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?

@sequinsandstilletos So I have read online the 12 year cap on claiming can be waived if there is fraud but I think it likely you would need to prove she did know. If she had no idea she had any other siblings I think the law might be on her side, because she would have acting in a way she thought was correct. If she was contacted and stated that she knew about a sibling and mentions a date that is earlier than probate and her father died intestate then you would have proof of fraud. You would need to get a solicitor but I think this is the case from having looked at a few legal websites.

If he wants to find out for definite he should be prepared pay a solicitor.

But to be honest it sounds like a shitty thing to do to his nephew after all this time, who after all inherited in good faith from his own father and whose family business the farm now is.

It's not just your FIL getting his share; if successful it would be split between all the siblings and their nephew would lose his home and his job.

Pure avarice in my view. Please encourage your FIL to let it lie.

@Thehouseofmarvels - I would point out that you are relying on English law which does not apply in the OP's case. However, since, unlike those of us who actually know the law, it seems you have to rely on solicitor's websites, here are two from solicitors that specialise in this area which set out the law more fully than those you have referred to - www.willclaim.com/claim-types/contesting-a-will-time-limits/ and www.georgegreen.co.uk/site/george-green-blog/contentious-probate-disputes-how-long-do-i-have-to-bring-a-claim.

To deal with the some of the many other mistakes in your overnight posts:

In addition if brother did the probate forms properly he would have needed to write the details of who was a beneficiary

No, he would not. The forms do not ask for a list of beneficiaries.

Esentially those people would have been the new owners

Even if it were the case that they were listed on the probate forms, this would not make them the new owners. That does not happen until legal title is transferred.

If he put the names of all four beneficiaries they became the legal owners of the estate and still are

Completely wrong. See the last two points.

Why would the land registry only put his name on anything if for people were listed in the probate forms

Because beneficiaries are not listed on the probate forms and the Land Registry don't get a copy of the probate forms when transferring legal title anyway. All the Land Registry need to transfer title is an Assent from the executor and a copy of the grant of probate (which does not list the beneficiaries - it can't since the executor does not have to list the beneficiaries when applying for probate).

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'

Complete rubbish. As per my last comment, all he would need to do is show that he had the necessary authority (grant of probate) and he could go to the Land Registry and transfer the property to anyone he wanted.

I will ignore your scenario involving a special needs sibling since that is very different from the OP's case and includes circumstances which may persuade the court to allow an out of time application even if there is no fraud.

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 did not put the names of his siblings on the paperwork as there is nowhere for him to put them. The form for someone dying intestate simply asks how many children they had. It does not ask for their names or give any indication that they should inherit. The siblings were all clearly aware of their mother's death. They all assumed that the estate went to the oldest son. If he knew that his siblings should inherit then yes, there may be an argument that there was fraud. However, if, as appears likely, none of them were aware that the siblings should inherit, this is not fraud. It is a mistake, and the time limits apply.

Just to say again, the above is based on the law in England and may not be correct in the OP's case which is in Northern Ireland.

@Prh47bridge if op gets hold of paperwork showing that brother listed the deseased as having 4 siblings then surely that could could form the basis of a fraud case? You have said the court might make an exception for a special needs person. Do you think a court would also make an exception for a baby who finds out fraud happened when they were 18? Surely in these cases if you are correct that it is allowed to put that someone has 4 children and then only change the property into one name then all the person would have to do is plead ignorance? Would the person with the special needs sibling in your opinion, get away with it by saying ' my sibling is female, I believed that the eldest son inhearits so gave myself my parents house when I did probate'. So what you are saying is an intestacy executor only needs to say 'I did not know the rules?'.

I think it would be a pretty horrible thing to do, aside from the legal aspect. Your FIL's bother would have worked on that farm all his life, and now his son has worked on it for all of his life. If your FIL was successful in his bid, he'd be turfing his nephew off his farm, his home, so that he and all the other family members could have their cut . I can't imagine doing that to someone .

