Has Executor Devalued House By Letting Long Term

MariaD

Registered User
Messages
3
The executor is under a duty to preserve the assets of the deceased until they are distributed and to protect the assets from devaluation.

A relative left a house to three of us. The executor immediately let the empty house for the past 14 months. We would like the tenants to go and the house to be sold but she wants to sell it with tenants in it. The house is in Ireland and it is possible to ask them to go if you are selling but we fear they would have to be evicted as they cannot afford to go. A buyer would not be able to get them out without saying they were going to sell and they could in fact stay for another 3 years under the legislation. This therefore excludes people who want to buy on a mortgage and live in it from making offers. She wants to sell at auction with tenants in it. Could I argue that she has devalued the asset by her actions? I realise I will have to consult a solicitor but wonder if anyone has an insightful opinion. I may be clutching at straws.
 
Last edited:
How do you know they can't afford to go: what is the rent vs current market rent?
 
If the house was left empty, executor would be unable to get insurance other than for fire, and that at a much higher premium.

So it could be argued that in having the property tenanted the executor was in fact protecting the assets.

Where is the rent going? Do you know who the residue is left to under the will. Is the property registered with PRTB? Has the exectuor paid tax on the rent?
 
I understand about insurance and protecting the building. I expect that it is all done by the book. Have no reason to think otherwise. Balance of remainder to be split amongst three people.

Could I argue that she has devalued the asset by changing the property from one that could be sold with vacant possession to one with effectively sitting tenants?
 
Last edited:
If the house was left empty, executor would be unable to get insurance other than for fire, and that at a much higher premium.


Not quiet correct as I have vacant house insurance and I am covered for other than fire plus I also have a very good premium. I guess it depends on the insurer.
 
Not quiet correct as I have vacant house insurance and I am covered for other than fire plus I also have a very good premium. I guess it depends on the insurer.
That is useful to know. Could also have someone living in it under license. I think it is similar to a holiday let but would not be getting rent and they would just pay for heat and light etc.
 
Too many variables re insurance to debate here; depends on how long house unoccupied, location,.condition etc., and in fairness not the issue under discussion.

Ok so back to OP.

In regards to your question, the simple answer is probably not.

Starting proceedings now will definitely delay settlement of the estate. Legal costs will rise to silly money, which will cost you twice over. Estate will be at a loss and so will you.

If its an investment type property selling with a tenant could well be attractive.

Keep in mind that your relative chose this person to be their executor because they trusted them to manage their affairs. Maybe you should too.
 
Back
Top