Executor Sales - General Discussion

Will Yam

Pivot Eoin wrote: »

Yes, that is a potential scenario, I'm not saying it is 100% a phoney/untrustworthy bid. I'm just saying the bid has pretty much all the ingredients of a potential phoney bid.

The bid/asking price is right on a mark where you could really start looking at buying a similarly good property in the market above. It hasnt changed my thoughts regardless on my own top price for this property, with it needing another 70-80k put into it, you'd probably be better off just trying to buy something 100% turnkey at 2020 levels of finish/decor.

Every buyer is different, so just plan it my own way for now.

And each seller is different. The house i tried to buy in February was an executor sale. EA told me then if they didnt get asking price (or very near it) they would put it on the rental market.

I note it hasn’t been sold, or rented, yet.

My sister who used work in the sector tells me that executor sales can be easy, or very tricky.

The easy ones are where the beneficiaries just want shut, will take a reasonable price and wont worry too much about coming up a bit short.

the hard ones are where one beneficiary takes a hard line - “not a penny less” etc.

Claw Hammer

Will Yam wrote: »

the hard ones are where one beneficiary takes a hard line - “not a penny less” etc.

That can happen in any sale.

Donald Trump

Will Yam wrote: »

And each seller is different. The house i tried to buy in February was an executor sale. EA told me then if they didnt get asking price (or very near it) they would put it on the rental market.

I note it hasn’t been sold, or rented, yet.

My sister who used work in the sector tells me that executor sales can be easy, or very tricky.

The easy ones are where the beneficiaries just want shut, will take a reasonable price and wont worry too much about coming up a bit short.

the hard ones are where one beneficiary takes a hard line - “not a penny less” etc.

Executor sales will also depend on the number of beneficiaries.


A house being sold by a single beneficiary might be held up by the person being willing to wait for an additional 5k.


A house that is being sold and divided up between 20 nieces and nephews....not so much. Not to mention arguments and rows over what should be done.

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

Executor sales will also depend on the number of beneficiaries.


A house being sold by a single beneficiary might be held up by the person being willing to wait for an additional 5k.


A house that is being sold and divided up between 20 nieces and nephews....not so much. Not to mention arguments and rows over what should be done.

Would the executor of the will not be able to simplify it assuming the will is clearly created i.e. split house 3 ways evenly?

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

Would the executor of the will not be able to simplify it assuming the will is clearly created i.e. split house 3 ways evenly?

Technically (I think) the executor/administrator is the one that makes the decisions and has power to do so. They don't need the agreement of the beneficiaries. It is their job to execute the will.





But suppose there are ten beneficiaries and they all agree not to sell it, it would be unlikely that an executor would proceed on that basis. But if one of that ten wants his money, I think that they can force their share to be handed over.

Will Yam

Donald Trump wrote: »

Technically (I think) the executor/administrator is the one that makes the decisions and has power to do so. They don't need the agreement of the beneficiaries. It is their job to execute the will.





But suppose there are ten beneficiaries and they all agree not to sell it, it would be unlikely that an executor would proceed on that basis. But if one of that ten wants his money, I think that they can force their share to be handed over.

I’m not too sure about this.

If, say a house worth 500k is left to 3 beneficiaries (equal shares), is it not the executors role to get probate etc and simply ensure the 3 beneficiaries get Joint ownership of the house?

I’m wondering if that happens then once the 3 get joint beneficial ownership then what further involvement does the executor have?

Claw Hammer

Will Yam wrote: »

I’m not too sure about this.

If, say a house worth 500k is left to 3 beneficiaries (equal shares), is it not the executors role to get probate etc and simply ensure the 3 beneficiaries get Joint ownership of the house?

I’m wondering if that happens then once the 3 get joint beneficial ownership then what further involvement does the executor have?

It would depend on the terms of the will and whether there were debts which could only be paid by selling the house.

Graham

Mod Note

Thread split

Edgware

Will Yam wrote: »

I’m not too sure about this.

If, say a house worth 500k is left to 3 beneficiaries (equal shares), is it not the executors role to get probate etc and simply ensure the 3 beneficiaries get Joint ownership of the house?

I’m wondering if that happens then once the 3 get joint beneficial ownership then what further involvement does the executor have?

Unless the will specifically states that the property must be sold and proceeds divided among the beneficiaries the executor has no further involvement. The property is now registered in the various owners names and it is their responsibility. However each beneficiary is entitled to vindicate their property rights to get the financial benefit either by agreed sale or court ordered sale.

