer the o/ps question. Any part owner can force a sale. There is no reason why any other part owner or group of part owners cannot buy. This often happens. A solicitor should be consulted to ensure that no issues of conflict of interest issues arise and that it is done in the most tax efficient
manner.

Marcusm

Jo King wrote: »

The executor may not be one of the seven. Often a solicitor is appointed executor.
To answer the o/ps question. Any part owner can force a sale. There is no reason why any other part owner or group of part owners cannot buy. This often happens. A solicitor should be consulted to ensure that no issues of conflict of interest issues arise and that it is done in the most tax efficient
manner.

Would you be able to expand on this? I can see how a part owner can block a sale but cannot see how any person can, in the absence of agreement, be compelled to dispose of property of any sort (except CPO etc).

Jo King

Marcusm wrote: »

Would you be able to expand on this? I can see how a part owner can block a sale but cannot see how any person can, in the absence of agreement, be compelled to dispose of property of any sort (except CPO etc).

LAND AND CONVEYANCING LAW REFORM ACT 2009
31.- (1) Any person having an estate or interest in land which is co-owned whether at law or in equity may apply to the court for an order under this section.

(2) An order under this section includes-

[PA 1868][PA 1876]

(a) an order for partition of the land amongst the co-owners,

(b) an order for the taking of an account of incumbrances affecting the land, if any, and the making of inquiries as to the respective priorities of any such incumbrances,

(c) an order for sale of the land and distribution of the proceeds of sale as the court directs,

[AJA 1707, s. 23]

(d) an order directing that accounting adjustments be made as between the co-owners,

(e) an order dispensing with consent to severance of a joint tenancy as required by section 30 where such consent is being unreasonably withheld,

(f) such other order relating to the land as appears to the court to be just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.

Marcusm

Jo King wrote: »

LAND AND CONVEYANCING LAW REFORM ACT 2009
31.- (1) Any person having an estate or interest in land which is co-owned whether at law or in equity may apply to the court for an order under this section.

(2) An order under this section includes-

[PA 1868][PA 1876]

(a) an order for partition of the land amongst the co-owners,

(b) an order for the taking of an account of incumbrances affecting the land, if any, and the making of inquiries as to the respective priorities of any such incumbrances,

(c) an order for sale of the land and distribution of the proceeds of sale as the court directs,

[AJA 1707, s. 23]

(d) an order directing that accounting adjustments be made as between the co-owners,

(e) an order dispensing with consent to severance of a joint tenancy as required by section 30 where such consent is being unreasonably withheld,

(f) such other order relating to the land as appears to the court to be just and equitable in the circumstances of the case.

Is that commonly used? It might not be a meaningful remedy where relatively low valued properties are concerned, i.e. costs of high court/circuit court action may exceed the realisable value of the 1/7th (in this case).

Jo King

Marcusm wrote: »

Is that commonly used? It might not be a meaningful remedy where relatively low valued properties are concerned, i.e. costs of high court/circuit court action may exceed the realisable value of the 1/7th (in this case).

In most cases the executor sells the house so there is no need to resort to court. The point is that those beneficiaries who want a sale can't be kept locked in. Their siblings have got to put up or shut up. The executor asks the beneficiaries whether they want the the house or the cash. If some want the cash then the house is either sold to the beneficiaries who want to keep it at an agreed value or else put on the open market and the if any beneficiaries want to keep it they must match the highest bid.

nuac

Good advice here especially from Jo King.

One further suggestion, based on a lifetime at the law

You are an in-law, not one of the deceased's children?.

Stay well out of it. Do not attend any family meetings

In my time I have been asked to attend such meetings. I always insisted that spouses and other relatives be excluded

Victor

nuac wrote: »

In my time I have been asked to attend such meetings. I always insisted that spouses and other relatives be excluded

One needs to be careful. While in-laws can be greedy and bullying, so can siblings. Given family histories, there are often power imbalances, in particular the eldest is often looked up to, other older siblings resented and the 'baby' is molly-coddled.

MadsL

I know of a family where 12 grandchildren own a house. This has worked remarkably well, with different children living in the house at different times. I would not be hasty to sell in such a depressed market.

Irenec

Thanks everyone for all your help especially Jo King.

Nuac I get what you're saying I am staying well out of it, if all the spouses stuck their nose in 7 opinions become 14, it's going to be messy enough, my husband just asked me to find out if he and his Sister could be forced to keep the house if they wanted to sell.

Thanks again

Irene

Andrea B.

Sorry to hijack, but there seems to be so much knowledge and possible similarities within this thread. With regards to my cousins, the estate is willed to all 6 of them. 2 of them are joint executors. One executor is recently saying that she wants the house to live in (not there at present) and proposes independent valuations of house and then pay the average of these.

The other executor, wants it to go to open market, in the interest of transparency and fairness and then let the other executor follow highest bid, which should represent market value.

However, the executor who wants to buy is still trying to convince other family members that her proposal is the way to go, without mentioning a price. Can this go on "forever" (it is now one year since Aunt died), or is open-market the default-route in these cases?

Brownhead

It is well established that an executor who wants to buy property in the estate has to do so at arms length and be scrupulously fair. Executors are expected to wind up an estate within a reasonable time. After a year there should be some move on.

WoollyRedHat

It is subsequently vacant? Can it not be rented temporarily? What are the practicalitiies of allowing the sibling who wants to live in it, to rent for now?

CIARAN_BOYLE

Andrea B. wrote: »

Sorry to hijack, but there seems to be so much knowledge and possible similarities within this thread. With regards to my cousins, the estate is willed to all 6 of them. 2 of them are joint executors. One executor is recently saying that she wants the house to live in (not there at present) and proposes independent valuations of house and then pay the average of these.

The other executor, wants it to go to open market, in the interest of transparency and fairness and then let the other executor follow highest bid, which should represent market value.

However, the executor who wants to buy is still trying to convince other family members that her proposal is the way to go, without mentioning a price. Can this go on "forever" (it is now one year since Aunt died), or is open-market the default-route in these cases?

The transaction should occur at arms length. Either the open market or the average of a number of independent valuations should work and the executers would have to decide amoung themselves.

Andrea B.

Many thanks folks!

Either the open market or the average of a number of independent valuations should work

Is there a default, in the eyes of the probate office / law of those 2 options, in a fluid selling area?

Brownhead

Andrea B. wrote: »

Many thanks folks!



Is there a default, in the eyes of the probate office / law of those 2 options, in a fluid selling area?

There is no rule as such. There are just principles. An executor who is not careful could be successfully sued by annoyed beneficiaries. The courts impose a high standard on executors because they are in a position of trust.The executor who wants to buy should stay out of the valuation process in order to avoid a potential lawsuit.