# Will says house to be divided amongst beneficiaries. What exactly does that mean?



## Grizzly (24 Nov 2014)

Where a will states that a house is to be divided among three named beneficiaries in equal shares, is the executor right to assume that the house is to be sold and divided among the three beneficiaries?  If two of the beneficiaries said that they did not want the house sold but to be transferred in to the names of the three beneficiaries can the third beneficiary object and insist that the house be sold?
There are no debts attaching to the property.


----------



## mf1 (24 Nov 2014)

I think that means "that a house is to be divided among three named beneficiaries in equal shares". And any of them can sell their share: but who would buy it from them? 

If the testator wanted the house to be sold and the proceeds split, s/he should have said that. 

It might be possible to argue that if two want it kept and one wants it sold, that the two buy out the third. 

mf


----------



## Grizzly (25 Nov 2014)

In the above case the executor went and put the house on the market without asking two of the beneficiaries who didn't want it sold. The third beneficiary who just happened to be his wife was the one who wanted it sold. He benefitted from this arrangement indirectly.
Would it have been possible for the two beneficiaries to stop the house being sold. Property prices were rising and the house increased in value by about €80k in the space of a year after it was sold.


----------



## Bronte (25 Nov 2014)

Grizzly said:


> Property prices were rising and the house increased in value by about €80k in the space of a year after it was sold.


 
So this is where the problem is, would you have posed the question if the property had lost value, or would we be asked was the executor negligent in not selling before a property crash.  

In my experience of these things, the best solution is  where there are 3 beneficiaries is for the property to be sold.  It's the cleanest solution.  People shouldn't be thinking about the what if's, particularly if they didn't object at the time.


----------



## Grizzly (25 Nov 2014)

Bronte said:


> In my experience of these things, the best solution is  where there are 3 beneficiaries is for the property to be sold.  It's the cleanest solution.  People shouldn't be thinking about the what if's, particularly if they didn't object at the time.



Two beneficiaries did object at the time direct to the executor and to the solicitor who was advising the executor at the time but they were ignored. Having the property sold may well be the cleanest solution but when probate was granted who actually owned the property at that point in time?


----------



## Bronte (25 Nov 2014)

Grizzly said:


> Two beneficiaries did object at the time direct to the executor and to the solicitor who was advising the executor at the time but they were ignored.


 
What would be the logistics of a property owned by 3 people?


----------



## Grizzly (25 Nov 2014)

Bronte said:


> What would be the logistics of a property owned by 3 people?


Can you clarify what you mean?  I really don't want to go off point here?


----------



## Padraigb (25 Nov 2014)

Grizzly said:


> In the above case the executor went and put the house on the market without asking two of the beneficiaries who didn't want it sold. The third beneficiary who just happened to be his wife was the one who wanted it sold. He benefitted from this arrangement indirectly.
> Would it have been possible for the two beneficiaries to stop the house being sold.


I'm wondering: what did the two dissenting beneficiaries want? Was it their wish to keep the house and use it? How might they have accommodated the third beneficiary's interest, as it seems clear that she did not wish to keep and use her share?


> Property prices were rising and the house increased in value by about €80k in the space of a year after it was sold.


Or is this the real issue? That the executor did not act as a property speculator?


----------



## Grizzly (25 Nov 2014)

If two of the beneficiaries wanted to keep the house and not immediately sell it, should their wishes have been accommodated by the executor. It never said in the will that the house was to be sold.


----------



## putsch (25 Nov 2014)

Agreed that it never said in the will that the house was to be sold what alternative was there unless there was unanimity among the beneficiaries?  Someone's nose was going to be out of joint. OK while 2 said "no don't sell" what other proposition did they make about ongoing expenses, giving one-third share to the beneficiary who did want out etc etc.

In my experience unless someone can buy everyone else out it is best to put property on the market asap otherwise it declines in condition (even if not in value) is expensive to maintain and in the case of family divisions continues as a concrete reminder of festering resentments. 

If the executor was negligent you could consider suing him - if not you have no case. Its not a democracy - the executor is there to execute the will and if the only practical way of doing that was to sell then they probably took the right action.  The court would not ask the executor to second guess the property market.


----------



## Grizzly (25 Nov 2014)

I would have thought that the executor would have convened a meeting to discuss the proposals rather than just take the side of his wife?
He would indirectly benefit from the sale of the house through his wife's inheritance.
Who owned the house when probate was granted?


----------



## putsch (25 Nov 2014)

Grizzly said:


> I would have thought that the executor would have convened a meeting to discuss the proposals rather than just take the side of his wife?
> He would indirectly benefit from the sale of the house through his wife's inheritance.
> Who owned the house when probate was granted?



To be honest it sounds from what you are implying that any meeting would have been pointless.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (25 Nov 2014)

If two people wanted to keep the house, the obvious thing was for them to buy out the share of the beneficiary who wanted to sell.  Did they offer to do this?


----------



## Sophrosyne (26 Nov 2014)

Grizzly said:


> I would have thought that the executor would have convened a meeting to discuss the proposals rather than just take the side of his wife?
> He would indirectly benefit from the sale of the house through his wife's inheritance.
> Who owned the house when probate was granted?


 
I think that any objective executor would have, as a common courtesy, convened a meeting to obtain the views of all 3 beneficiaries before acting.


----------



## Bronco Lane (26 Nov 2014)

Can an executor insist in this case that the house be sold?


----------



## Padraigb (26 Nov 2014)

Bronco Lane said:


> Can an executor insist in this case that the house be sold?


If it is the only way to effect a three-way division of the value of the house, I think the answer is yes. See http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1965/en/act/pub/0027/sec0050.html#sec50


----------



## Kimmagegirl (1 Jan 2015)

If probate had been granted in the above situation does the ownership of the property not move from the executor's control to the beneficiaries control?  Therefore is it not up to the beneficiaries to decide amongst themselves what is to be done with the house or does it still reside with the executor?


----------



## Padraigb (1 Jan 2015)

Grant of Probate has the effect of putting the Executor in full charge of the situation, and does not create a "Beneficiaries' Management Committee" to guide and direct the management of the estate. The Executor is bound by the will, and if there is a substantive doubt about the testator's intentions, then the Probate Court can give a ruling.

That said, a wise Executor will keep residual beneficiaries informed, and will try, so far as the will allows, to deal with matters in a way that keeps them happy. But if, as here, there is disagreement between the beneficiaries, the Executor should try not to get drawn into conflict situations, and should rely very heavily on the will as the guide to how to act.


----------



## IsleOfMan (2 Jan 2015)

In our case the executor placed the house on the market before probate was granted. From reading the above it suggests that he did this before he was given "full charge of the situation". One of the beneficiaries wanted the house transferred in to the beneficiaries names. The executor refused to discuss this despite there being no debts attached to the property nor did it say in the will that the house was to be sold.  Was he within his rights to put the house on the market before probate was granted?


----------



## Padraigb (2 Jan 2015)

The executor's powers come from the will, and the will comes into effect at the time of death. The Grant of Probate simply means that the court has been apprised of the situation, and confirms that things are in order - the will is "proved". It is quite reasonable for an executor to take steps prior to the Grant, provided that things can be rolled back should a problem arise (for example, the discovery of a later will). In my opinion, it is quite acceptable for an executor to place a property on the market while awaiting Probate, but it is not possible to complete a sale before Probate is granted.

I would be concerned as an executor if one of the beneficiaries were trying to make decisions. It would be less of a problem if all the beneficiaries wanted the same thing.


----------

