To not sell a potentially £million plus property for £200,000?

[InheritanceDilema]

Got a really sticky situation and need some advice.

FIL has died and Dh and BIL have inherited his house and small holding. We are not local and do not wish to live there. It's BILs dream to live there and he wants to buy us out and will happily pay us half of the £400,000 valuation of the small holding inc the house.

There are eight acres of land and I genuinely believe that planning permission could be got. The fields are in the middle of a village, so surrounded by built up areas/houses on all sides. Obviously if planning permission was gained the value of the land would be a lot more.

Bil has no interest in planning permission or making any money. He wants to live in his childhood home surrounded by goats, chickens and gooseberry bushes living a River Cottage dream. Dh doesn't want to rock the boat and doesn't know what to do.

I know if we did sell it we could put a thing on the sale saying if BIL did in the future get planning permission we would be entitled to more money. But I know BIL wouldn't ever seek planning permission. He won't even consider only having some of the land and planning permission for the rest of it. He wants a couple of ponies and says he needs all the land. I don't want to kiss goodbye to a considerable amount of money just to keep the peace.....we're not that well off. BIL owns 4 houses and already has a fantastic pension as well as rental income and his current house is worth half a million. We're in a terrace with no other houses and while £200,000 is a lot of money i don't think it's fair that BIL expects us to let him have his own way.

I think that you should get valuations, with, and without, planning permission. The man has many properties already and so it sounds to me that he is fully aware of market values. It's not grabby to want a fair valuation. You need at least three valuations either way and then everyone can be happy. My parents have died recently and potentially I could live in the family home, but realistically I know I cannot afford to buy my brothers out. It certainly wouldn't be right to get a lower valuation than it is really worth, just so that we could afford to live there. I would be ripping my brothers off, and I certainly wouldn't do that. As such we are having the property independently valued and we will sell it on the open market, and divide the money equally. Really it is the only fair way of doing it. You could otherwise accuse BIL of being greedy or grabby. After all what he is saying now in a moment of grief could be very different to what he is saying in 10 years time, when perhaps his children need properties, and by that time he has a little goldmine or four or more to sell.

This thread has been an interesting example of 'piling in'.

It's amazing that anyone would suggest that the OP isn't well-positioned, as you know, the wife, to point out that the BIL is very clearly advancing his own agenda while assuming (dishonestly or not) that their interests are aligned with respect to this non-trivial asset.

Their interests are very clearly at odds with one another.

I think you are being horribly greedy and insensitive – your BIL is now in sight of his dream and you want to destroy that in the hope you can win yourself some more money (with no thought of the village or the family home – a place you have no interest in living in). Perhaps you should think about what your FIL would have wanted – he could have applied for planning permission at any time but presumably preferred to cherish his family home. He has left your Dh a gift of £200k. Isn’t that enough? The price of everything and the value of nothing springs to mind.

He has left your Dh a gift of £200k. Isn’t that enough?

the FiL didn't leave that though, that's the price BiL has put on the family home. The home hasn't been valued correctly yet.

I think you are being horribly greedy and insensitive – your BIL is now in sight of his dream and you want to destroy that in the hope you can win yourself some more money (with no thought of the village or the family home – a place you have no interest in living in).

Why does BIL's idea of a "dream" property take priority? Perhaps OP's DH would be able to buy his "dream" if he sells the FIL property for the market value.

The op's DH is compleatly at Liberty to get his own valuation done, why he hasn't God only knows.

But we have no evidence at all that BIL if trying to fuck him over.

He wants to live in it DH appears not to want to do so, so he can obtain half the current known value to buy DH out, can DH do the same to buy out BIL?

For all we know it could be a valuation that it totally proper and already based on the value that could be added by likely to obtain PP, we don't know.

The BIL has got off his own arse and obtained a valuation that could be entirely correct for the area the house is in, why has the DH not done the same thing or taken responsibility for his role in the situation what with the fact that he currently has half the responsibility towards the property.

Fwiw I wouldn't want to continue to joint own a property with extended family I would want it resolved ASAP as well, I also wouldn't sign a long term covenant that didn't account for increased value being mine solely if it was based on me improving the value. And I wouldn't agree one with increased value from development that happened after 15 years.

