# Executor not following wishes of all parties involved?



## denby11 (28 Sep 2013)

My uncle died two years ago leaving no will and a farm of land behind. At the time my uncle looked everywhere for will thinking his son was to be the benefactor of it. When there was none to be found he appointed himself and a younger brother as executors of the will without the concent of the other siblings involved.
To cut a long story short after a year of wrangling with nobody willing to pay for the land it was agreed to sell the lands. The land borders two southern counties with half the siblings living in  limerick and three living in Kerry. So it was agreed one auctioneer from each county and the land was to be put up for public auction with the fee split down the middle.
Some three months later we got word the lands are up for auction in seven weeks with only one auctioneer selling it. (a family friend of the executor with no real experience of selling agri land). When we pointed this out to one of the executors he refuses to budge and says he is the executor and it's his decision!

Most of his siblings see the madness in the auctioneer he has picked is unsuitable but he refuses to budge. My mother has agreed to write letter to solicitor and say she is not agreeable to this and her portion of the land 1/8 is not to be included unless the two auctioneers are appointed to sell the land so the auction cannot proceed.

Would this be enough to stop the auction? Has the unelected executor the right to pick only one auctioneer and get his own way?


----------



## commonsense (28 Sep 2013)

Did your uncle have a wife and children?


----------



## denby11 (28 Sep 2013)

Sorry my uncle was not married and had no kids. He lived alone and farmed the land by himself with the only one getting an income from the land.


----------



## commonsense (28 Sep 2013)

denby11 said:


> Sorry my uncle was not married and had no kids. He lived alone and farmed the land by himself with the only one getting an income from the land.



From Citizens advice - I have underlined the relevant parts. As far as I know the land cannot simply be sold because your uncle is not the legal owner or the officially appointed administrator. 
I would also question the Auctioneer's role in this and wonder why he has not requested proof of ownership or some form of official permission. 
I will have another look for you tommorow to see what I can dig out - but I don't think that you can "self appoint" yourself as an executor.

What happens if you die without a will or your will is invalid
A person who dies without a will is said to have died 'intestate'. If you die intestate, this means your estate, or everything that you own, is distributed in accordance with the law by an administrator. To do this, the administrator needs permission in the form of a Grant of Representation. When a person dies without a will or when their will is invalid, this Grant is issued as Letters of Administration by the Probate Office or the District Probate Registry for the area in which the person lived at the time of death.

Rules

Distribution of your estate when you die intestate or have not made a valid will
The legal rules governing the distribution of your property apply:

When you have not made a will
When the will has been denied probate because it has not been made properly or a challenge to it has been successful
When the will does not completely deal with all your possessions.
In these cases, after debts and expenses have been deducted, the estate is distributed in the following way.

If you are survived by:

A spouse/civil partner but no children (or grandchildren): your spouse/civil partner gets the entire estate.
A spouse/civil partner and children: your spouse/civil partner gets two-thirds of your estate and the remaining one-third is divided equally among your children. If one of your children has died, that share goes to his/her children.
Children, but no spouse/civil partner: your estate is divided equally among your children (or their children).
Parents, but no spouse/civil partner or children: your estate is divided equally between your parents or given entirely to one parent if only one survives.
Brothers and sisters only: your estate is shared equally among them, with the children of a deceased brother or sister taking his/her share.
Nieces and nephews only: your estate is divided equally among those surviving.
Other relatives only: your estate is divided equally between the nearest equal relationship.
No relatives: your estate goes to the state.

Edit - the assets should go into probate first, the executor/administrator appointed, a sale organised and then equally divided as set out above. 

You should contact the probate office in your area for further details.


----------



## Dr.Debt (29 Sep 2013)

I'm not a Solicitor but here's what I know about this subject.......

When a person dies without a will (intestate) then the next of kin is /are entitled to apply to the court for letters of administration to administer the deceased's estate. We dont usually talk about executors or probate in this type of case (as these are relevant only in cases where a will exists) A person who applies for and is granted letters of administration is usually referred to as the Administrator.

I think the main question in this thread is the entitlement to take out letters of administration on the deceased's estate and it appears that the OP's uncles, being some of the next of kin have done that. In cases where there are several next of kin  entitled to take out letters of administration, the sensible thing to do would be to act jointly but that doesn't appear to have happened here. Where the next of kin do not act jointly, then the 1st one to apply will normally be granted the letters of administration. This is especially true if no other parties entitled to take out letters of administration submit a conflicting application at the same time.

