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?

@prh7bridges If nephew has a younger brother who gets a divorce and moves in, helps farm the land.. if nephew never does any paperwork could the younger brother just tell the land registry he is the owner, show bank statements, proof he works on the land.. as if no will he would have the same proofs as his older brother if he lived there. He could register the properties and land in his name. If nephew never checked his brother could secure the farm for himself and his own family. Could this happen ?

@Prh7bridges I basically mean if no paperwork is ever done anyone and no proper legal proof of ownership in any form surely anyone who lived on the property who had proof of address could tell the land registery it is theres ? The only advantage nephew has is being older whicch I am not sure the land registry would care about ?

@Prh47bridges the farm formerly passed in its entirety from the older farmer to his wife. Lets say that nephew's father never left any will and newphew has siblings. Lets imagine nephew has kids, is widowed and his new wife has her own kids. Totally possible situation that could really happen. Then nephew dies. Lets say nephews eldest son has been living in a property and farming alongside nephew. Stepbrother also works on farm. Wife says the farm in its entirety should go to her. Op has mentioned it passed from a farmer to his wife then to son. Eldest son thinks it should go to him and points out she will give it to stepbrother. No wills no paperwork of any sort. In this entirely possible scenario who would get the farm ?

[quote Thehouseofmarvels]@Prh47bridges the farm formerly passed in its entirety from the older farmer to his wife. Lets say that nephew's father never left any will and newphew has siblings. Lets imagine nephew has kids, is widowed and his new wife has her own kids. Totally possible situation that could really happen. Then nephew dies. Lets say nephews eldest son has been living in a property and farming alongside nephew. Stepbrother also works on farm. Wife says the farm in its entirety should go to her. Op has mentioned it passed from a farmer to his wife then to son. Eldest son thinks it should go to him and points out she will give it to stepbrother. No wills no paperwork of any sort. In this entirely possible scenario who would get the farm ? [/quote]
That one is easy.

The legal teams being paid to fight over who gets the land

@Thehouseofmarvels

Oh my god, will you stop making stuff up!

We don't even know how the property was held when each person died. It could very well have been joint tenants with the original farmer and his wife, hence it went to her because it bloody belonged to her.

Or he could have transferred it to his son while he was alive, or the widow did.

If he had no will then the estate should have passed following the rules of intestacy.

The nephew, his father (eldest son of first farmer) having never been challenged on his ownership which passed it to his son while he was alive, or transfered it to joint ownership so it passed that way, either passed it via a will or it passed to all offspring via intestacy rules OR nephew's sibling/s gave up their share for some reason.

Either way, it now belongs to nephew, or nephew and siblings.

If nephew dies, it either goes via his will, or the intestacy rules at the time. All this stuff about step siblings and wives is irrelevant.

But why the FIL should care about what nephew puts in his will is anyone's guess.

FIL could potentially mount a challenge if he thought there had been fraudulent behavior by his brother. But why would it take him thitty years to think about it?
The nephew, from the info given, hasn't done anything wrong.

The fact the land isn't registered is a massive red herring and has zero impact. Property had been passing via bequests and intestacy laws for years before registration became a thing.

[quote Thehouseofmarvels]@Prh47bridges the farm formerly passed in its entirety from the older farmer to his wife. Lets say that nephew's father never left any will and newphew has siblings. Lets imagine nephew has kids, is widowed and his new wife has her own kids. Totally possible situation that could really happen. Then nephew dies. Lets say nephews eldest son has been living in a property and farming alongside nephew. Stepbrother also works on farm. Wife says the farm in its entirety should go to her. Op has mentioned it passed from a farmer to his wife then to son. Eldest son thinks it should go to him and points out she will give it to stepbrother. No wills no paperwork of any sort. In this entirely possible scenario who would get the farm ? [/quote]
In this situation it would follow the intestacy rules in place for NI at the time.

In England that would mean the wife would get the first £270k of value, then half the rest with the other half split between nephew's offspring. Step children (unless adopted) are not included in this.

@VanGoughsDog ok, so if stepmum disputed it intestacy would apply. Lets say she does not dispute it and her and her son go live elsewhere. Lets say stepmum dies 13 years later with no will. Does the farm belong to nephew's son entirely now because he took it over and possesed it and stepmum did not question that all told him verbally it was ok? Would I be correct in thinking that because more than 12 years have passed and the proper intestacy rules have not been enforced, stepbrother has no claim to the 270 k his mum would have got if she persued a claim? Or if stepmum wanted to claim her 270k would you agree she would be unable to do so due to the occupier gaining every thing by virtue of living there. So her right disapears after 12 years ?

