"Evicting" family member from inherited house

rawn

Op, if you do plan on bundling up his belongings, take photos and make a list of EVERYTHING so he doesn't claim you "broke his PS4" or his "Rolex is missing".

Spanish Eyes

<mod snip >

The OP has said s/he needs the proceeds for funding health issues, and that, combined with the information we have been given as to why uncle was disinherited are enough grounds to have him evicted.

The house belongs to OP. It doesn't belong to the uncle.

Some people can be freeloaders or bitter or mad or evil or just "take it for granted" kind of people.

But at the end of the day, it is the OP's decision, and it sounds like s/he will need all the help they can get to sort this out.

athtrasna

Forestgirl do not post on this thread again. Please familiarise yourself with the forum charter before posting in A&P.

Mod

Markcheese

I think what spieseg said above maybe a good secondary route- make it uncomfortable as is reasonably possible, but go the solicitor route too..
Is there anyone rational who will talk to him ... before "the roof comes off "
The only other thing is are you prepared for it to get and remain nasty?
Especially if you're preoccupied with health issues...
Try make sure you talk to as many family as you can too.. because just because they all know hes a dick.. wont stop him painting you as the villain..

CreepingDeath

This is just a google search result from a simple Google query along the lines of "Contest will time limit Ireland".... it does suggest a time limit of 12 years ?

Time Limit Contesting will

wrote:

The Statute of limitations Act 1957 applies in relation to this and it is 12 years unless there has been a fraud on the part of the personal representative in which case there is no limit
Section 45.—(1) Subject to section 46 of this Act, no action in respect of any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in such estate, whether under a will or on intestacy, shall be brought after the expiration of twelve years from the date when the right to receive the share or interest accrued.

6.—No period of limitation fixed by this Act shall apply to an action against a personal representative or any person claiming through him where the claim is founded on any fraud to which the personal representative was party or privy.

I've absolutely no legal background... this is just a google search result.

But you claim he lived "rent free for 10 years".
The truth is that you only owned the house for 1-2 years.
If he lived rent free in his parents house, that's none of your concern, only the time you legally owned the house. You can't begrudge a parent for looking after their children, even when they are adults.

I can imagine if he lived there for 10 years, and you start legal proceedings to kick him out, he "might" contest the will, if the above web link result is correct.
But as everyone is saying, get proper legal advice from a solicitor.

All things being equal, he should have been first in line for inheriting the house as the son, especially if he lived the previous 8-9 years there.

But I'm not connected to law at all, talk to a professional.

foggy_lad

CreepingDeath wrote: »

<snip>
But you claim he lived "rent free for 10 years".
The truth is that you only owned the house for 1-2 years.
If he lived rent free in his parents house, that's none of your concern, only the time you legally owned the house. You can't begrudge a parent for looking after their children, even when they are adults.

I can imagine if he lived there for 10 years, and you start legal proceedings to kick him out, he "might" contest the will, if the above web link result is correct.
But as everyone is saying, get proper legal advice from a solicitor.

All things being equal, he should have been first in line for inheriting the house as the son, especially if he lived the previous 8-9 years there.

But I'm not connected to law at all, talk to a professional.

He lived there after the parent's death for ten years despite having no right to, he knew the house was left to the OP, the OP was not old enough to take ownership of the house when it was left to her.

J.pilkington

What about offering him money (a few thousand) which would be payable after a successful sale if he leaves within the next 3 months and doesn't interfere with the sale.

Appreciate he is a prick and he would be "winning" but it could be the cheapest option in the long run not to mention the stress you would avoid

4ensic15

CreepingDeath wrote: »

This is just a google search result from a simple Google query along the lines of "Contest will time limit Ireland".... it does suggest a time limit of 12 years ?

Time Limit Contesting will




I've absolutely no legal background... this is just a google search result.

But you claim he lived "rent free for 10 years".
The truth is that you only owned the house for 1-2 years.
If he lived rent free in his parents house, that's none of your concern, only the time you legally owned the house. You can't begrudge a parent for looking after their children, even when they are adults.

I can imagine if he lived there for 10 years, and you start legal proceedings to kick him out, he "might" contest the will, if the above web link result is correct.
But as everyone is saying, get proper legal advice from a solicitor.

All things being equal, he should have been first in line for inheriting the house as the son, especially if he lived the previous 8-9 years there.

But I'm not connected to law at all, talk to a professional.

That does not give him a right to contest the will. It only allows him, if he was left something in the will and never given it, to make a claim. He had 6 months after the grant of probate to claim that adequate provision was not made for him under Section 117 of the Succession Act.

