Inheritance vs helping out

[FizzyPopLove]

My mother died and left her five children her house in her will.

She said for one year, her eldest son, my brother, could continue living in the house. He lived with her when she was alive for a bit of rent. After that one year, it was to be agreed between us five siblings what should be done about the house.

It’s now been seven years. He still lives there rent free. We have not pressured him to leave the house so we can realise our inheritance. Perhaps we should. He has bought out one sibling so he now own 2/5s of the house.

The house is really not looked after. He doesn’t seem to see what needs doing. He is resistant to finding a smaller property that is more suitable for him living alone.

My ds has found a job in the same city as the house and I thought it might be a good idea for him to stay in the house too for six months whilst he passes his probation period, saves up some money etc. My brother is reluctant to enable this. He’s worried ds will stay for longer than 6 months. It’s a 3 bed house.

AIBU to be cheesed off? He’s saved up thousands of pounds by not paying rent or a mortgage and the rest of us siblings have all paid mortgages or rent for all of our working lives.

We have been really not pushy about realising our inheritance but I feel he could be open to helping out ds1 in this way?

I think in life we sometimes have to consider what is realistic rather than what is 'right'.

Why would you want your young son starting out in life to live in a difficult scenario with your brother? I think you wouldn't reallly.

so - the question is do you take legal action to get the sale of the house agreed. if your other siblings aren't up for this it ill be a big challenge for you.

I would talk to other 2 siblings who also own 1/5 each and suggest your brother pays you rent or moves out. Your DS has every right to stay in a house you co-own. Your brother is being VU.

There is a difference between being fair/reasonable and the law. That’s why you should get this moved to the legal board for proper advice.

Even as a minority stakeholder, you can apply to the court to force a sale under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA).

I don’t believe you can force your brother to host your son even though you part own the house, as your son is not an owner of the house and your brother is an adult already occupying the house.

The cleanest thing to do would be to get the property sold. There is every chance the court would give your brother another six months to a year anyway due to his age so he won’t be on the street.

Do it sooner rather than later before he becomes officially vulnerable and difficult to move.

I would say that either your ds stays there, or your brother pays your ds' rent somewhere equivalent.

If he refuses, send him an invoice for 7 years' worth of 1/5 the market rent for the place.

For Gods sake, get a solicitor involved or have a family meeting about it

You need a solicitor. Urgently.

Yanbu. I’d be saying “it’s a bit rich to worry he’ll outstay the 6m when you’ve already outstayed your agreement by 6 years”

He is not a tenant and the others aren't landlords.

îd check neither of your other siblings mind and then explain to your btother that your son is young and needs help getting on in life , that his grandmother would have wanted that and that you want him to be able to stay in the house you have a share in for as long as he wants. I’m not sure how comfortable your son will feel though sadly.

You're all being far too passive here OP. For at least 7 years the house has had no upkeep, and you're all allowing it to be devalued by this inertia.

Your Mum wanted all of her children to benefit from her home sale, and you're denying her that last wish.

This. It's a shame the other sibling was the one bought out, and not you. But you are losing out with this continuing. Send the message above and make a move.

I do wonder if the OP was the executor.
Someone was supposed to be.

The longer he stays, the more property prices will go up. Time for him to take his two-fifths and use it as a deposit on a place he can afford (and maintain). Tell him time's up.

If you move your son in, albeit temporarily some siblings might wonder if the temporary stay would revert to longer term.

He’s saved up thousands of pounds by not paying rent or a mortgage

Has he though? Or has he frittered his money away month after month, and now has nothing to show for it, and can't afford to move out of the mortgage / rent-free house he isn't even bothering to maintain properly?

Yes, I totally agree, this is the way to make it happen.

What a mess that was (indirectly) caused by your late mother.