@Prh47bridge So I have a real life friend. She and her boyfriend split up and he went back to his parents, then died of an undiagnosed heart condition. Their child was a few months old. The parents were very wealthy and after they split he was starting a business and my friend suspects he could have been given money. He was mid thirties. He came from a particular ethnic background where his parents expected him to marry a cousin or a girl local to their country and after he died she was shut out, not invited to funeral. I pointed out to my friend that his son would have inhearited everything and she said she could not cope with fighting his wealthy parents and would rather walk away with her head held high and make a life without begging from his parents as it would cause endless stress. I told her she should tell her son at 18 so he has the option to pursue. This is very real so I would like to know if the son could pursue or would the 12 year limit apply ? When it passes he will be 12 years 3 months old. In addition if his grandparents say that they thought money goes to parents rather than children if someone dies without a will, is this an iron clad defence? If people are allowed to just say they did not know the rules and ignorance lead them to hand everthing to themself then would it be better if my friend never mentions to her son about his father's estate?

@Thehouseofmarvels tell them to get legal advice.

@prh47bridge has been incredibly patient with you already. They are well known on this site as a solicitor but for some reason you think Google is your lawyer.

@seasonfinale if @Prh47bridges is a solicitor and says that my friend's son's grandparents can claim ignorance and that will be accepted by a court then there is no point in getting legal advice. My friend cannot afford it. They are virtual certain to plead ignorance and thus get away with it. I will repeat that people only need to say they did not know and it is an acceptable defence to say they thought parents inhearited before children.

My friend's son's parents developed and rented out property. He lost his job in the pandemic and his parents wanted to get him set up in business, we suspected so he could be presented as a good husband for a cousin or girl from back home ( an asian country) as they appear to have been angry he got someone pregnant. My friend grew up in care with a chaotic family, is on benefits so can't afford legal advice. She met him a few years after leaving care, he is much older, and used to hit her regularly. As his parents are property developers it is totally possible he was helped to buy property. It is sad that when his son is 18 even if there was a property his parents only have to say that they were ignorant of the law and they get to keep it.

[quote Thehouseofmarvels]@Prh47bridge if op gets hold of paperwork showing that brother listed the deseased as having 4 siblings then surely that could could form the basis of a fraud case? You have said the court might make an exception for a special needs person. Do you think a court would also make an exception for a baby who finds out fraud happened when they were 18? Surely in these cases if you are correct that it is allowed to put that someone has 4 children and then only change the property into one name then all the person would have to do is plead ignorance? Would the person with the special needs sibling in your opinion, get away with it by saying ' my sibling is female, I believed that the eldest son inhearits so gave myself my parents house when I did probate'. So what you are saying is an intestacy executor only needs to say 'I did not know the rules?'.[/quote]
Of course it is "allowed" to state four (though in this case the executor had three) siblings and transfer the property into one name.

In many cases the will would leave the property to one person anyway and the Land Registry doesn't even ask about the will, whether there is one, etc.

You're just making up wild hypothetical scenarios to try to look clever. Stop it, it's really unhelpful.

[quote Thehouseofmarvels]@Prh47bridge So I have a real life friend. She and her boyfriend split up and he went back to his parents, then died of an undiagnosed heart condition. Their child was a few months old. The parents were very wealthy and after they split he was starting a business and my friend suspects he could have been given money. He was mid thirties. He came from a particular ethnic background where his parents expected him to marry a cousin or a girl local to their country and after he died she was shut out, not invited to funeral. I pointed out to my friend that his son would have inhearited everything and she said she could not cope with fighting his wealthy parents and would rather walk away with her head held high and make a life without begging from his parents as it would cause endless stress. I told her she should tell her son at 18 so he has the option to pursue. This is very real so I would like to know if the son could pursue or would the 12 year limit apply ? When it passes he will be 12 years 3 months old. In addition if his grandparents say that they thought money goes to parents rather than children if someone dies without a will, is this an iron clad defence? If people are allowed to just say they did not know the rules and ignorance lead them to hand everthing to themself then would it be better if my friend never mentions to her son about his father's estate? [/quote]
Start your own thread!

Stop trying to pick the brains of someone you have continually been unpleasant to.

