Selling inherited house when sibling living in it

Carer or not, most people have to pay for the roof over their heads. I’m not heartless,
but I wouldn’t be up for having the piss taken out of me by a freeloader. She’s had a good ride but it’s over now. At the wish of her mother, it is not her house. She owns a 1/3 share. She can either buy OP out or it’ll need to be sold so she can find somewhere else to live. But as usual on MN, people are very generous with other people’s money.

If the mother hadn’t needed care (and a care home might not have been needed for 5 years if the sister hadn’t been there) would some posters answers be different

The DM wont necessarily have needed a care home, the sis might have been just providing meals/companionship/etc all of which are easily outsourced. I have a number of relatives who had various types of care, only 1 spent 1 month in a care home, all the rest of it was visiting carers. It could have been easier for sis to work less and "be a carer".
If your other sib is suggesting a smaller share maybe do 50/30/20 with that sib taking the 20

You have no idea about social housing or "nest eggs", or the combination of both - do you?

You can't just up and decide to live in a Council house instead!!

Its obviously a huge change for Dsis and im trying to be sensitive but I thought I really need to start tackling the situation and not just ignoring it , cant decide if better to give Dsis more time to grieve, it been 4 months, or to push ahead

It's been 4 months... Jesus.

Another weekend, another will thread where many posters think that it's perfectly reasonable to expect women to give up tens of thousands of pounds of their own money because it's 'kind'. After all its only for her pension and family.

It is not kind or compassionate for the sister to sit on money that doesn't belong to her, to prevent the legal distribution of an estate and to not properly plan and take responsibility for their life.

It's the same situation for the care fees.

So all this bravado about issuing invoices for this and that is truly pointless.

Best to forget it and everyone deal with the situation as it is rather than as it might have been.

Yep. Has anyone suggested OP does the house up for her moocher sister, signs it over to her then keeps a kidney on ice for her in case she needs it?

What we don't know, and is very important in law is what the resident sister was given to believe by the mother - if the mother gave her reassurances that she would have the home then the sister has a valid claim to it, or at least adequate provision from the estate, irrespective of what's in the will.

Ultimately if the resident sister does nothing and sits it out, it will be the court that makes that decision for her, the likely outcome would be a lifetime right to stay.

People are overlooking this.
Had Mum gone into a care home when she first needed full-time care, which was 5 years ago, unless she had savings, the 280k value of the house would have been eaten up long ago.

I sympathise with the OP, but I sympathise with her sister more because she is in a really bad position.
The best-case scenario would be that the selling of the house could be put on hold to give the sister/carer a chance to work out her future, and give everyone the time to grieve.

Just bear in mind that if you sell, the buyers will likely want her to have moved out PRIOR to exchange of contracts, so she’ll likely need somewhere to go before the property is sold and she receives her share.

What is more important in law is the written will, not what someone was told.

The only potential claim is that the will has failed to make reasonable financial provision for the sister, and that frankly is going to be a VERY hard bar to meet for a comparatively low value estate that has been split equally between siblings. An equal split for healthy adult siblings would rarely, very very rarely, be regarded as unreasonable. "But I was told" isn't going to cut it, especially when you are already receiving a third of the estate equal to your siblings.

As I have said before, the only thing OP should do is engage a solicitor who can either help with the route forward or who can take on the executorship on her behalf.

My understanding is the sister has a claim as a dependent adult child, and could take out a caveat on the house preventing sale, and if it did got to court, she'd have a fair case to get the whole house. This is all worse case scenario, as it's only four months since her mother who she lived with her whole life and was a carer for for 5 years, died, and perhaps she just needs a moment to catch her breath and actually grieve, unlike the OP.

Unless the sister has some sort of disability which renders her unable to work, which OP hasn't mentioned, she isn't a dependent. She might have depended on the mother for income and housing but that is a very different situation to being a dependent in law, i.e. you are unable to support yourself.

Unless there is information I've missed, she doesn't qualify as a dependent. Choosing not to work or move out is not the same as not being able to.

The law may be different where I am. That was the legal advice I was given. A woman who had lived her entire life in her mother's house and has only minor income is effectively a dependent, and I believe would be viewed as such.

Let’s say rent should have cost £1000 per month. For 30 years that’s £360k. If DM had gone into care home for 5 years at £6k per month, that also equals £360k so the two things balance out.

You are correct, there is plenty of case law where the resident child has been awarded the house or lifetime leave to remain.

The resident sister can argue promissory estoppel if she claims that she was given assurances (verbal is good enough, written of course better) by the mother, that she came to rely upon acting to her detriment, which in this case would likely be easy to demonstrate.

promissory estoppel is the law on this - if the sister was told by mum different to the will, came to rely upon that promise and in doing so acted to her detriment, then there is a case to present.

Would she win, who knows, maybe, maybe not - but at least two components are going to be readily demonstrable here.

Ultimately if the resident sister does nothing and sits it out, it will be the court that makes that decision for her, the likely outcome would be a lifetime right to stay.

And who would pay for the repairs and maintenance of the house for the next 30-odd years?

Get legal advice. Might be around to put it on the market but all owners would need to agree the same and only a lawyer can definitely advise on how easy it would be to force a sale - the costs may impact the benefit of selling also consider if sister doesn't agree it will negatively impact your relationship going forward. If they have never loved else where they may really struggle mentally never financially (which doesn't you d the easiest for them) at the idea of moving. Getting a mortgage alone isn't always the easiest, she may not have much of a credit rating if mid 50s and never moved out.

First of all you mean proprietary estoppel and not promissory.

Secondly OP has given absolutely no indication that the sister has claimed she was promised the house.

This appears to be an entirely expected will which the sister is not contesting but rather obstructing. There is absolutely no evidence - based on this thread - that there is any proprietary estoppel claim possible.

I'm sure some people quoting the ins and outs of law are correct. I hope the OP doesn't go down that route.
This is a family; they have just lost their mum. Surely everyone involved, but especially the sister who cared for the mum and will be left homeless, needs time, space and understanding to come to terms with what's happened.

I agree. Just a tiny bit of patience and kindness.

OP said "Although I live with DH and DC, the money would really help my future, my pension etc"

That's hardly an urgent necessity. Surely all of this can wait until the new year, giving in situ sister time to recover a little from the death of her mother and the change in her circumstances.

I agree and frankly there shouldn't be any need to go down that route. Posters pulling completely inapplicable legal concepts from thin air doesn't change the situation and nor does arguing back and forth about who saved what money where.

The best thing OP can do is ignore this thread and ask a solicitor to help navigate all of this. Ideally one who is STEP qualified.

> Point is, it's not about moral duties, legal duties. The OP as executor
The Executor has very specific legal duties
They do not have to 'sort it out'
If the will says to divide the entire estate equally, that requires the sale of the property, OR if, and only if, the property comprises only one third of the estate it can go to one person and the others receive one half of all remaining assets each
There is no ambiguity in the will as OP described
The executor is legally liable for distributing the estate exactly as specified in the will, there is no room for fudge or compromise
The property can be sold and the sister evicted, either by the executor or the purchaser (this will, of course, dissuade all but corporate buyers)
The resident sister has no arguments against a legal will