@VanGoughsDog OP's mum survived her Dad. Her mum inhearited everything, Dad had no will. Would this suggest that in Northern Ireland in the 80's if a husband died the wife got every penny, very different to our 270k rule. In addition, if stepmum lived in the house alongside nephew's son would she still loose her right to claim 270k from the farm after 12 years. A poster suggested when the mother died the estate could have been divided four ways due to intestacy rules if FIL persued it. It has been suggested that if no paperwork was done the person who lived there, his brother, gained full legal ownership because FIL lost his right to persue it as did the others. If FIL had stayed living in the farmhouse and farmed alongside his brother would they both now be the legal owners ?

@VanGoghsDog so essentially this older brother gained sole legal ownership simply by living on the land and not being chalenged until FIL and the siblings became unable to persue their own claims after 12 years, the limit @prh47bridges tells us caused FIL's intestacy right to expire. If living in the property is all that is required to own the property and pass it to your son, and if we imagine FIL had stayed and farmed, and owned it alongside his brother, would the posters husband have inhearited half the farm alongside his cousin ? Or would the nephew still get it legally because his father was older, if the cousins argued and both wanted sole ownership.

@prh47bridges you said the limit was 12 years. You said Nephew could sell the farm even if he had no proof of ownership and the new owner could register it. If nephew has a sister who lives with him and their dad died with no will are they both the owners? If the sister lives elsewhere, and their dad died with no will does everything go to her brother after 12 years but before 12 years she can claim? Does the ability to pursue for money gained in an intestacy expire dependant on whether or not you live in the property ? As if they both live there and their father died unmarried and intestate why should the person who gets the sale money have to be the nephew?

The land will need to be registered before sale even if it has never been registered before. To do this evidence of ownership is required. They may have a raft of papers over the generations that may include transfers , partnerships, provision for income on retirement or other that excludes inheritance from the parents as it has been passed legally to others by transfer etc. No one can say what went on or even if the father owned the farm on his death. Human nature is to query who gets what when a person dies. Is it possible FIL has forgotten what happened 30 years ago?
Common sense says some discussion or conversation happened 30 years ago to safeguard the person remaining to farm the business and do all the hard work.

[quote Thehouseofmarvels]**@VanGoghsDog* so essentially this older brother gained sole legal ownership simply by living on the land and not being chalenged until FIL and the siblings became unable to persue their own claims after 12 years, the limit @prh47bridges* tells us caused FIL's intestacy right to expire. If living in the property is all that is required to own the property and pass it to your son, and if we imagine FIL had stayed and farmed, and owned it alongside his brother, would the posters husband have inhearited half the farm alongside his cousin ? Or would the nephew still get it legally because his father was older, if the cousins argued and both wanted sole ownership. [/quote]
WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE OLDER BROTHER GOT OWNERSHIP.

You're just making stuff up. It's incredibly unhelpful.

We also don't know how the nephew got ownership. But the intestacy rules have been explained to you ad nauseum, so apply those to whatever imaginary scenario you like - think of it like an exam question if you were doing a law degree. But don't worry about posting your workings out!

OP's mum survived her Dad. Her mum inhearited everything, Dad had no will.

As has been explained to you about a million times, we don't know how the property was held at the death of the parent. It may have been owned jointly by him and his wife in which case it goes to her automatically as safe also owns it.

Also, we don't know if the property was passed to the older son before the father, or mother, died. This is common and is very possible.

Everything else you write is mere conjecture as we don't know enough about how the property was ever held.

[quote Thehouseofmarvels]@VanGoughsDog ok, so if stepmum disputed it intestacy would apply. Lets say she does not dispute it and her and her son go live elsewhere. Lets say stepmum dies 13 years later with no will. Does the farm belong to nephew's son entirely now because he took it over and possesed it and stepmum did not question that all told him verbally it was ok? Would I be correct in thinking that because more than 12 years have passed and the proper intestacy rules have not been enforced, stepbrother has no claim to the 270 k his mum would have got if she persued a claim? Or if stepmum wanted to claim her 270k would you agree she would be unable to do so due to the occupier gaining every thing by virtue of living there. So her right disapears after 12 years ? [/quote]
There is no step mum, this is all a figment of your imagination.

Stick with the facts known in the OP.

If you want to understand intestacy laws do a law degree. I can assure you they are a lot of fun with loads of these sorts if questions in.