Inheritance no will but house not sold

[Lavendersquare]

Hopefully I can explain this situation but it's complicated so please bear with me.

My father-in-law who's in his late 70's comes from a farming background in a rural part of the UK. Both of his parents died in the 1980's his father in 1985 followed by his mother in 1989. He was one of 4 and was the second youngest.

The family farm was passed to the eldest son on the death of his mother, none of the other children got anything, nothing at all. This wasn't unexpected it's traditional for farms to go to the eldest only and all the siblings just accepted this as 'the way it is'. The farm is an average size for the area and has 2 houses and outbuildings on it, if it was sold today it would be worth in the region of £1m.

Roll forward 30+ years and the eldest son who inherited the farm has died and his eldest son now runs it.

Father-in-law has recently been setting his own affairs in order and this has got him thinking of his parents and the fact that neither he nor his siblings inherited a thing.

He has discovered via a solicitor friend that neither his mother or father left wills or letters of administration. This has lead him to wonder if his parents died intestate and whether the estate should have been sold or at least him and other siblings benefitting in some way. My DH has told his dad that it's too late to do anything now and he should let it go, but FIL is determined to find out if there's anything that he can do.

So my question to MN is whether FIL can after all this time make any claim on the estate of his late parents? And whether the title of the land could actually have been passed to his eldest brother and then to his son without some proof that they had inherited it?

@Phr47bridge There was no will appointed executor because there was no will. What you are implying is that when someone dies intestate then the eldest son can decided they are executor and dish out the money how they feel. This is not true. When there is no will there are very strict rules set out by the govenment on who inhearits called the law of intestacy. These rules are as legally binding as a will. Executors either follow a will or they follow these rules. They cannot deviate from the rules or intestacy or from a will. Doing either is called fraud. If someone is not married, has no will but has children then legally the ir worldly goods pass to their children in equal shares.

@Thehouseofmarvels

12 years relates to squatters rights. However you have to apply for ownership by adverse possesion it is not automatic. You would need a lawyer to find out if any application for squatters rights had ever been made. If you extend your garden and use the extra land you can apply for squatters rights but if yoy have not you can not sell your house and garden and tell the new owner that the plot of land you aquired is going to be theres. In the same way the older brother did not get squatters rights automatically.

No, it doesn't. It is the time limit for actions claiming the personal estate of a deceased person. Nothing to do with squatters' rights at all.

@sequinsandstilletos, is the situation that your Dad died in 2003 with no will and was he unmarried? Did his estate end up with a friend of his, your sibling , his girlfriend? Was there a property and was it held join tennants or tenants in common ? Someone says they are a lawyer and the op has a case so don't dismiss this.

It seems harsh that 30 years on your FIL is thinking about putting a claim on what is now another family's home and business. He didn't want it at the time and is only now interested as he has realised what is it worth, with housing and land costs being what they are. Unless I've misunderstood and he just want a share of what the farm was worth 30 years ago?

@Prh47bridge So the Bona vacantia list uses 12 years. So if a heir huntering company traces 5 cousins of a dead man. He died with no will, no wife kids siblings or parents. If after 13 years a sixth cousin comes forward that nobody knew about you are totally correct. In this case this act does apply. If the 6th cousin could prove the others knew about him then the limit would be lifted. I just looked it up. Not sure how to put a link but a page called April King legal 'aprilking.co.uk' which claims to be a Uk legal firm claims on their page that the 1980 limitation act does NOT apply if there is fraud. To quote ' if the claim relates to fraud there are no time limits'.

Essentailly you need to prove you acted in good faith for the limit to apply. The rule is there to protect law abiding executors of intestacies who were for example distributing the estate of a among cousins or people who get money via heir hunting companies. If you get money because your father's cousin died alone and intestate and an heir hunting company found you, you do not have to hand over money after 12 years. If you lied that you were an only child you should and you do. You do not get away with fraud after 12 years !!!!

[quote Thehouseofmarvels]@Phr47bridge There was no will appointed executor because there was no will. What you are implying is that when someone dies intestate then the eldest son can decided they are executor and dish out the money how they feel. This is not true. When there is no will there are very strict rules set out by the govenment on who inhearits called the law of intestacy. These rules are as legally binding as a will. Executors either follow a will or they follow these rules. They cannot deviate from the rules or intestacy or from a will. Doing either is called fraud. If someone is not married, has no will but has children then legally the ir worldly goods pass to their children in equal shares. [/quote]
You have chosen the wrong person to lecture about the law. You clearly do not know the relevant law.