I had a slightly similar situation but different in that my uncle owned the house my DB was living in after the death of our father. He threatened my leeching sibling with eviction if he didn’t move from the mortgage-free house he wanted to stay in. DB eventually pissed off. Eviction isn’t something you can do as your DB owns some of the house, but I get the stress involved. Your DB won’t want to be moving to a poly one bed flat anytime soon. Of course, your problem is getting your three other siblings on your side - I think a polite and clear message to them explaining how you feel should be your first step. I also wonder if at least one of them is worried they may ‘have to’ let DB live with them, hence the reluctance to get involved?

If your son moves in it won’t be the best atmosphere for him and not helpful when he’s working in this new job. Plenty of people share with strangers when they move to a new place, it’s a good way of meeting others.

I would definitely push this situation to say to your brother, is he forgetting that the house belongs to all of you? It sounds as if it's time to move things on, particularly if he's letting it deteriorate.

Either DS moves in or brother starts paying you the 1/5 market rent he owes you so you can give it to SS to put towards his rent elsewhere.

Have you asked your 2 siblings to buy your share of the house? If they aren't bothered about selling then they should at least enable you to take your inheritance.

"Even as a minority stakeholder, you can apply to the court to force a sale under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA)."

I also came here to make this point. Without knowing anything about the circumstances of your DB (for example, would your DB be classified as a "vulnerable adult", who lacks mental capacity etc? There are also other factors which might make an adult "vulnerable") , it appears that you would likely be able to get the home sold - unless your brother is a vulnerable adult or similar.

You don't need the permission of your siblings to do this, you can just do this yourself.

.

@Monty36 makes a hugely relevant point:

"And as for family relations. There is a property which to all intents and purposes you expected to part inherit. But your family haven’t let that happen yet. And from what you say don’t want it to"

Just to reiterate, you don't need their permission to get the home sold, you can do it on your own.

.

and I totally agree with @BrownBookshelf :

"On the family harmony point, I think it's worth pointing out that there probably isn't any way of dealing with this that isn't going to strain it. After all, if you decide to continue with the status quo, you're probably going to feel pretty fucked off about your son having to pay rent in a city where you have a right to occupy a home you part own. With both DB and the other sibling owners."

She just summed up exactly my feelings on this.

You've been well and truely shafted here!

The smart sibling got bought out of this mess quickly.
The cheeky sibling stays rent free and prevents everyone from using the property or paying any rent.
The wealthy siblings don't care.

And there's you. No buyout, no benefit, no rent, no usage!

It's long overdue a family meeting on this one.
If I were you I would be insisting two wealthy siblings buy you out or if not you take action for a forced sale.

Does your brother have mental health issues? It seems to me very likely that he does.
I suspect that your DS would have a miserable time living with DB if DB doesn't want him there.
Also, as your DB could only afford to buy out one sibling, it is highly unlikely that he could afford to buy a property for himself to live in. He would probably end up having to rent.
It seems to me that he has sat tight for 7 years and will continue to sit tight for as long as possible. He is of course taking advantage of the situation, in particular that fact that the other co -owners aren't too bothered about selling the house.
It would of course be a huge wrench for him to move out of a house in which he has lived for 40 years especially as he doesn't have the means to purchase another.
I suspect that he will create obstacles for you and your siblings if there is any move to sell the house. Already, you can see that he regards the suggestion that your DS stays as an intrusion and the thin end of the wedge.
The only solution would probably be a court order to remove him from the property to enable the sale. I suspect that he would frustrate proceedings which may be lengthy and costly and no doubt end your relationship with your brother.
It will probably be a court order or the house will be sold by his surviving siblings. It's a very difficult and frustrating situation.

No ,it wouldn’t be adverse possession as the DB owns a share of the property anyway.

In addition, he is occupying the property with the permission of the other owners so the time doesn’t run for adverse possession.

In addition, presuming this is a registered property (almost all houses and flats in the UK are registered) then it would be very difficult – almost impossible – for him to succeed in that sort of claim - even if he wasn't already a joint owner of the property and was living there with the permission of the other owners.

100% agree. Don't argue with your DB about this, just tell him your DS is moving in for 6 months, no discussion.