In this case it appears that the OP's Uncles are the Administrators and they are the ones empowered to act. I suppose its possible that such Administrators could be removed by the court if found to be acting improperly but that's unlikely to be the case for merely choosing an unpopular Auctioneer. There's really not much that the other beneficiaries can do about the choice of Auctioneer apart from simple persuasion and negotiation with the Administrators. Certainly there's no point in writing to the Solicitor as the Solicitor has no say in such a matter.


----------



## denby11 (29 Sep 2013)

If all parties against what is being done write letters stating that we will not agree to transfer our portion of the land unless the land is sold jointly by both auctioneers. Can the solicitor not put stop to auction if he knows parties to the property are unwilling to transfer their portion of the lands if sold at auction.


----------



## Dr.Debt (29 Sep 2013)

The Administrators of the estate are now in charge and there's really nothing anyone else can do. Their job is to distribute the assets of your late uncle in an orderly fashion, in accordance with the intestacy rules. The other siblings are not involved whatsoever in transferring your "portion of the land" . The administrators have the power to sell all the land on behalf of the estate.

The time to challenge your Uncles seems to have past. If the other siblings had challenged your two uncles when they applied to take out letters of administration on the estate, then possibly the role of Administrator might have been assigned to some of the other siblings, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

If your uncles have already taken out letters of administration on the estate then there is nothing any solicitor can do to stop them selling the land as they see fit. The other siblings are beneficiaries of the estate but they are not the Administrators so there is really nothing they can do. The other siblings have a right to their share of the estate but no rights in the administration of the estate.


----------



## Padraigb (29 Sep 2013)

In legal terms, the administration of a deceased person's estate is not a democratic arrangement between beneficiaries. The administrators have pretty well the same powers as your deceased uncle had before his death.

If the administrators are properly appointed by the Probate Office, then it is for them to decide how to handle business. When you mention "the solicitor" do you mean a solicitor appointed by the administrators to assist in dealing with the estate? If that is the situation, then the solicitor should not allow other family members to interfere, as he/she is not employed by them.

At a push, the siblings of the administrators could suggest to the solicitor that they are concerned that the appointment of the auctioneer causes them some concern because they believe that he might not be suited to the particular task. The solicitor might then discuss the matter with the administrators, but should not reply directly to your mother or other beneficiaries.

Are you really sure that the administrators are wrong? If the land does not achieve its full value, the administrators stand to lose just as much as anybody else.


----------



## JoeRoberts (29 Sep 2013)

Is the selected auctioneer a member of one of the recognized bodies ? 
Remember, most auctioneers work through national networks such as DNG etc so in such case there is no need for 2 appointments. If there was a field in Donegal and one in Kerry then maybe so. Your logic of separate auctioneers just because the land borders different counties and some siblings live in each county is hard to comprehend. At the end of the day, the highest price will win.

The job of administrator is difficult and stressful enough with no reward. Sit back and think about things. What is your real issue ?
If he was properly appointed as administrator you need to lose the idea of him being "unelected".
If I understand you correctly , assuming the auctioneer gets a buyer, you want to object and prevent the sale, when he has done the job you say he cannot do ... Defies logic.

Having said all above, by my memory, there is an onus on the administrator to consult with beneficiaries re the sale of property. This seems to have been done though, the only disagreement is the auctioneer. That is not your area to interfere with.


----------



## Bronte (30 Sep 2013)

denby11 said:


> Most of his siblings see the madness in the auctioneer he has picked is unsuitable but he refuses to budge. My mother has agreed to write letter to solicitor and say she is not agreeable to this and her portion of the land 1/8 is not to be included unless the two auctioneers are appointed to sell the land so the auction cannot proceed.


 
I agree with PadraigB's comment on the role of executor/administrator and JoeRobert's on the stress of the job. 

Denby your language is confrontatial on the issue. I pity the adminstrator who has 7 other people telling him what to do and what not to do. 

Everybody is entitled to their share, everybody will get their share, but quarrelling about this auctioneer or that auctioneer will only delay things. It matters not one wit that the auctioneer has no experience of selling agricultural land. Either it's salable or it's not. 

Has all the 7 siblings decided how much the land is worth? Are all the prices the same? And what is that price based on?  It's really telling that none of the siblings was able to buy out the land.  

And the more people decide to write to the administrators solicitor, the more the costs will go up to the detriment of everybody. 

You mother does not have a 1/8 share of the land. She is entitled to 1/8 of the proceeds of the sale of the land.  And she cannot stop the administrator who seems to be doing a great job.  

After the sale I guess the poor administrator will forever be blamed for getting the wrong auctioneer, and for the sale price not matching the heights his siblings have decided it's worth.  But which none of them could buy themselves if it's going to be sold too low.


----------