When someone dies intestate, someone will administer the estate. Technically, they are the personal representative of the deceased - a term which applies to executors as well. I use the term "executor" as it is one that is generally understood. However, I will stick to "personal representative" for the rest of this post.

Yes, there are strict rules about who inherits in intestacy. They differ between the various countries in the UK.

The eldest son (or any of the other children) can certainly take on the role of personal representative in an intestacy, but I have neither said nor implied that they can dish out the money how they feel. They are required to follow the rules. However, if they fail to follow the rules, those who do not receive their inheritance have 12 years to make a claim. That has nothing to do with squatter's rights. It is the time limit set out in the Limitations Act 1980 S22 for actions claiming the personal estate of a deceased person and applies whether the share being claimed was due under a will or intestacy.

@lavendersquare someone below says there is a 12 year limit. If you can prove fraud there is no limit. Limit applies if there is no proof someone knew about an extra heir, for example when an estate is being distributed among cousins by an heir hunting company. You need to tell FIL to go onto the land registry and see who holds the legal title. You need to know if not just both parents but also if elder brother had no will. If nephew is legal owner you need to see if elder brother was the legal owner before him. Either nobody has ever done any paperwork and it is still in the older farmers name or someone has done fraudulent paperwork and elder brother claimed to be an only child. It will be easy to prove elder brother knew he was not an only child therefore fraud happened.

[quote Thehouseofmarvels]@Prh47bridge So the Bona vacantia list uses 12 years. So if a heir huntering company traces 5 cousins of a dead man. He died with no will, no wife kids siblings or parents. If after 13 years a sixth cousin comes forward that nobody knew about you are totally correct. In this case this act does apply. If the 6th cousin could prove the others knew about him then the limit would be lifted. I just looked it up. Not sure how to put a link but a page called April King legal 'aprilking.co.uk' which claims to be a Uk legal firm claims on their page that the 1980 limitation act does NOT apply if there is fraud. To quote ' if the claim relates to fraud there are no time limits'. [/quote]
The limitation does not apply if the property is in trust and there has been a fraudulent breach of trust by a trustee. We don't know enough about what happened to say definitively that is what has happened here. And even when there is technically no limit, that doesn't mean the courts will allow an application after 30 years.

As I have said, the OP's FIL needs to consult a solicitor, but I think he may find that it is far too late to challenge, particularly since he was clearly aware of how the estate was distributed at the time and accepted it.

The elder son may well have been already named on the paperwork/ mortage/ etc previously to any death. You may wish to check land registry first. This will also show the date of the last change and any charges on the house.

@Prh47bridge so is the website that I found from a uk law firm which claims that if fraud can be proved the limit does not apply wrong? I got my claim from a law firm website. It indicates that the 12 year limit applies if the estate was distributed incorrectly but done in good faith. For example if elder brother had a half sibling that he did not know about who came forward after 13 years I believe the law would apply ? You can distribute an estate wrongly in good faith? Are you suggesting the law firm website where I got my info is run by lawyers who do not know the law?

A website called Penningtons law also describes no time limit if fraud can be proved. Maybe they are wrong too ?

[quote Thehouseofmarvels]@Prh47bridge so is the website that I found from a uk law firm which claims that if fraud can be proved the limit does not apply wrong? I got my claim from a law firm website. It indicates that the 12 year limit applies if the estate was distributed incorrectly but done in good faith. For example if elder brother had a half sibling that he did not know about who came forward after 13 years I believe the law would apply ? You can distribute an estate wrongly in good faith? Are you suggesting the law firm website where I got my info is run by lawyers who do not know the law? [/quote]
No, I didn't say that. They simplify the law a little. You can read the legislation yourself. I've mentioned the relevant section twice. But my main point is that it is not clear that there has been a fraudulent breach of trust by a trustee here. Remember that the siblings were all aware of how the estate was distributed and none of them objected.