VanGoughsDog. One scenario is totally hypothetical, the other is sadly very real. I wish I were making it up that my friend's ex hit her. If you can put whatever on the probate form but not follow what you have written, then it appears that my friends son's grandparents can write on the probate form that their son had a son, then simply transfer his state into their own name. Then claim ignorance if chalenged. They are not from the Uk so would probably claim to be ignorant of Uk probate law. It appears that from what @prh7bridges is saying is that if my friends son chalenges them at age 18 then they will simply say they did not know any any money he has spebt on legal advice will have been wasted. I will tell my friend.

@VanGoughsDog I have been told ignorance is a defence so no point starting my own thread. In no world would the grandparents admit to deliberately acting fraudulently. They would lie. I have an answer.

if op gets hold of paperwork showing that brother listed the deseased as having 4 siblings then surely that could could form the basis of a fraud case?

No. It would show that the brother was aware of the existence of his siblings. It would not show that he was aware they should inherit a portion of the estate.

So what you are saying is an intestacy executor only needs to say 'I did not know the rules?

What I am saying is that, to prove fraud in the criminal courts, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the executor knew that they were distributing the estate incorrectly. The civil courts operate on the balance of probability but, faced with a situation where all beneficiaries believed the oldest inherited everything, I would expect the courts to conclude this was a mistake, not fraud.

This is very real so I would like to know if the son could pursue or would the 12 year limit apply

On the information you have posted, it isn't clear that there is anything to claim against - you don't know if he was given the money and, if he was, whether it was structured as a gift or a loan. If there is a potential claim, I wouldn't regard the grandparents saying that they thought the money went to parents as an ironclad defence. It might fly if they can show that this is what happens in their culture, but it is weaker than a situation where all the beneficiaries wrongly believe that the oldest son inherits everything.

The direct answer to your question is that limitation periods do not start running until the claimant is 18. Similarly, if the claimant lacks the mental capacity to bring a claim, the limitation period does not start running until they have capacity (which may be relevant to your special needs scenario depending on the nature of the special needs). However, your friend really needs to take proper legal advice to determine whether there is a claim worth pursuing and, if there is, whether she needs to pursue it on behalf of her son rather than waiting until he is 18. Even though he could bring a case when he reaches 18, delay may make it harder for him.

@prh7bridges. Thank your for your help I appreciate it. Pigs have more chance of flying than my friend pursing this. Sadly she grew up in care and has little support, a kind aunt uncle and cousins but of her immediate family they are horrific people, one is serving a life sentance, and another was murdered. I wish this was hypothetical as someone suggested. She lives in central London in a council flat, and when this abusive bloke moved in she convinced herself he loved her, and him not paying any rent had nothing to do with it. They split because she ended up in hospital while pregnant after a beating and police got involved and she was pretty much forced to kick him out or loose her son when he was born. Very sad, I try to help her where I can. As you say, it is possible money was a loan, it may have been gifted. Maybe he had a property maybe not, but very hard to sort out.

@Prh7bridges to understand this, is it true to say that before 12 years a beneficiary can make a civil claim alone. Is it correct that after 12 years one must first prove fraud happened in a criminal court before the civil court will allow a case? Thanks again for advising on my friend, I try to help her because she needs support. I was very sad when she ended up in hospital because while I hated her partner I did not know he was hitting her.

@Prh7bridges sorry if I was snappy/ rude before. I have been trying to understand this area of law because the way my friend and her son have been treated makes my angry and I wish justice could be done IF her ex had anything of worth. IF for example ex had money its awful his son is growing up, basically poor.

[quote Thehouseofmarvels]@Prh7bridges to understand this, is it true to say that before 12 years a beneficiary can make a civil claim alone. Is it correct that after 12 years one must first prove fraud happened in a criminal court before the civil court will allow a case? Thanks again for advising on my friend, I try to help her because she needs support. I was very sad when she ended up in hospital because while I hated her partner I did not know he was hitting her. [/quote]
After 12 years (6 years in some situations) you need to either get leave to pursue the case out of time (which basically involves showing that there is a good reason why you couldn't pursue the case earlier and that it would be unjust not to allow you to pursue it now) or show fraud. You do not need to show fraud in a criminal court, just convince the civil courts that there has been fraud.

