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?

He can't afford to buy her out and he's 69 so he won't get a mortgage.

That’s his tough luck. They can sell. With 40% of the value he can downsize.

Playing devil's advocate here and looking at it from the DB's position just so we consider both sides. He lived with his mother all his life until she passed away and has been living in this house for 40 years since he was 29 years old. He lives alone and the house is not being maintained. There are possibly some mental health issues here. Up until his mother's death it was probably very convenient for the other four siblings that he was living with their mother. Irrespective of how much he did in the house, he was company for her, no doubt helped her out, it look the pressure off the siblings knowing that she was safe and secure as she wasn't alone. Let's face it, they had less to do as he was living there and it was convenient for everyone. From his point of view, now she has died OP and at least one other sibling wants him out. He has nowhere to go and can't afford another place. He is so desperate to stay that he bought out one sibling but can't afford to buy out another so has limited means now to live on for the rest of his life.
The OP's mum to some extent abdicated responsibility when it came to deciding what to do with the house by leaving it up to the five siblings to decide what to do. She probably felt that she wanted to treat them all equally by dividing the house equally between them but at the same time wanted them collectively to decide what to do with it which would clearly be contentious.
The two siblings who are not pushing for a sale probably realise that the reality is that DB will live on in the house until his death or until he goes into a nursing home and that eventually a share of the house will come to the three remaining siblings (excluding the one who was bought out) if they survive him or if they don't to their children/estates.
All those who are banging the table advising the OP to go to a solicitor and get him out need to look at the cost and practicality of doing this and also ask if the OP's mother would have wanted this. There has been a value to the family in the DB living with the mother until her death and in all the circumstances, a life interest in the house given his assistance to their mother over the years, his mental health and his current predicament is not sn unreasonable solution to this predicament.

It very much is. There is much here absolutely to do with the Will.

Two fifths equity of a house is unlikely to buy him much. He will know this.

If the estate was not finalised properly then it does matter. How have the deeds of the house been organised? Have they been transferred legally. Etc .

Yes I made this very point earlier yesterday.

I think your son moving in would potentially muddy the waters. Plus won’t it be horrible for him living there under duress?

I think the 4 siblings who still own the house need to get together and make a long term plan. Maybe speak to the other 2 who don’t live there first and see what they want to happen. Even if they are well off, they might want the money for something.

Then get together all of you and document what’s been agreed and when you want to review it again. It may be that you agree that your DB can stay there until the end of his life, but with certain conditions- i.e he lets kids stay, keeps the place in good condition (or you all agree to contribute to costs).

But my real worry would be what happens if he dies, or gets married. Whose name is the house in? Is it a trust? If not, what would happen in the event of death or remarriage? And who can you leave your “share” to in your own will? Ditto your siblings? All of this needs to be crystal clear, otherwise your kids will end up with years of solicitors fees whilst the house falls down under their eyes.

Personally I think it would be better for everyone if the house was sold and your DB bought something suitable with his 2/5 share (and you could help your DS out with yours if you wanted to) but this is something you’ll all need to decide.

You’re inaccurate here. I don’t want him out. Where did I say that?

This is the way to go. Your brother's reluctance to have your son stay in what is after all partly your house should act as a catalyst to get this sorted once and for all.

His role in the "care" of your mum sounds somewhat tenuous and as if he lived there for his own convenience ande financial gain.

Time to sit down and get the siblings' views on your son staying there for a short while; and also on the issue of rent - brother should definitely be paying rent (back-dated ideally). And it is maybe time for the house to be sold and the asset split for the benefit of all as I am sure your mum intended. It sounds as though there are children who would benefit from a financial boost as they set out on life and there is no reason why they should not have it.

Your brother does not know he is born and he is not in a position to be calling the shots - he has had it very easy for a very long time.

One thought .... might he have a partner (casual or otherwise) there and does not want your son to cramp his style?

So four people now own the house. 4/5 of them don't want it sold.
You could benefit from selling but won't push it.
You own 1/5 of the house.

It is reasonable that your DS1 stays in the house rent free but pays his costs while he is on probation. (And up to one year longer.)

Your brother in the house should see reason and be grateful that you haven't forced the sale of the house. Your son, if he saves diligently, should be able finance himself into a flat or rental afterwards.

Your brother has stretched the limits and should give some kindness in return.

Exactly this.

