House willed to 3 sons, one living there free of charge

Hi all.

My father passed away in Feb 2011 and the house was left to myself and my 2 brothers. Due to a divorce, my brother moved back into the family home shortly before my dads death and has continued to live there free of charge. Myself and my other brother don't mind him staying there and we are not looking for rent. We want to give him time to get back on his feet. His support payments to his ex wife and 2 kids leave him with very little. However I am concerned that because we are allowing him to live there and charging no rent, that some day down the line he might be able in some way to claim the whole house for himself. Is this possible - something akin to squatters rights? Any advice please.

I think you need to seek professional advice. And a decision should be taken on how long the brother can stay in the house. Why are all 3 of you holding on to it? Why didn't you sell it after probate?

Our family home was left to all 9 children. One brother was living in the house (same scenario, family breakdown), not paying rent and unfortunately not maintaining the property either. As executor for my mother, her express wish was for the property to be shared equally among all, so I went ahead and sold the house, giving my brother plenty of notice. The house sold, there was rancour between my brother and I for a few years (he felt I had thrown him out of 'his' home), however all is well now. I think the important thing for you is to follow the terms of the will, and if that leaves all assets to be divided between the children, then that should be done at the earliest opportunity, regardless of your brother's current financial situation. Presumably when he gets a share of the money from the sale, he can set himself up. Hope it goes well for you.

The easiest way to deal with it, if you're all agreeable is to give him licence to stay in the house exclusively for whatever period. If you set a period of time and it runs out, then you need another agreement.

The basis of claiming adverse possession of property is possession without permission. If he has permission, he can't accumulate the necessary statutory period (12 years, generally). It's an uphill struggle for one owner to dispossess another anyway, so you should make sure the estate is administered, and the property in all of your names.

There is a will, so there must be an executor or executors. While the executor can take account of the wishes of the beneficiaries (especially if they are all in full agreement) the executor must primarily follow the instructions in the will. That might involve a balancing act. To my mind, it would be easy enough for the executor to delay taking action on selling the house for a year or so, but to delay significantly longer than that might be a problem.

Padraigb said:

There is a will, so there must be an executor or executors. While the executor can take account of the wishes of the beneficiaries (especially if they are all in full agreement) the executor must primarily follow the instructions in the will. That might involve a balancing act. To my mind, it would be easy enough for the executor to delay taking action on selling the house for a year or so, but to delay significantly longer than that might be a problem.

Click to expand...

Based on the OP that the property was "left to them", the executors duty is most likely to vest it in the three of them by an assent. An executor doesn't usually sell unless instructed to sell it by the testator, or if the beneficiaries decide amongst themselves to sell the property and split the proceeds, and get the executor to do it on their behalf.

Thanks for all your input.