I love the way so many posters seem to think the BIL is a naive yokel type, probably a bit dim, dreaming golden sunlit rural dreams just wanting to spend his days patting goats and furtling under his hens...while the OP is clearly a Cruella De Vil type bitch who wants to roll around on a bed of ill-gotten cash.

Some crazy views on this thread.

I don't understand how the property can be sold from the estate with just the one valuation from a person designed by the BIL. I can't see HMRC, who would be calculating the value of any inheritance tax, accepting that. It sounds way too informal to me and this is before you even get onto the conflict of interest that the person organising the valuation would also be acquiring the other half.

Who is the executor of the estate?

This doesn't sound like it's a properly run thing at all and I am totally in the OP's camp - BIL sounds like he's using manipulative tactics here and I would be worried about my DH too.

Fwiw I wouldn't want to continue to joint own a property with extended family I would want it resolved ASAP as well, I also wouldn't sign a long term covenant that didn't account for increased value being mine solely if it was based on me improving the value. And I wouldn't agree one with increased value from development that happened after 15 years.
No because that isn't in your best interests just as it isn't in bils case. However the opposite is true for ops DH.

Go have a chat with the planning department, maybe even apply for outline planning consent yourselves and get it revalued on that basis. It's likely that if you sell at too low a price you will end up feeling resentful, and you never know, he may decide not to keep ponies on the land and develop it himself, people do all sorts of things like that and relationships don't easily recover. Looks like he has enough money to keep it even if he has to sell other property to do so. You also have dreams. X

Oh dear i think you FIL will be turning in his grave, it is worth £400,000 to be split between the BROTHERS, is there a SIL, what is she saying, i would be soooo happy to get £200,000, i think you should leave the brothers to sort it out

It also applies to the house, doesn't it though that the BIL could sell in a few years & make a big profit?

Wow. So, you're 'not that well off', already inherited 20k from a previous house and now stand to make a further 200k from this one?
If he offered to pay you 500k, the whole million, 3 million, would any of it ever be enough?
You may want to take a look at what you have rather than what you think you're "missing out on". Just a thought

I imagine that OP is asking for views having discussed the matter at length with DH. OP though is on Mumsnet and DH is not! The parents would have intended fair and equal division. It's not greedy to expect that. It really is not. DH is also grieving. And BIL is definitely not a yokel. He is a property owner and knows what he's doing. Do get more valuations based on pp and no pp, please. Much better to risk slight disappointment at this stage than a long term family rift due to DH feeling ripped off.

I don't think you're being grabby. Why should BILs idea of living on a smallholdong take preference over your and your DHs financial gain.

I would get valuations 'as is' to support BiLs price. I would also place a restrictive covenant on the deal that should it be sold in future, with PP, you get 50% of the uplift with and without PP at that time.

However that would be legally difficult so might just be better to get PP now and open market value it - and have BiL pay market price if he wants it so much.

Number of things really - if BIL is to benefit the valuation needs to be independent of him and his associates, you both need three independent valuations and take a middle line.

You don't have to let him buy it - you could put in place a rental agreement - ie he rents the half you own for an agreed rental. This would mean you retain 50% ownership and have a regular income from it (you will need to declare income and pay tax if you both have jobs etc. But if for e.g. you don't work and therefore have no income you could set up s that you collect rental in your name and therefore only pay tax on any amount above the usual allowance. I think the ownership wld need to be in yr name to do this as well or it gets messy. You could add all sorts of things to the rental agreement e.g. for a preferential rate he could be responsible for maintenance etc he could have right to privacy, commercial use etc but would be best drawn up by a lawyer specialising in rental and maybe on a commercial side as it is a small holding.

There are lots of ways to maintain an interest just in case of any improvements or income e.g. mineral finds or sale of the property for development. I would advise getting independent advice, while DH is happy to let it go if you like there may be reasons for it but either way you need to have the conversation with the facts on the table so DH knows what he might be turning away. It may be considered grabby but unless these things are sorted fairly as well as equitably they can lead to family division so best sorted with all the facts and in a way that is objective rather than emotionally influenced.

