# Inheritance dilemma



## Omega (23 Sep 2008)

Can anyone tell me what is the legal situation in the following scenario?

Years ago, my sister-in-law moved into her mother-in-law's house and lived there with her husband. They had three children (now no longer minors).

The husband died some years ago and the rest of the family continued to live in the house. There was no will on the father's part leaving the house to 
the mother-in-law, so she could not leave it to anyone, though she had intended to leave it to one her deceased son's children. 

The mother-in-law has also died, leaving my sister-in-law and the three grown-up children still living there.

There are now moves on the part of other family members, siblings of the deceased husband, to claim their share of the house. 

Can they force a sale, effectively forcing the occupants to move out? Many thanks for any replies.


----------



## mf1 (23 Sep 2008)

OK - a lot of unnecessary padding on that one!

It is unbelievably simple. Whose name is on the Deeds? Who actually owned the house? Why did s-in-law move in without some form of understanding as to what was to happen long term? Why did her husband never deal with the issue? Does s-in-law feel a moral or legal sense of ownership? Has s-in -law ever paid rent or has she lived there rent free? 

But to answer the question: 
"Can they force a sale, effectively forcing the occupants to move out? "

Very likely. She needs legal advice rapido.

mf


----------



## Vanilla (23 Sep 2008)

When did the mother-in-law's husband die- I assume he was the registered owner from the post?


----------



## Omega (24 Sep 2008)

Thanks for the answers - and sorry for the "padding"! 
A few points of clarification.....

_Whose name is on the Deeds? -_ The husband's father was the legal owner.
_Why did s-in-law move in without some form of understanding as to what was to happen long term?_ - There was an initial agreement with the mother-in-law that the family could live there all their lives and that the house would be left to one of the grandchildren.
_Why did her husband never deal with the issue?_ - Good question, lethargy I guess - and he died tragically about 5/6 years after the marriage. After this, matters were left as they were though on one occasion the mother-in-law did try to get the house passed on to the grandson but one of her daughters objected and would not sign away her claim. The matter was left there.
_Does s-in-law feel a moral or legal sense of ownership?_ - Yes, given that 
the understanding from the beginning was that her son would inherit the house.
_Has s-in-law ever paid rent or has she lived there rent free?_ - She has never paid rent_._


----------



## Bronte (24 Sep 2008)

I think what your saying is that the grandmother's (mother in law) husband  (let's call him the grandfather) died with no will and the grandmother assumed she didn't own anything as the grandfather left no will and he owned everything?  So his house/property with no will would be 2/3 his wife/grandmother and 1/3 his children (which would be your sister's husband and his siblings if any).  Her son then moved into his mother's (the grandmother's) house with his wife your sister.  Your sister's husband died, then his mother (the grandmother) died, her share would then go equally amoungst her children with your sister's husband's share going to his kids.    You'll have to clarify your story starting with did the grandfather own the property, were the deeds in his name and did he leave a will?


----------



## csirl (24 Sep 2008)

Based on the information posted, as both grandparents are dead (though not at same time) the house ultimately passed to the husband and his brothers/sisters in equal shares.

As the husband is dead, his children get his share.

The paperwork may not have been done on all this, but, in the absence of any Wills etc., this is where is is going to end up.

This is one of those classic family situations where a bunch of relatives collectively inherit a house with some of them living in it and others not. 

Hard to give advice on this without knowing the dynamics and circumstances of each of the family members. 

In answer to the OPs original question, yes, in general terms, the siblings can insist that the house is sold and proceeds divided equally. The easiest way around this problem is usually for the residents heirs to buy out the non-resident heirs at fair market price or alternatively the resident heirs use their share of the proceeds as a deposit on another property.


----------



## Omega (24 Sep 2008)

_did the grandfather own the property, _
_were the deeds in his name _
_and did he leave a will?_
Yes, Yes, No.
It seems that csirl has given me the answer, i.e. that the siblings can insist that the house is sold..... Thanks again.


----------



## Vanilla (24 Sep 2008)

csirl said:


> Based on the information posted, as both grandparents are dead (though not at same time) the house ultimately passed to the husband and his brothers/sisters in equal shares.
> 
> As the husband is dead, his children get his share.
> 
> ...


 
I don't agree with this as being black and white. Your sister-in-law may well have a better claim to this house. She would, however, need independent legal advice.


----------



## FKH (24 Sep 2008)

Your sister in law needs to see a solicitor as this is quite complex. This is my reading of it:

Father-in-law owned house in sole name and dies without will. House went 2/3 mother-in-law and 1/3 to all children between them (including husband) as previously stated.

Husband died, did he leave will or not? He may have left his share of the house to your sister-in-law as his wife. Even with no will she would be entitled to 2/3 of his estate, including his share in the house.