HelenV

CreepingDeath wrote: »

This is just a google search result from a simple Google query along the lines of "Contest will time limit Ireland".... it does suggest a time limit of 12 years ?

Time Limit Contesting will




I've absolutely no legal background... this is just a google search result.

But you claim he lived "rent free for 10 years".
The truth is that you only owned the house for 1-2 years.
If he lived rent free in his parents house, that's none of your concern, only the time you legally owned the house. You can't begrudge a parent for looking after their children, even when they are adults.

I can imagine if he lived there for 10 years, and you start legal proceedings to kick him out, he "might" contest the will, if the above web link result is correct.
But as everyone is saying, get proper legal advice from a solicitor.

All things being equal, he should have been first in line for inheriting the house as the son, especially if he lived the previous 8-9 years there.

But I'm not connected to law at all, talk to a professional.

It seems the OP has not returned to this site since first days of posting so hopefully she's gone to her legal adviser.

Regarding the 12 year window for contesting a Will - this seems crazy! A Section 117 must be lodged within 2 years of the date of Grant of Probate. A S117 could be lodged by the uncle that his parents failed to make just and proper provision for him under their estate(s). He could simply be waiting until the eve of the 2nd anniversary of the issuing of the Probate to make his claim.

Also the fact that he has stayed in the property for 10 years rent free could well be irrelevant. If he was asked to leave or rent was demanded by the OP she would have been exercising her right as legal owner so the clock would stop on the period of his squatting.

Legal matters are really complicated and it's rather foolish to be recommending fireside lawyers.

4ensic15

HelenV wrote: »

It seems the OP has not returned to this site since first days of posting so hopefully she's gone to her legal adviser.

Regarding the 12 year window for contesting a Will - this seems crazy! A Section 117 must be lodged within 2 years of the date of Grant of Probate. A S117 could be lodged by the uncle that his parents failed to make just and proper provision for him under their estate(s). He could simply be waiting until the eve of the 2nd anniversary of the issuing of the Probate to make his claim.

Also the fact that he has stayed in the property for 10 years rent free could well be irrelevant. If he was asked to leave or rent was demanded by the OP she would have been exercising her right as legal owner so the clock would stop on the period of his squatting.

Legal matters are really complicated and it's rather foolish to be recommending fireside lawyers.

A Section 117 must be commenced within 6 months of the Grant of Probate so he is not waiting until the eve of the second anniversary to make a claim.

HelenV

4ensic15 wrote: »

That does not give him a right to contest the will. It only allows him, if he was left something in the will and never given it, to make a claim. He had 6 months after the grant of probate to claim that adequate provision was not made for him under Section 117 of the Succession Act.

Does that six month time limit not apply to a spouse only who may not have received their full entitlement under a Will, after being put on notice by the estate of this fact? Aside from that my understanding is 2 years for a S117.

4ensic15

HelenV wrote: »

Does that six month time limit not apply to a spouse only who may not have received their full entitlement under a Will, after being put on notice by the estate of this fact? Aside from that my understanding is 2 years for a S117.

Succession Act, 1965
117.—(1) Where, on application by or on behalf of a child of a testator, the court is of opinion that the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means, whether by his will or otherwise, the court may order that such provision shall be made for the child out of the estate as the court thinks just.

(2) The court shall consider the application from the point of view of a prudent and just parent, taking into account the position of each of the children of the testator and any other circumstances which the court may consider of assistance in arriving at a decision that will be as fair as possible to the child to whom the application relates and to the other children.

(3) An order under this section shall not affect the legal right of a surviving spouse or, if the surviving spouse is the mother or father of the child, any devise or bequest to the spouse or any share to which the spouse is entitled on intestacy.

(4) Rules of court shall provide for the conduct of proceedings under this section in a summary manner.

(5) The costs in the proceedings shall be at the discretion of the court.

(6) An order under this section shall not be made except on an application made within twelve months from the first taking out of representation of the deceased's estate.

Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996

46.—Section 117 (6) of the Act of 1965 is hereby amended by the substitution of “6 months” for “twelve months”.

HelenV

4ensic15 wrote: »

Succession Act, 1965
117.—(1) Where, on application by or on behalf of a child of a testator, the court is of opinion that the testator has failed in his moral duty to make proper provision for the child in accordance with his means, whether by his will or otherwise, the court may order that such provision shall be made for the child out of the estate as the court thinks just.