Thinking about it it might also be possible to put the house in trust and have a lifetime living clause with say the house being left to your kids or something so many options

You're going to get a hard time on here OP because most people seem to think it's mortally wrong to have a better standard of living than living on benefits.

Sorry you're getting a kicking from some on here, OP. I think it's only sensible to consider all possibilities, and as your DH has ASKED for your opinion, then clearly he values your thoughts on this. I would agree with the covenant thing, saying that if BIL were to sell to developer/gets PP himself at a later date, as the property is a suitable size/location for this, then your DH would receives part of that increase in value. If, as he says, he just wants to live there with livestock etc, then there's nothing to worry about. You are not being unreasonable to consider all the options.

I agree wholeheartedly with Whois. The estate should be fairly divided. That is what is intended on the will. If I had an apple to share between myself and one other but I liked three quarters of it, because it was red and rosy, and so I gave the other person one quarter that was green, would that be fair? No!

yes the comments accusing you of greed and being happy with what you're given are missing the point about fairness between the brothers. DH is being potentially offered less than a fair share, it's obvious to do some due diligence checking on whether it is fair share and whether DH would be better off retaining half the land instead. The comments seem to be based on some mealy mouthed sense of it not being fair that everyone inherits money, which is hardly your problem to fix op.

I love 'if I got £200,000 I'd be sooo happy' - would you still be as happy if your brother, who was supposed to have shared equally in the inheritance, said he was going to live in the house and keep it the same, then sold the property with pp 18 months later for £800k? I suspect you wouldn't.....

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land-sale_overage

If it were you and your DB, I would say get it valued by 3 independent valuers. If they all say £400k, fine. If they say more, you have an issue to resolve.

Also take advice from a planner. If planning is likely and would increase the value as you suggest, you need a clawback provision - see the definition above. This is v v common in property transactions and protects you if the buyer makes a huge profit.

You could also put a lease in place to defer the decision for a bit.

BUT here it is not you and your DB. It is your partner and his DB. You can explain this to your partner and make your views clear, but ultimately it's his inheritance and his family.

Something needs to be agreed upon that is fair to everybody. It's not fair that bil gets to call the shots because "he won't entertain..."

Perhaps Dh "shouldn't entertain" selling it without the covenant in place.

impossible - your post is a stunning example of why women are often their own worst enemy.

The situation we have here is that a group of adults have come into some inheritance and need to decide amongst themselves the best way to proceed with the financial arrangements.

One party is unsure about the proposal being made by the other party and so is quite rightly questioning it.

I repeat my earlier post again which is to say that if a male adult posted this question (particularly if he did so in a male orientated environment), he would receive lots of practical financial advice. Some of that advice might be right, some might be wrong but the conversation would revolve around the financial logistics and very little else.

But a woman? An actual female adult with ovaries and tits and babies! Fucking daring to put herself and her family before others? What a fucking outrage! Are you on your period right now OP? Because that is the only explanation I can think of for your selfish disregard of your female responsibilities.

OP you have been accused of being greedy, grabby, insensitive and ungrateful.

You have been told that you need to 'mind your own business' and essentially put everyone else's needs before your own.

In case we all need a reminder 'everyones else' seems to consist of:

*Your BIL
*Your deceased FIL
*The poor children at the foodbanks
*Anyone in the UK who is not in line for an inheritance/who can't afford their own home/for whom 200k would be a life-changing amount
*The villagers (please don't forget the fucking villagers )

I'm sure that as this thread develops further, the above list will increase but for good measure can I also throw in the local shop-keepers, next door neighbours chickens, poor Helen from The Archers and Hugh Fernley-Whittingstall?

I have read some utter shite on Mumsnet in the past and this place sure as hell isn't the site it used to be but the responses on this thread showcase some of the worst sexism and stereotyping that I have seen for a very long time.

I follow an amazing blog called My Tights Wont Stay Up for a weekly update on the farces and bile-spewed guff that women are subjected to a daily basis in the media and society at large. But I can now also add Mumsnet to that list - hurrah!

OP and DH - please go and get yourself some sound, unbiased and non-hysterical financial advice from a man and do whatever (and I mean whatever) you need to do to protect yours and your families financial interests.