Father died intestate, 5 children inherit house, 4 want to sell, 1 doesn't?

[BuzzLiteYear]

What happens in this situation?
I've can the 4 overrule the 1?
The 1 has legitimate reasons for not wanting to sell as the property is on his farm and he wouldn't want strangers moving in.
What does the law say?

Is there an access right of way?

Also as a word of warning the house could be made nearly unsellable by what the farmer decides to do on his land directly and legally next to it. Think huge muck piles etc.

Seems very unfair for 1 sibling to be able to hold the other four to ransom like this. That could blow up into a huge family feud, especially if the others really need or want their inheritence.

If one sibling wants to keep the property, the fairest way would be to buy the other four out at market rate, but obviously he may not have the means to do this.

Otherwise, is there any chance of changing the layout of the property boundary walls etc in order to maintain privacy and security of the farm, to lessen the impact of strangers moving in? Rent it out to any farm hands, so not strangers and the siblings share the income?

If 1 lives on the farm it might be feasible to separate the farm physically so the one child's property has a separate legal title created for it and the rest of the property is able to be sold.

This of course sounds very simple and doesn't address:

• the cost of doing it
• whether this is an even split and if not, how the balance is addressed
• the issue of the fact that the one that doesn't want to sell doesn't want new neighbours

What a mess OP. Though if there had been an estate there's every chance you might have been left in the same situation anyway if it was simple left to all the children.

Possible suggest ensuring good de-marcation between farm / property. Serious fencing and possible creation of a separate access is required. Costs to be split 5 ways.

Similar situations can arise even where a property is left jointly in a will. Were there no other assets that can be swapped around as far as inheritance is concerned such that 1 child retains the house and others get different assets to the value of their share of the house ?

Sounds like the 1 child is being unreasonable though. We'd all like to avoid the lottery of new neighbours but life isn't like that.

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi_na7lxdvnAhVrShUIHX7CDCYQFjABegQIDBAF&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fmoney%2F2008%2Fapr%2F30%2Fproperty.mortgages&usg=AOvVaw1ClJaZQPgUqc2REgJDNsKy

Yes, you can force a sale - see link.

I'm pretty sure some of the legal assertions on this thread are incorrect. I hope there is a probate solicitor who will come along and give chapter and verse. For what it is worth, as a formal solicitor who didn't do much probate, the assets are held on a statutory trust for sale. If all the beneficiaries want the assets to be kept they could agree this, otherwise the assets must be sold and divided amongst the beneficiaries.

There is separate access, that's not an issue. It was the original farm house and the 1 (brother) built a new family home in another part of the farm.
So the original farm house is close to the farm buildings etc so he may have genuine issues with not wanting strangers moving in complaining about stuff and privacy etc.
He may also want to buy the house but may not have the funds and may try and find ways to avoid paying the full market value.
I was just wondering where the law stood if 4 of the 5 wanted to sell it on the open market.

I don’t see many people wanting to buy a house next to the actual storage buildings on a working farm, but yes a sale can be forced.

What do they plan to do with the house if they don't want it sold?
Who would they expect to do maintenance, etc, if it was kept?
And why would they expect to buy out the other 4 "at a fraction of the market price", when actually they should be paying four fifths?

I presume the house is worth more than 1/5 of the estate (after tax)? If it isn't, the one sibling could have the house as part of their inheritance, subject to the approval of the other beneficiaries.

I am not a solicitor, but I think that's what happened with a friend.

If it is an active farmyard, realistically very few people would buy it I would think, even with a separate access. It would be very difficult to live on top of someone else's farm.

he may have genuine issues with not wanting strangers moving in complaining about stuff and privacy etc

Well, it's not his property, he owns a 1/5 share so unless he can buy the others out, he doesn't get to dictate who can live there.

Looking towards solutions...
Does 1 want the property to stay empty ? Or does 1 have children or in-laws who might move in at some point (if 1 owned it entirely). Maybe between them they can come up with a decent offer to buy 2-5 out?
If the property access/gardens etc were separated off in a better manner would this be palatable to 1. Perhaps his fifth could contribute more - say, 30% rather than 20% - of the costs to make it so.

I am surprised that it appears to be a leasehold house - the parent owned the house but the land is owned by one of siblings. I am surprised that these issues didn't come up during the construction etc. I would not be surprised if upon delving deeper there is not a 'lifetime interest' or something and actually 1 already owns the house in effect. And of course, if 1 was involved at all in the construction of the house upon their land, then the situation becomes more intricate. You all need a solicitors' take on this.

Was the house not considered an asset of the farming business? Who owns the business? Are there red lined plans? Can he argue that the house is just the same as the buildings- ie belong to the farm.

The value may be relatively low if it is a house on a working farm. We almost bought one a few years ago and it was abut 60% of what it would have been 600 feet away. .

Surely if the house is on farm land, it is owned by whoever owns the land?

Having just seen your update, would 1 not move into the original farmhouse, leaving her/his current dwelling to be sold. I'm sure a deed of trust or intention something could deal with this.
The closest position I have come across is where a parent died intestate believing that all his dc were already named on the deeds, so would automatically all own the house. Due to an oversight two were missed off. The other 3 did a deed of intention (or something similar) directing that the parents intention had always been for all 5 to share. When the house sold the solicitor divided the proceeds 5 ways.

If the old house hasn't been lived in for some time (or if the father lived there), has it been kept up at all? It could be that a plot, to be sold separately, with planning persmission

Can the house be sold or does it have an agricultural tie? In which case it can't really be sold unless they are going to let the owner work the land as well.

The fact that it is farming land means that I'd consult a specialist solicitor here, especially if it does have an agricultural tie.

...would be an acceptable compromise. That plot would be out of the way of the farm buildings, presumably closer to a road.

I've seen a number of demolitions recently, which make me think that houses themselves are not as valuable as land, a blank slate, etc.

Is there an agricultural tie attached to the property? If so this will restrict any potential buyers to those primarily involved in agriculture therefore reducing its market value.

I'd say it's worth considering the farmer buying his siblings out - he owns 1/5 of it so effectively has a 20% deposit. I think the banks are pretty willing to provide finance to agriculture at the minute, depending on your circumstances.

Maybe it could be let out as a BTL or holiday let? Or for his children that want to work on the farm at a later date?

It may be worth trying to get the siblings to agree to him buying them out if that's what the farmer wants. They'll then receive more of the final sale value in their pockets when there are no estate agents fees to pay and additional legal costs involved.

I hope you get sorted, I imagine it's an uncomfortable situation for the farmer to be in, not knowing who might end up living next door.

The law is that he will have to buy the others out at the full market price. If he is unable or unwilling to do so they will be able to force a sale.

They haven’t been left a house, they have left a 1/5 share of the estate which has a value of X. The only way the executors can pay out to each child will be to sell the house.

That's a lot trickier than it initially seemed.

I can understand why a farmer wouldn't want the farmhouse sold away from the farm- new unfriendly neighbours could be very difficult to manage, if they didn't like normal farm life!

I think this might need a bit of creative solution finding, rather than a straightforward split. Perhaps it could be rented out with all the families enjoying the income?

There are other complications, as there usually are, where family are involved. I don't want to get into them here as it would be too complicated.
I was just asking the specific question about where the law stood and I think that has been answered, so thank you all.