You must be reading something different to me. The OP has been clear that the will has been dealt with - the property was put into the names of the 5 siblings and the sibling that lived there has had his one year. It’s all done. Since then the siblings have agreed that the 1 sibling living there can stay, and one of the other siblings has sold his interest to the sibling living there. What exactly do you think the executor needs to do that hasn’t already been done?

I think you'll have a bigger fight on your hands if your other siblings aren't in any hurry. You need to be united in this. He's taken the pee for too long now. I hope he's saved what he would have paid in rent and not squandered it all.

OP has not said that the property was put into the names of the 5 siblings.

In fact, OP has said very little about the only things that matter - the wording of the will and the executor.

The executor may have failed in their duty.

How do you think the sibling living in the property has purchased the share of one of the other’s if the will hasn’t been executed though? This has all been done years ago. The OP is asking whether it’s unreasonable for the sibling who has benefitted from living in the property rent free to deny her son living there for 6 months, it’s nothing to do with the will.

I’d like to know why he bought out one of the other siblings (agree with a PP this clever sibling did well out of this mess). My guess is that he mistakenly assumed he’d be safe from ever being chucked out of the house, him having the most ‘shares’ of the house compared to the siblings with their one fifth each.

It is difficult because we have not seen the Will. We don’t know if it was a ‘homespun’ variety or done via a Solicitor. That in itself could determine whether it is a valid one to begin with.
We don’t know the wording of the Will. So that is key. We don’t know if any executors were appointed. Probate applied for.
Normally executors have one year to sort out a Will. By which time the estate should have been sorted, closed. If there is some oddity about closure of an estate ( you have to pay off any taxes and debts to HMRC before you do ) the wording of any trust that exists will matter. The house is an asset of the estate of the deceased relative. Nobody is clear as to the legal ownership. Deeds should have been changed.
The Will has be executed precisely as it is written, if valid. Nobody can imagine or think that this or that was intended.
The executor has a very responsible role in winding up an estate. And because the state of the legal ownership of the house seems unclear, it is an executor issue.

The house would have had to have been put into a Trust. We don't know if that was done because OP is not supplying any of the relevant information.

You own one fifth of the house. After seven years you have more than paid him back for being with your mother. If you are still happy to subsidise his life (are you dividing up the cost of house maintenance or is the deal that if he lives there he pays?) than I’d tell him he really doesn’t have a say if your son moved in or not. He doesn’t get final say (try and get your other siblings on board) as two fifths is not a majority.

So your DB is worried that uour DS will want to stay longer than 6 months when HE has stayed 6yrs longer than he should have??....
Id tell him that as the house is still partially yours then you'd like uour ds to live there short term. If he disagrees then id ask to be bought out!

A friends mum said her house had to be sold within the year of her death. Just her and DB (neither lived with their mum) who didn't want to sell so she got 3 external valuations and give him the year to buy her with threat from a solicitor on taking it further if he didn't.

I think uour DB has been extremely lucky so far.

Quite easily when people take it upon themselves to avoid Solicitors costs but end up with a hotchpotch of a mess because they did/do not know what they were doing. And try to ‘do it themselves’.
Also easy if you have dominant people in the family who because of it almost have more of a say than others.
Who knows if property deeds have even been legally changed ? Money could have exchanged hands between siblings and nobody has changed the legal ownership details. Saves money, don’t need interference from outside etc.
The OP has been very quiet on critical information and details.

"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".

Doesn't this mean that you are considering pressurising him to leave so that you can realise your inheritance?
The fact that he is resistant to finding another property must mean that there is some pressure is being applied to get him out and he is resisting it.
It's certainly not clear from your original post that you don't want him out as the majority of responders are advising you to kick him out and sell the property dividing the proceeds between you and the other three co owners.

If you are happy for him to remain in the house, on what terms? A life interest maybe? If that's correct then it may well be worth incorporating an agreement to this effect in a legal document. In this instance, he may feel more secure and less fearful of being ousted and more open to family members staying.
At least some certainty would be introduced into a potential fractious situation.

Have you tried moving house recently? You won't get much for 40% of the value of a three bedroom house that is not in good condition, not to mention the legal fess and moving costs!

"My other siblings aren’t bothered about selling. They are well off. I could do with the money but am not massively pressured.
I have brought it up before but my siblings just aren’t bothered to sell.
I am getting pissed off now because I think he is taking the Michael."

Here you say that you have brought up the issue of selling the house but the others aren't bothered.
If you don't want him out, your posts are a little confusing.