Donald Trump

Edgware wrote: »

Unless the will specifically states that the property must be sold and proceeds divided among the beneficiaries the executor has no further involvement. The property is now registered in the various owners names and it is their responsibility. However each beneficiary is entitled to vindicate their property rights to get the financial benefit either by agreed sale or court ordered sale.

I heard of a situation where a person with no children but who had had a lot of siblings died intestate. Everyone assumed that the property was being left to the one surviving sibling. Other relations consisted of nieces and nephews and grand-nieces and grand-nephews etc.

The surviving sibling administered the estate and sold the property in a private sale to their own relative and when the property deal was done, then had the solicitor write to the other beneficiaries to tell them what their share would be.

Up to that, the other beneficiaries did not know that they were to receive anything. None had any say in the matter. They were not notified that there had been no will.

Edgware

Donald Trump wrote: »

I heard of a situation where a person with no children but who had had a lot of siblings died intestate. Everyone assumed that the property was being left to the one surviving sibling. Other relations consisted of nieces and nephews and grand-nieces and grand-nephews etc.

The surviving sibling administered the estate and sold the property in a private sale to their own relative and when the property deal was done, then had the solicitor write to the other beneficiaries to tell them what their share would be.

Up to that, the other beneficiaries did not know that they were to receive anything. None had any say in the matter. They were not notified that there had been no will.

All types of hookey business goes on with wills. That is why there should be a Register of Wills giving the name of the person making the will, Solicitor and where the will is stored.
Then when a person dies interested parties can check whether or not there is a will made.
Enquiries can be made if one thinks they may be a beneficiary. As the will eventually becomes a public document the solicitor has to tell the truth.
If there is no will then the laws of intestacy applies

Claw Hammer

Edgware wrote: »

All types of hookey business goes on with wills. That is why there should be a Register of Wills giving the name of the person making the will, Solicitor and where the will is stored.
Then when a person dies interested parties can check whether or not there is a will made.
Enquiries can be made if one thinks they may be a beneficiary. As the will eventually becomes a public document the solicitor has to tell the truth.
If there is no will then the laws of intestacy applies

There was no will in the situation you have just quoted.

Claw Hammer

Donald Trump wrote: »

I heard of a situation where a person with no children but who had had a lot of siblings died intestate. Everyone assumed that the property was being left to the one surviving sibling. Other relations consisted of nieces and nephews and grand-nieces and grand-nephews etc.

The surviving sibling administered the estate and sold the property in a private sale to their own relative and when the property deal was done, then had the solicitor write to the other beneficiaries to tell them what their share would be.

Up to that, the other beneficiaries did not know that they were to receive anything. None had any say in the matter. They were not notified that there had been no will.

What is wrong with that? The person entitled to took out a grant, realised the estate and distributed the net proceeds in accordance with law

Donald Trump

Claw Hammer wrote: »

What is wrong with that? The person entitled to took out a grant, realised the estate and distributed the net proceeds in accordance with law

You will notice that I never said that it was wrong.




I was responding to a poster that appeared to imply that the executor/administrator just had to put the property into the new joint owners names.

Claw Hammer

Donald Trump wrote: »

You will notice that I never said that it was wrong.




I was responding to a poster that appeared to imply that the executor/administrator just had to put the property into the new joint owners names.

Because something happened once does not mean any principle of general application can be derived from it.

I saw a person park on double yellow lines once and they didn't get a ticket. Does that mean that anyone else who parks on double yellow lines will not get a ticket?

Donald Trump

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Because something happened once does not mean any principle of general application can be derived from it.

I saw a person park on double yellow lines once and they didn't get a ticket. Does that mean that anyone else who parks on double yellow lines will not get a ticket?

Correct. But if someone tries to tell you that you can never get a ticket for parking on double yellow lines, then your example can prove that this is not the case.


If an administrator/executor has to divide up a house between 20 beneficiaries, with probably differently sized shares, they can't simply transfer the title into their names and walk away saying "my job is done".

Claw Hammer

Donald Trump wrote: »

Correct. But if someone tries to tell you that you can never get a ticket for parking on double yellow lines, then your example can prove that this is not the case.


If an administrator/executor has to divide up a house between 20 beneficiaries, with probably differently sized shares, they can't simply transfer the title into their names and walk away saying "my job is done".

Why can't they?

Donald Trump

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Why can't they?

Not sure where you are going with this.


The people to whom it is being transferred would need to sign off on it too. The administrator cannot unilaterally decide to put property into other peoples names and then later surprise them when they inform them they are beneficiaries.

All of the beneficiaries could collectively agree to it, but that is a different scenario