In your friend's case, provided her son gets going within 12 years of turning 18, he will not need leave to bring the case, nor will he need to prove fraud (although he should bring the case as soon as possible if he is going to - delay weakens a claim). The problem he will have is that, after 18 or more years, it will be difficult to prove that he was entitled to anything.

I understand your concern for your friend and her son. It would be nice if they get justice. Unfortunately, that can't be guaranteed.

Thanks for all the comments, I feel for my FIL's sake I should explain that he's not some money grabbing opportunist hell bent on destroying his nephew's livelihood.

He was quite happy with his eldest brother running the family farm because it did feel like the family farm for all the years that the eldest was in charge. All that changed when the brother died and nephew took over, gradually FIL wasn't as welcome as he had been, the house on the farm that any family stayed in when they visited was no longer available and FIL and his siblings no longer felt welcome there.

After talking to FIL I suspect that the land isn't actually registered with the Land Registry and there's just some informal arrangement although I'm going to check that out.

OP there has been a lot of talk on here re s22 of the Limitation Act 1980. I’m reasonably sure that does not apply in N.I. If your father in law wishes to pursue this then I think he needs to speak to a local solicitor but he will need to be prepared to pay. I used to do contentious executors work and I would not be able to answer this question in my jurisdiction without a little research.

@Lavendersquare

Thanks for all the comments, I feel for my FIL's sake I should explain that he's not some money grabbing opportunist hell bent on destroying his nephew's livelihood.

He was quite happy with his eldest brother running the family farm because it did feel like the family farm for all the years that the eldest was in charge. All that changed when the brother died and nephew took over, gradually FIL wasn't as welcome as he had been, the house on the farm that any family stayed in when they visited was no longer available and FIL and his siblings no longer felt welcome there.

After talking to FIL I suspect that the land isn't actually registered with the Land Registry and there's just some informal arrangement although I'm going to check that out.

So he is upset that the son is now in charge it was ok when it was his brother. Upset that the son is may feeling as if he has no obligation to provide time and accommodation when his parents siblings turn up on holiday?

IMO I would have more sympathy if your FIL was just in it for the money.
He is thinking of using a decision he made 30 years ago and has been happy with for 30 years to now use as a weapon to beat his brothers son with.

He is looking to destroying his nephew's livelihood because he's upset.

@SolasAnla Op has just said she thinks that the land was never registered. It sounds like ownership passed by informal verbal agreements. You do realise that if everything is unregistered then nephew does not actually own it ? Imagine if Newphew or his kids try to sell the farm and properties one day but there name is on nothing ?

@Fleur405

OP there has been a lot of talk on here re s22 of the Limitation Act 1980. I’m reasonably sure that does not apply in N.I. If your father in law wishes to pursue this then I think he needs to speak to a local solicitor but he will need to be prepared to pay. I used to do contentious executors work and I would not be able to answer this question in my jurisdiction without a little research.

It definitely doesn't apply in Northern Ireland. NI has its own limitations legislation.

[quote Thehouseofmarvels]@SolasAnla Op has just said she thinks that the land was never registered. It sounds like ownership passed by informal verbal agreements. You do realise that if everything is unregistered then nephew does not actually own it ? Imagine if Newphew or his kids try to sell the farm and properties one day but there name is on nothing ? [/quote]
Not true. You can own unregistered land. In Northern Ireland, there is no requirement to register the land unless it is sold, in which case the buyer must register it. This is different from England where land received as a gift or bequest must be registered.

In England & Wales, 15% of land is not registered. That does not mean no-one owns it. It simply means it has been owned by the same person or institution for at least the last 23 years, usually much longer.

In Northern Ireland, 50% of land is not registered.

@Prh47bridges OP says she thinks the land is not registered ( since the old farmer died or perhaps op means necer registered?) and things have been done via informal agreements. What significance does this have for the 12 year rule? Does Nephew legally own the farm and properties if they are not registered? Would there be any difficulties if Nephew wanted to sell ?