Now mother-in-law dies, her 2/3 of house now falls to be divided under laws of intestacy. This share goes to her children as she has no husband. If she has a pre-deceased child (husband in this case) the "per stirpes" rule means that his children take his share.

This means that house could now be owned by your sister-in-law, her children and her husband's siblings in different shares.

Get her to see a solicitor.


----------



## werner (24 Sep 2008)

How many years was the OP in the house undisturbed by her relatives?

Was the OP advised when she originally occupied the house by the volks now claiming a share that she was only allowed to live there?

Was there a written agreement to the above? Were solicitors instructed?

WHy have the other family members not taken action up to now?

The OP may have a valid claim for adverse possession or have at least a major beneficial interest in the house based on the length of time she has lived there as well as whatever maintenance/mortage paid etc on the house.

See a solicitor for advice.


----------



## Omega (24 Sep 2008)

_How many years was the OP in the house undisturbed by her relatives? _
- over 30 years

_Was the OP advised when she originally occupied the house by the folks now claiming a share that she was only allowed to live there? - _NO

_Was there a written agreement to the above? Were solicitors instructed_?
Nothing written; no solicitors

_Why have the other family members not taken action up to now?_
- One of the siblings died recently and left his "share" to his partner,
who is now being used by the rest of the siblings to bring matters to a head.

_The OP may have a valid claim for adverse possession or have at least a major beneficial interest in the house based on the length of time she has lived there as well as whatever maintenance/mortage paid etc on the house. - _She has improved the house over the years, partly (if not fully)paying for three extensions, though this may be difficult to prove as the siblings may counter by saying that their mother actually paid..... 
When does "adverse possession" come into play?


----------



## werner (24 Sep 2008)

Omega said:


> _How many years was the OP in the house undisturbed by her relatives? _
> - over 30 years
> 
> _Was the OP advised when she originally occupied the house by the folks now claiming a share that she was only allowed to live there? - _NO
> ...


 
On average 12 years, after twelve years possession by the exclusion of all others who are claiming their share.

Remember what you are reading here is a simple opinion and I urge that a solicitor is consulted for legal advice 

You may find some of this link to be of interest. http://www.landregistry.ie/eng/Prac...dverse_Possession_To_Registered_Land/#statute

Now go and consult a solicitor


----------



## Vanilla (24 Sep 2008)

When the mother in law died and the father in law died will be important. There is an idea in law that one can succeed as the 'surviving joint tenant' in adverse possession in some circumstances and it is possible she might qualify here. There is case law on it, probably counsels opinion might be necessary. I certainly had a case some years ago where someone in similar circumstances succeeded in becoming the RO though these types of cases are not without difficulty.


----------



## csirl (25 Sep 2008)

> On average 12 years, after twelve years possession by the exclusion of all others who are claiming their share.


 
Generally, adverse possession cannot be claimed if the person is living there with the permission of the owners. Where occupancy is with permission, it is generally regarded as being by license.

How long has this person being in sole occupancy of the house i.e. after the original owner and wife passed away? 



> When the mother in law died and the father in law died will be important. There is an idea in law that one can succeed as the 'surviving joint tenant' in adverse possession in some circumstances and it is possible she might qualify here. There is case law on it, probably counsels opinion might be necessary. I certainly had a case some years ago where someone in similar circumstances succeeded in becoming the RO though these types of cases are not without difficulty.


 
The burden of proof on adverse possession is on the person claiming the adverse possession.


----------



## werner (26 Sep 2008)

csirl said:


> Generally, adverse possession cannot be claimed if the person is living there with the permission of the owners. Where occupancy is with permission, it is generally regarded as being by license.
> .


 
The owners may say that the occupant "had permission to live there" but that would come to nought in a court case unless they entered into some sort of a witnessed legal agreement. Hearsay "evidence" by the owners after the lenght of time that is said to have elapsed by the op would not be given much credence.

It sounds like carpet bagging by the relatives.

The op must now seek legal advice


----------



## csirl (26 Sep 2008)

> The owners may say that the occupant "had permission to live there" but that would come to nought in a court case unless they entered into some sort of a witnessed legal agreement. Hearsay "evidence" by the owners after the lenght of time that is said to have elapsed by the op would not be given much credence.


 
I was thinking more of the time before the original owners passed away. As the original owners were occupying the house along side the sister-in-law and made no attempts to remove her (which obviously they didnt want to do anyway), the SIL's occupation was with the original owners consent - no need for paperwork, the facts speak for themselves. No different to e.g. an adult child living in parents home for a few years - they dont gain adverse possesion in such cases.

If adverse possession is being claimed, the clock could only start from the time the original owners passed away.


----------

