# Stalemate on sale of inherited house.



## Outoftown (5 Feb 2014)

A parent left house between all children. All children bar one want to sell, one refuses to sell. How does family resolve this? Can 1 beneficiary be forced to sell? Is there a time limit in which a will has to be carried out?


----------



## pudds (5 Feb 2014)

Time limit:  up to a year is not considered unreasonable, allowing for probate and  all that.

As the house was left equally to all children if one doesnt want to sell and the others do, then their only option would be to buy the others out if they can afford it.

I'm no expert though.


----------



## Billo (5 Feb 2014)

Who is living in the house at the moment ?

Was there no will ?


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2014)

The will is key here, and who the executor, as they will have the power to decide what to do. Basically is one doesn't want to sell, then they should buy out the share of the others. They shouldn't expect to hold onto the house for sentimental reasons or in the hope of property price increases if the rest of the siblings want to sell. In the interests of family harmony, a meeting between everybody to thrash it out is advisable.


----------



## Kimmagegirl (6 Feb 2014)

Bronte said:


> The will is key here, and is who is the executor, as they will have the power to decide what to do.



Is this a correct statement?


----------



## Eithneangela (6 Feb 2014)

Absolutely true. Once there's a will and a named Executor, it is the duty of that executor to follow the terms of the will (which after all is the wish of the deceased). In my opinion, the Executor must dispose of any property/non-financial asset as soon as possible and disburse the resulting funds equally between all members of the family. (I had this very experience myself, with a resistant sibling, when I was executor for my late mother).


----------



## Outoftown (6 Feb 2014)

House is empty now.
Will states that "if house is sold, proceeds to be divided equally"
There are 2 executors (both are also beneficiaries), one of whom does not want to sell and is unlikely to buy out others. A meeting took place already and the outcome is as I have described above. 
I'm anxious to know what the options are legally


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2014)

Outoftown said:


> one of whom does not want to sell and is unlikely to buy out others


 
How many beneficaries?  What's the reasoning behind not selling.


----------



## Outoftown (6 Feb 2014)

5 in total
1 prefers to rent until market picks up


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2014)

Outoftown said:


> 1 prefers to rent until market picks up


 
Of course they do, doesn't the one thing they are being unfair to the rest.  Who is going to rent it, declare rent, manage it, what happens the rent. 

Is there a solicitor involved?


----------



## Outoftown (6 Feb 2014)

Only solicitor involvement so far has been in regard to receiving the will and some queries about probate.
It seems unreasonable for 1 to hold up wishes of all other beneficiaries, but my real query is how can the remaining beneficiaries force this to a conclusion (as there it is possible there will be resistance every step of the way)


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2014)

Are they grieving, attached to the house, need money, or just selfish.  What is their motivation.


----------



## Outoftown (6 Feb 2014)

On the face of it they don't want to sell in the current market as price may increase (in spite of others acceptance of this)
In reality there may be any number of other issues


----------



## Padraigb (6 Feb 2014)

From The Succession Act, 1965 (emphasis added):


> 50.—(1) The personal representatives may sell the whole or any part of the estate of a deceased person for the purpose not only of paying debts, but also (whether there are or are not debts) of distributing the estate among the persons entitled thereto, and before selling for the purposes of distribution *the personal representatives shall, so far as practicable, give effect to the wishes of the persons of full age entitled to the property proposed to be sold or, in the case of dispute, of the majority (according to the value of their combined interests) of such persons*...


It would require a very convoluted interpretation of the law to overrule the wishes of 5 out of 6 beneficiaries.

The refusenik seems to see him- or herself as a property speculator, using the assets of the estate. That is unwise, to the point of recklessness.


----------



## Bronte (6 Feb 2014)

Padraigb said:


> The refusenik seems to see him- or herself as a property speculator, using the assets of the estate.


 
I like that Padraigb, must remember that for the next one with this same issue.


----------