(2) The court shall consider the application from the point of view of a prudent and just parent, taking into account the position of each of the children of the testator and any other circumstances which the court may consider of assistance in arriving at a decision that will be as fair as possible to the child to whom the application relates and to the other children.

(3) An order under this section shall not affect the legal right of a surviving spouse or, if the surviving spouse is the mother or father of the child, any devise or bequest to the spouse or any share to which the spouse is entitled on intestacy.

(4) Rules of court shall provide for the conduct of proceedings under this section in a summary manner.

(5) The costs in the proceedings shall be at the discretion of the court.

(6) An order under this section shall not be made except on an application made within twelve months from the first taking out of representation of the deceased's estate.

Family Law (Divorce) Act, 1996

46.—Section 117 (6) of the Act of 1965 is hereby amended by the substitution of “6 months” for “twelve months”.

From that it appears I stand corrected and am now dutifully delving into a large portion of humble pie.:)

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Technically anyone can contest a Will. The uncle has every right to contest it if he so wishes. For example he could claim the Will was written under duress.

However the Uncle also has a legal route by adverse possession.

Hopefully the OP got the legal advise he needs.

4ensic15 wrote: »

That does not give him a right to contest the will. It only allows him, if he was left something in the will and never given it, to make a claim. He had 6 months after the grant of probate to claim that adequate provision was not made for him under Section 117 of the Succession Act.

Kristopherus

Adalynn Silly Group wrote: »

Technically anyone can contest a Will. The uncle has every right to contest it if he so wishes. For example he could claim the Will was written under duress.

Perhaps, but the OP has said that the only duress was applied by the uncle.:cool:

Paulownia

HelenV wrote: »

From that it appears I stand corrected and am now dutifully delving into a large portion of humble pie.:)

If he lived there with his parents and has lived there ever since I think he might be able to apply to the courts to establish a lifetime interest, even though the OP was left the house if he was resident at the time and there was no paperwork .
It sounds unfair but the law is not always fair. Perhaps giving him a cash settlement might dislodge him more easily than a more antagonistic approach

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

You are correct but there is always three sides to every story (OPs, uncles and the truth). I was merely pointing out that the Uncle does indeed have a right to contest the Will if he so wishes, in particular as he was a son of the deceased.

Kristopherus wrote: »

Perhaps, but the OP has said that the only duress was applied by the uncle.:cool:

Claw Hammer

Adalynn Silly Group wrote: »

Technically anyone can contest a Will. The uncle has every right to contest it if he so wishes. For example he could claim the Will was written under duress.

However the Uncle also has a legal route by adverse possession.

Hopefully the OP got the legal advise he needs.

The uncle is long out of time to claim that the will was made under duress.The unle was allowed into the house with permission so would not be able to claim adverse possession.

Claw Hammer

Paulownia wrote: »

If he lived there with his parents and has lived there ever since I think he might be able to apply to the courts to establish a lifetime interest, even though the OP was left the house if he was resident at the time and there was no paperwork .
It sounds unfair but the law is not always fair. Perhaps giving him a cash settlement might dislodge him more easily than a more antagonistic approach

The fact of his living there with his parents does not give him any interest in the property. people in their seventies have been put out of houses they lived in all their lives when the owning or leasing family member died.
Once the o/p saaks him to move he is a trespasser. The /p can forgive him his trespasses but she should not be wasting money on him.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

No permission was required as the house was still in the deceased's name for 10 years.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The uncle is long out of time to claim that the will was made under duress.The unle was allowed into the house with permission so would not be able to claim adverse possession.

Claw Hammer

Adalynn Silly Group wrote: »

No permission was required as the house was still in the deceased's name for 10 years.

The uncles original entry into the house was with the permission of the deceased. On the death title in the house would have vested in the executor. The fact that it wasn't registered or the o/p was not put on title is irrelevant. At all times the uncle had permission to be there.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

Incorrect. It is very relevant that the house was registered to the deceased for 10 years.

The OP was not the registered owner of the property until after probate was issued and the deeds transferred to the OP.

The executor has an interest in the house only to serve as per executor duties and to protect the wishes of the deceased.

The fact the OP now has registered ownership of the property before 12 years would be taken into consideration.

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The uncles original entry into the house was with the permission of the deceased. On the death title in the house would have vested in the executor. The fact that it wasn't registered or the o/p was not put on title is irrelevant. At all times the uncle had permission to be there.

athtrasna

The most clear thing is that the OP needs good legal advice. As they have not been back on here, the thread is going in circles so time to close. OP please contact a forum mod to reopen should wish to.

Mod