Inheritance - My brother wants a property which is worth 110% of his 'share'...

[quandry]

My Dad left everything divided equally between four of us:
Me
My Brother
Grandchild 1 (my child) (in trust until 21)
Grandchild 2 (my child) (in trust until 21)

For the sake of simplicity, let's say the estate is worth £400 K, so we are each entitled to £100K.
There are two properties, and my brother wants one of them, but is is worth £110K.

He has no money to 'buy out' the extra £10k.
He cannot get a mortgage, as has poor credit record and irregular income.
He has said he also 'needs' an extra £5 K to move/ renovate the house etc.

I am happy to 'help' him by 'lending' the extra £15K, but I'm not sure how to do this under the terms of the will/estate?

• Am worried about how to ensure I get my money back?
• I don't really want to part-own the property, as I am worried about being linked to him in any way on credit searches etc and being responsible if he defaults on any bills etc.

Should I just set it up as a loan, repayable when he sells the property, of gets more income? What rate of interest should I charge? Could I link it to the growth in value of the property?

I am really going round in circles trying to think this through.

"he can only move if he has some cash too to pay off his credit card bill and do some renovations." Well that is his problem. Nothing to do with the will.

can't he own 90% of the property and you own 10%, so when he eventually sells, you get 10%, or he can buy out your 10% any time????

does that make sense???

Actually, have you posted about this particular problem, ages ago, while your father was still alive?

It will be a logistical nightmare to sell it - so why not just let him have it? That way you will also keep the peace between the two of you.

But if the property takes more than his share, then there's no money to go with it - and renovations are his responsibility, not the responsibility of the estate.

The problem, as I understand it, is that you can't just 'divvy up' an estate as you seem fit. Everything has a value attached to it in the probate process, so it has to be properly assigned and accounted for?

I guess there are some underlying issues between my brother and I. He is perfectly able and capable of earning more money than he has, but just doesn't apply himself, and I don't really see why I should have to bail him out (again, as I've already given him over £1000 in the past).

He's not married, and unlikely to have any kids of his own.

Sorry, but I think your brother has been utterly screwed over by this bizarre will, and any future children he has have been screwed over even more.

I would give him the property.

.

Is the property really worth £110k? How long would it take to sell considering it is full of all his stuff and needs renovations? I suspect he wouldn't make it easy for it to be put on the market.

Seriously, for the sake of £10k, when you and yours have been left 75% of the estate, I would just give him the property as a clean break settlement. You could easily run up legal fees and charges well beyond that to try and recoup £10k.

Not sure the will is that bizarre? Lots of people bypass their kids and leave a lot to grandchildren?? It also includes provision for the money to be used for the kids' education (Uni fees etc) which I know Dad was very keen on.

ItCouldBeWorse - I think you've hit the nail on the head! And I don't want to become bank of Sis!

I don't know if my brother is playing games. I suspect if I say there's no extra cash then he will say he can't move and then make like difficult when I try to sell the house.

Mary - well, actually, the property could be worth even more! As high as £125k by one valuation, but I think £110K is more realistic, and what one estate agent suggested might be the current true 'sell' price if it were to go on the market.

This is more about the relationship between you and your brother than the actual money, isn't it? If you really wanted to keep the peace/preserve your relationship, you would just give him the house.

But it sounds like you rather resent your brother and don't want him to have something that he wants.

If someone else had posted this as an OP, what would you advise them?

I really don't think it is that difficult.

Everything in the estate is assigned a value. You inherit you proportion. So you inherit 10K tied up in the house and he inherits 100K.

You put a legal document in place which says that when the house is (if ever) sold, then you get 10K back (not a %, but 10K, because it is 10K that is yours, not a %). You will get this even if it is repossessed/sold for less than current value, as the amount is determined by today's value.

The rest of the estate is divided as said, so you are owed another 90K and each of the kids 100K. Everyone inherits their portion.

Whatever your feelings about who should or should inherit what, the will must be divided as it says.

If he wants more money to do it up, then he can earn it. he is not entitled to anything else from the will. If you give him anything, it has to come from you, and not from the will. I think he needs to go out and earn the money he needs, he has just got a house!

I would be inclined to let DB have the house if the will allows for it.

You say it's full if his stuff. Is that DB's stuff or late DF? If DBs then no need for anyone to clear anything, if late DF then you really should both do the clearing together.

I know people are saying DB has less than you but the bottom line is it's DF's Will and he wrote it as he saw fit. Yes, he might have shared it 50/50 between you and DB but he could equally have left everything to the local homeless charity, or done like mine and left it to 1 of 6 DCs, his choice. You just have to deal with it now unfortunately.

