Siblings live at home, what happens to inheritance.

[BluesandClues]

This is in no way anything that is happening currently, and I’m just looking for general advice on the most likely outcome.

My mother owns a house, and my two brothers live at home. They’ve never moved out nor do I think they ever will, it’s that kind of set up. My sister has told me that there’s no will, that when she told us that she’d been to the solicitor to update her very old one (now about thirty years old) she had lied to us. There’s a whole host of things that could be said about my family,

What tends to happen when there’s a house involved that potential inheritors live in? In my head I kind of wrote it all off, my sister however has said we both could end up with a logistical expensive nightmare after the fact.

If there is no will the property will be split between the sibling, i assume that would mean the current lodgers have to move out or buy out.

If the brothers are living there because lack of money then how do you think they’d fund stuff like repairs, maintenance and council tax? I wouldn’t assume that you could write it off unless you mean you’d decline a share of the house if you inherit.

what country? inheritance rules vary, even between the likes of england and scotland.

Her existing will, however old it is, will be valid until she makes a new one. What does that say and who is the executor?

If you are due a share of the house that will be rightfully yours whoever lives there now. Your sister is right that it might be expensive and complicated to get hold of it though: you’d need to talk to a solicitor.

Presumably they either buy you out or you try and force a sale

"My sister has told me that there’s no will, that when she told us that she’d been to the solicitor to update her very old one (now about thirty years old) she had lied to us."

I'm a bit confused by this - so there might or might not be a will?

If there is a will then what happens depends on what the will says. For example, it may say that the two brothers are to be allowed to occupy the house for a set number of years after your mother's death.

If there is no will then each child will share equally in the house.

If the brothers then continue to occupy the house then the executor (or administrator if there is no will) will first have to write a letter before action to the brothers explaining the situation and that they are required to vacate the property so that it can be sold with vacant possession.

If the brothers refuse to move out then it will be necessary for the executor/administrator to bring a court claim for possession.

Presuming that is successful then most of the legal costs will come from the brother's share of the property but it is likely that there will still be some costs that come out of the other beneficiaries share of the property.

.

One possible thing to consider though, is if perhaps your mother said to the brothers at some point that they could stay in the home for the rest of their lives and that they have since spent a considerable sum of money in doing up the house (or something similar - maybe paying for an extension) that they would not otherwise have done without your mother giving them this guarantee.

In this situation they may have claim to stay in the house.

Everything depends on your individual circumstances.

So has she ever written a will or not? Even if it was decades ago

Can you not ask the mother to clarify the situation by updating her will?

she told us that she’d been to the solicitor to update her very old one (now about thirty years old) she had lied to us

So your mum has a will, what does it say?

Hmm I'm not sure I'd encourage my mum to leave a will in this situation as she could leave it to the men. If she dies intestate then the house will have to be sold and the daughters will get their share.

Did she destroy the original will?

If the 4 of you inherit the house (because your Mum dies intestate or because that’s what her 30 yo will says) you have options:
Your brothers buy you and your sister out and become the owners (maybe they could get a mortgage for half the values of the house)
You all sell the house and share the ££ ( you might have to get a court order if your brothers don’t agree)
You all remain owners of the house and you ask your brothers to pay rent on the half of the house that belongs to you and your DSis

Rent paid to you would be taxable and also when you eventually sold the house your share would be subject to Capital Gains Tax because the property is not your principal residence.

That sounds like a legal nightmare OP.

Can you address it with your Mum, even if you come at it from the angle of asking if your brothers will be able to carry on living there?