When FIL phones a solicitor a useful term is probate fraud. I have mentioned 2 uk law firms who say on their websites that there is no limit to take action on this, unless the wronful distribution was done in good fair, by accident ect. They might be able to help. The poster below might be convinced these lawfirms are wrong but I would call them and see if they do in fact know what they are talking about.

@prh47bridge it is an executors basic legal duty to make beneficiaries aware they are beneficiaries. In addition if brother did the probate forms properly he would have needed to write the details of who was a beneficiary. Esentially those people would have been the new owners. His job was to do the paperwork. His job was to put the correct names and notify the beneficiaries. Either he only put his name on the probate forms and it all passed to him, which is obviously fraud. If he put the names of all four beneficiaries they became the legal owners of the estate and still are. He would have needed to use the paperwork to change the land registry. Why would the land registry only put his name on anything if for people were listed in the probate forms.

@Prh47bridge for the brother to get his name on the property he would have needed his siblings to sign papers rejecting their inhearitance. You can't just go to the land registry ' oi put this house in my sole name, my parents died with no will and my siblings told me verbally/ haven't mentioned wanting anything'.

You can't just say someone did not object. ' oh I got everything when my parents died with no will because my severly autistic non verbal brother did not object'. He can't object because he can't speak but that doesn't matter'. Sorry no. Not how it works. For one thing OP has not informed us if any of the siblings did have special needs. You say they did not object but what if one of them could not object?

@Prh47bridge lets say someone had a special needs sibling and their parents died. Lets imagine they send their siblings to live with a cousin after the parents died. Lets imagine the cousin did not know the law and assumed everything was left to one sibling. Lets say after 13 years the cousin looked on the uk will registry and found no will. Lets imagine the sibling who did probate claimed to be an only child, fraudulently. If the cousin took the special needs adult to a solicitor with a view to supporting a claim, how do you think ' they can get away with fraud because its been more than 12 years and you did not object despite being non verbal' is fair ?

@Prh47bridge I refute your claim there is no fraud. Either the brother claimed to be an only child on the paperwork, or he pur the names of his siblings on the paperwork and failed to tell them. He had the duty to correctly state if he had siblings and how many, and to inform them. The other possible option is that he knew so little of the law that he failed to do any paperwork. This would then beg the question as to what his son did when he died.

Whatever happens, your FIL is about to completely destroy his relationship with his siblings.

Not just the brother and his family who has been running the business and farm house all these years. But the other siblings caught up in any fall out.

And then consider the ethics of benefiting from 30 years of property value growth, plus any investments or improvements that the brother made to the farm itself, all with zero input from you FIL.

It was shit and an unfair way of dealing with things, but the time to address it was 30 years ago, not now.

I expect the farm was somehow transferred/gifted to the eldest son before the parents died.

@TerribleCustomerCervix So he cannot destroy his relationship with his brother because his brother is dead. As for damaging the relationship with siblings it depends if they are for or against taking action. If they are for taking action the only person with whom FIL would destroy his relationship with is his nephew. As for the ethics either brother was guilty of probate fraud or nobody ever did any paperwork. I hope they can come to some sort of agreement with nephew but it is not fair they should get nothing.

@VanGough'sDog when I googled this there are law firms that help farming families do this to avoid this exact situation, which they warn against, so it is possible.

@Thehouseofmarvels there’s an abyss between nothing and the share of a property and business which OP says is worth maybe £1million.

I’m the daughter of one of the non-inheriting children of a N Irish farmer, I understand how unfair and hurtful it is to be in OP FIL’s position.

Maybe if the FIL was looking for his share of the 1990~ value of the property I could understand a bit better, but I have a feeling that’s not what OP’s FIL is after.

@sequinsandstilletos, is the situation that your Dad died in 2003 with no will and was he unmarried? Did his estate end up with a friend of his, your sibling , his girlfriend? Was there a property and was it held join tennants or tenants in common ? Someone says they are a lawyer and the op has a case so don't dismiss this.
My children's father was born out of wedlock. His father did not marry his mother as he was Irish catholic and already married. Years later, he divorced and remarried but that's another story. He died intestate and his daughter by his first and official wife got probate. She appeared to have inherited about 250k and made no effort to locate him at all. Unlikely that she did not know of his existence or how to find him, but they were never in touch with each other as the first wife was bitter.