Will dispute and settlement talks

Remember that its ok to walk away from settlement talks if you dont like the outcome. Also remember that the 2 sets of lawyers dont represent you - they represent the estate and your brother.

You need to start thinking of you and your sisters as a single entity, as you appear to have idential interests and stakes. So if you engage a solicitor, all three of you need to do it and agree to split the cost, otherwise your sisters can sit back while you engage a solicitor and pay the bills while they gain the benefit without the expense.

Again, without engaging services, I would first ask a solicitor if the estate solicitor is telling the truth about talks being a proscribed requirement you should or need to be engaging with.

If one of the beneficiaries of the will I administered had challenged the will and lost, I would have deducted the estate legal costs from their share of the disbursement. I see no reason why other benneficiaries should have had their disbursements reduced because another picked a legal fight that failed.

There may be a different perspective which we are not seeing. That wouldn't be that unusual. His claims might well be completely fabricated, but might be plausible enough to constitute potential trouble.

Perhaps he even just wants to hang onto the land or something. i.e. instead of everything being sold and split 4 ways, he might be trying to keep the land together. Maybe he'd be happy to keep the land, allow the house to be sold, and buy the others out of whatever residual they'd have in the land.

As for the claims that the man might be "making a living" off of 30 acres ………… not likely unless he is doing something very intensive on it.

Whatever the brother wants to do is largely irrelevant because it needs to be agreed with the estate and with the siblings.

Hence perhaps the desire for negotiation and settlement. He may just want his share in the form of the land whereas the others might just want it all sold and the proceeds split.

Exactly. To me it looks like the brother and the executor are about to do a deal. The sisters have not been involved for seven years so there may be an attempt to steamroll them.

The brother and the executor can't just "unilaterally" "do a deal", particularly an unfair one. The executor would be leaving themselves wide open under such a scenario.

Of course the sisters would need to decide if they would accept the deal or challenge it. The executor would not be impacted as he is getting nothing from the estate. Legal bills will be taken from the estate. If the sisters challenge, the executor could just park the whole lot unless the sisters get solicitors and actively try to progress things. Hard to see if they do not get on together.

Have 20 days to tag calves after birth

Not sure if you misunderstood. The executor would indeed be impacted if he did something incorrect/illegal as they would be liable for that.

The claim made above was that the executor and the brother might be going to "do a deal" etc. The executor does not have the power to unilaterally make any "deals" with one of the beneficiaries, contrary to the will, to the detriment of the other beneficiaries.

Please seek legal advice unless you are fully qualified.

'Anyone who represents themselves legally, has a fool for a client '. Can't recall where I heard this but it makes sense.

Unless your brother has filed a case in the high court to dispute the will I'd also be questioning why the executor has engaged the services of a barrister and who has authorised it.

Combined with their failure to execute the terms of the will over a seven year period (assuming your brother hasn't filed a case in the High Court), I'd be seriously considering if the executor has failed in their duty.

I'd be considering independent legal advice on any unnecessary costs claimed by the executor and whether there are solid grounds for negligence.