# House  inheritance query UPDATE



## faolteam (12 Apr 2011)

Ok let me explain this a bit easier, originally the house was been rented and someone mentioned at that time that if the house was not bought of the corporation and anything hapened the mother of the house it would rocket in rent 

So the mother and 3 of the siblings all put up 2000 each to pay off the house,

when they tried to sell the house a few years ago ther was a dispute from 2 of the siblings who felt they were entitled to a quarter of the share of the house plus a share of the mothers share,

there was no contract signed at the time for to say this was done legally : so now they have decided to sell again but this time they are going to sell and then and if it is sold decide how the money is distributed ?

there were 11 siblings,

3 paid a quarter share but no contract was written and one of the 3 has passed away 

3 have passed away, 


*1 has no spouse or children, *
*1 was not married at the time but has 4children, *
*1 has no spouse but 1 child*

the rest are still alive , can you let me know what happens to the first 3 peoples share highlighted in red and what do the remaining 8 siblings get ?

also : It seems that i have been informed that if the house sells for under 120,000 or less the sibling whose has passed away there child will not get a share because of the under value of the house, 

has anybody heard this ?


----------



## mf1 (12 Apr 2011)

So, there was a whole pile of confusion and no one involved ever thought of the consequences of their actions and now, after the event, everyone is trying to figure out what it is they all thought they were doing? 

A few simple questions: 

Is mother still alive?

In whose name is the title to the property held? The Deeds name the owners and surely some thought was out into that? Or was the property put in the mother's name? 

And was it the intention of the people putting money in that they were lending to mother or taking a share in the house? 

You could as easily say that 11 shares in the house go to each 11 or their estate. 

Or each quarter person takes a quarter with mother's share being divided 11 ways. 

Or take it into Court where the entire estate will be eaten up fighting over it!

mf


----------



## Brendan Burgess (12 Apr 2011)

I assume that the mother is dead as you wouldn't be arguing about it now if she were still alive. 

I also assume that the mother did not make a will? 



> And was it the intention of the people putting money in that they were lending to mother or taking a share in the house?





This to me is the key practical question. Maybe it's also the key legal question. 

I presume that their names are not on the deeds as I doubt if the Corpo would allow anyone else buy the house except the tenant. 

If they were not entitled, in law, to buy the house, I would guess that they have a weak legal case now to say that they intended to buy the house. Having said that, the siblings might wish to honour their mother's intention.

If they were not buying the house, they were either lending the mother the money or gifting her the money. 

*Is there any written evidence? 
*It's very difficult to resolve these long after the event. You have to go back and see if there is any evidence in writing.

Did the 4 apply to the Corpo to buy the house to be told that the house could only be sold to the mother? The Corpo would have such a letter on file?

Was there a family meeting at the time? Was there any letter sent from one to the other? Did any member of the family say that they were unable to help out? 

I presume a solicitor was used at the time on behalf of the mother. Was that solicitor asked to advise on how the siblings could jointly purchase the house?

Did the siblings who gave/lent their mother the money borrow it from a bank? Was there any correspondence with the bank about it?


----------



## Bronte (12 Apr 2011)

faolteam said:


> also : It seems that i have been informed that if the house sells for under 120,000 or less the sibling whose has passed away there child will not get a share because of the under value of the house,


 
The undervalue of the house has no relevance here.  Not even sure what you mean.  In any case the child of a deceased child will take their parent's share.  

This looks like it's going to end in tears with nothing for anyone after everyone disputes and the lawyers get paid.  Can everyone not agree to just split the proceeds 11 ways and be happy with that.  Unlikely.


----------



## faolteam (12 Apr 2011)

*Update*

No the Mother passed away in 1987, the reason the house is now been sold is the last person in the house has passed away,

No she left no will

The property was in the mothers name 

Originally in 2003 they wanted quarter of the share plus a share of the mothers share,

There is no written evidence, 

No the 4 did not apply

There was no family meeting it seemd that there were 5 in total living in the house and out of the 5 4 put up the money 1 sibling did not have the money at the time 

There was no solicitor used 

Im not sure how they funded there share but I would have thought they got the money together but I do know the corporation only wanted half the money at the time and were prepared to offer a 30 year mortgage on the other half 

I was told that there is a solicitor checking out the status of this apparently if the value of the house is very low the sibling who has died their child will not be entitled which annoys me if this is true 

Also I have to ask the sibling who died there shar dies and is reinvested in the share ?

The sibling who died and was not married but has 4 children are they entitled to there fathers share


----------



## mf1 (12 Apr 2011)

Did the mother leave a will?

mf


----------



## faolteam (12 Apr 2011)

No will left


----------



## beffers (13 Apr 2011)

faolteam said:


> So the mother and 3 of the siblings all put up 2000 each to pay off the house,
> 
> when they tried to sell the house a few years ago ther was a dispute from 2 of the siblings who felt they were entitled to a quarter of the share of the house plus a share of the mothers share,



Perhaps I am missing some thing here, but how does putting up 2000 to help the mother pay off the house, entitle each person to 1/4 of the value of the house? Was the house only worth 8,000 at the time? That is a bit hard to believe.