Let him have the house . Most gracious and simplest thing to do .

You and yours have done 3x better than him as it stands.

If you put the house on the open market it might fetch 80k. Would you be happy to then get less than you currently anticipate?

I would be inclined to let db have the house too. You'd probably save on legal fees for a start, and you're family are say 300k up.

I think you sound greedy to be honest.

I'd let him have it and I have a brother who sounds similar.

I agree with MummyMastodon and most others. As your brother has 'issues', is it not conceivable that your father wanted to ensure he is, at least, housed? I think you're allowing your feelings about your brother to get in the way of your reasoning. You're inheriting a tidy sum and your family's getting three-quarters of your father's estate.

The simplest thing of all will be to vary the terms of the will, grant your brother a home, and enjoy the plans you'll make for your family's £290,000. You might even have a magnanimous turn and make the variation £15k, so he can do his moving and fix the electrics or whatever.

If you absolutely must keep a claw in your brother, do it the other way. Give him the £15k in return for a charge on the property. I had charges on properties after both my divorces; it's very easy and the place can't be sold without your release.

Personally I think you should go for the variation, do the right thing and make it a clean break. Otherwise you'll be fretting over "your" share of his house for a long time to come; not healthy.

Sorry, but I think you are sounding quite grabby here, OP.

And, however feckless he may be, I feel for your brother, who has had the value of his inheritance massively knocked by his father's unusual decision to divide his estate this way.

An equal split between children is far more usual.

Just let him have the house.

Did you have a thread on this back before your father died, worrying about what was then your position as the person with power of attorney over your father's estate and the possibility of needing to sell the £110K property to pay for your father's care, plus how your brother would react when he found out about the terms of the will? The set-up sounds familiar.

I think in your position I would either

(a) Just let your brother take the house and write off the £10K difference from your share, but don't let him have any cash. That way it's done and dusted and you are shot of any further financial ties to your brother, and you and your DCs still inherit a significant majority of the estate. OK, so it's not "fair" but the lack of legal hassles may well be worth £10K to you.

(b) Do as pp suggested and let him have the house but with a £10K charge to you registered against it. You'd both need separate legal representation and it's unlikely he can afford it, so you'd probably end up subbing him that money as well.

(and if the OP is the poster I'm thinking of then there is a long, loooong backstory with the brother and she's not being particularly grabby under the circumstances)

Let him have the house.

I don't think it's at all relevant what her children inherit. No child has any kind of right to inherit money from their parents. Legally, as executor, she has to follow the terms of the will, unless there is a very good reason not to.

Op, speak to a legal person about whether you actually can change the will like this, or decide how you want to do it once the will is executed, and you own part of the house. An untidy house and surly occupant won't sell, you could lose more than 10k if you try to sell and split the money

It is not 'grabby' to execute a will the way it was intended - that's the way it should be done. It is down to the deceased to decide who gets what and in what proportion for any or even no reason at all.

The OPs father made a decision to split his estate the way he has. It was his, and this was his choice. End of story. To then call the OP grabby or to refer to what overall share her family got to imply she is unfair or selfish is wrong.

As an executor she is required to follow her fathers WISHES. He willed his estate in a certain way because he WANTED it that way - noone has a right to inherit anything and he did not have to leave his son a bean.

If he had wanted DB to have a roof over his head then he could easily have left him the house outright. He didn't.

OP has not inherited 75%, she cannot touch the money left to her children, it is not hers. If the other two beneficiaries were not her children noone would dream of suggesting such a variation. The split is between four individuals. To give DB the extra she cannot touch the Trust money, so she would have to take it from her share. Which isn't fair.

The OP is following the role of the executor by executing the wishes of her father, who was of sound mind. It is not for randomers on a forum to decide whether it is fair or not - his money, his choice.

The only person who sounds grabby is the DB. He has been left a vast sum of money, and he wants to take from his sister's share too so that he ends up with more than anyone. THAT is not fair. And then to ask for moving costs to be paid as well?

Sounds to me like DB is very entitled and relies on others to support him.

Execute the will as your father wanted OP, it was his money, his decision. He had his reasons (including DB having a chunk of potential inheritance 'up front' by the sounds of it) and it's not for DB or Mumsnet to question them. If your brother wants more money he can do what everyone else does and earn it. Then when he dies he can leave it to whomever he chooses, as is his right - and as was your fathers.