Of there’s no will it’s probably easier… will be split according to laws of intestacy - so if only one parent left to all remaining children.
the issue is is there is a will it can leave the house to your brothers. And if they live there there’s every chance you’d lose if you contest it

I had a friend this happened to except she was daughter and the brother lived at home, working etc but when parents died he refused to move out. He had never paid rent or shopping or anything. The threatened she had to take him to court instead she did something rather brilliant she had a key and when he was at work she moved in complete with partner and two adult children (it was big enough). She got another fridge with a lock etc and meals and bills she contributed nothing and then gave him a choice buy her out or they stay plus any partners. Meanwhile he tried to evict her and got nowhere. It was sold 6 months later. 👋

If the brothers have lived there all their lives it is their only home . Why would you force them out ? Your mother is content to have them there , it's her decision. Sometimes there are more important things than " getting your share " . Is 1/4 share , less legal fees , estate agent fees really worth it ? Do you not like your brothers ? It's not like it's a vast estate.

I know MN is all for rights and entitlements but sometimes life doesn't work out that way .

We are dealing with this with DH's family at the moment. Be prepared for it to be left to the two siblings living there, entirely. At least MIL has been upfront with this, in our situation, so no nasty surprises.

She has, I remember her writing sitting with the solicitor as a child. I have no idea where it is, or who is the executor though. She has had another child since that will was written, that’s how long ago it was.

Honestly, as I was a child when it was written I have no idea apart from some of her jewellery going to my cousins.

I also have not spoken to my Mother in years for a myriad of reasons. She has chosen to effectively cut contact with me (I’m not a cowbag I promise), and I’m also not really interested in pursuing that.

Expensive nightmare is the likely scenario if the house simply goes to all siblings while 2 are living there. They can refuse to buy you out, pay maintenance, utilities, and fees. You end up out of pocket while the case drags through the court.

I get life isn’t fair, but why should myself and my sister potentially continue to support grown men?

Yeah they’d be the type to do that as well.

I don’t think I’d take anything through the courts, I’d rather cut my losses and sign it over. I’d rather just have some of my childhood photos and leave the rest for them.

thanks for the answer though.

@BluesandClues But how would you and sis be supporting them ? They would have to pay their own bills, etc. And as your mother gets older , they will be there to help her . Otherwise you all may get nothing if the house needs to be sold for her care .

If mother has financially maintained the brothers for any number of reasons the likelihood of an 1975 Inheritance Act claim succeeding is strong. It would therefore be wrong to believe that if she dies intestate that the estate will be split four ways.

"...the likelihood of an 1975 Inheritance Act claim succeeding is strong."

I think that I might disagree with you here.

Unless there is an issue like promissory estoppel, then I really don't think that you are correct.

Are you perhaps thinking of something like Isaacs v Green [2025] EWHC 1951 (Fam)?

In that case the mother's estate had been divided between her two daughters and nothing at all was left to her son who was living in the deceased mother's home.

The son was retired, living on just a state pension, and living in the mother's house.

The executor lived in the USA and wanted the money from the house to improve her living conditions.

The Court therefore had to consider the circumstances where both claimant (the son) and defendant (the daughter who was the executor) were in financial need.

The daughter claimed that the son was excluded from the will because his mother disliked him.

However, on the balance of evidence the court found that it was more likely that the deceased had been concerned about the state of the claimant’s deteriorating marriage on any estate finances. Although the court did not speculate as to why the deceased did not alter her will after the claimant’s divorce was finalised, it accepted that the relationship between the two was ‘friendly’ in the later years to her death.

The Court said that normally, a life interest would be appropriate but that didn't apply in this case and said that the son was entitled to 25% of the estate and that the two daughters would get the other 75% shared between them.

.

Maintaining a child, of itself, is not generally enough to warrant more than an equal share of the estate.

There must be an additional factor that an adult child must show beyond just being a child and having financial need.

.

Or perhaps are you thinking about Howe v Howe [2025] (unreported)?

An estranged adult daughter (the only child) was awarded £125,000 from her late father's £1.4 million estate. This was after she was excluded totally from the will.

.

A serious question, I would be really interested why you say this. For non-spouse applicants like adult children, the award is strictly limited to what is required for "maintenance" (ordinary living expenses), not capital enrichment.

"It would therefore be wrong to believe that if she dies intestate that the estate will be split four ways."

I really am confused about this. Why would one of the children, absent any serious medical needs etc, require more than an equal share of the estate?