Why not sell the house, but before the 8 benificaries (or their off spring) get their share of the sale, the 3 original siblings get their 2000 back? Adjust it for inflation if you can get everyone to agree. That sounds like the fair and moral thing to do. If you can't, it is tough luck on them as they did not get anything down in paper at the time. Lesson learned.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (13 Apr 2011)

beffers said:


> Perhaps I am missing some thing here, but how does putting up 2000 to help the mother pay off the house, entitle each person to 1/4 of the value of the house? Was the house only worth 8,000 at the time? That is a bit hard to believe.
> 
> Why not sell the house, but before the 8 benificaries (or their off spring) get their share of the sale, the 3 original siblings get their 2000 back? Adjust it for inflation if you can get everyone to agree. That sounds like the fair and moral thing to do. If you can't, it is tough luck on them as they did not get anything down in paper at the time. Lesson learned.



The mother passed away in 1987 - 25 years ago.
Presumably she bought the house a long time before that - say 35 years ago.
It was purchased from the council, so it would have been heavily discounted

So, €8,000 or £8,000 seems about right.


----------



## csirl (13 Apr 2011)

Legally speaking the mother bought the house outright - she was the only one entitled to do so and her name was put on the deeds. But she borrowed money from 3 individuals to do so.

There is no Will, so all the mothers children inherit an equal share of the mothers estate. She had 11 children, so each of her children is entitled to 1/11th of her estate. If any of these 11 children are deceased, their heirs share their 1/11ths.

The estate is assets minus debts.

I assume the house is the only asset. And lets assume the money borrowed to buy the house is the only debt.

The executor could sell the house, give the 3 people who put up the 2k each their money back and divide the rest by 11. There appears to be no agreement re: interest rate of the loan, so it could be assumed to be an interest free loan.

Alternatively, the executor could adjust the £2,000 in line with inflation and pay each of the 3 people their £2,000 plus interest back.

In the absence of any clear agreement and because there was no legal entitlement (as against council rules?), I do not see how the 3 siblings who put up the £2k could ever consider that they bought 25% of the house. All they did was give a relative a loan, which they are entitled to have repaid. 



> *1 has no spouse or children,
> 1 was not married at the time but has 4children, *
> *1 has no spouse but 1 child*
> 
> the rest are still alive , can you let me know what happens to the first 3 peoples share highlighted in red and what do the remaining 8 siblings get ?


 
The remaining 8 siblings get 1/11th of the net estate each (i.e. house proceeds minus debts). 

The 3 siblings above have their 1/11ths divided according to their Will, or to their next of kin(s) as per inheritance law.



> also : It seems that i have been informed that if the house sells for under 120,000 or less the sibling whose has passed away there child will not get a share because of the under value of the house,


 
This doesnt make sense - there is no such thing as the "under value of the house". The sale price of the house does not in any way impact on the % share of the estate everyone gets.


----------



## Bronte (13 Apr 2011)

So it's an intestacy and the house on death went to her children equally (assuming her husband was dead).  Children, not heirs of a deceased parent will get the deceased parent's share.

Can't answer the question of was it a loan or a gift or part purchase of the 2K from 3 children?  Doesn't look like it was a purchase share.  But in cases of spouses seem to remember that if say the wife's father gave money towards the initial purchase in the event of a separation that it would be taken as a percentage on the eventual sale.  Never heard of this applying to children in relation to the purchase by a parent. 

Is there adverse possession here?  Who lived in the house and maintened it.


----------



## faolteam (13 Apr 2011)

Yes it was in 1982 believe it ,

_Why not sell the house, but before the 8 benificaries (or their off spring) get their share of the sale, the 3 original siblings get their 2000 back? Adjust it for inflation if you can get everyone to agree._

that what was proposed but they argued it and teh whole thing dropped.


----------



## faolteam (13 Apr 2011)

The house was bought in 1982

There was a sibling living in it but passed away recently thus the sale now


----------



## Bronte (14 Apr 2011)

faolteam said:


> Yes it was in 1982 believe it ,
> 
> _Why not sell the house, but before the 8 benificaries (or their off spring) get their share of the sale, the 3 original siblings get their 2000 back? Adjust it for inflation if you can get everyone to agree._
> 
> that what was proposed but they argued it and teh whole thing dropped.


 
The main problem is the 2 siblings who gave the 2K? What do they want?  What does the solicitor say?


----------



## faolteam (19 Apr 2011)

*prob*

third now


----------

