Good morning all
A client who owned a property T in C with his brother, both now deceased.
Client (C) owned 75% lived in the property for nearly 60 years and also maintained it.
Brother (B) has owned 25% for 9 years and lived elsewhere.
(C) had 3 children, each were left 25% share of the property, one child was also given “a life interest to live in the family home” the other 2 children are trustees
(B) left his 25% to his wife the beneficiary. Their 3 children were made trustees.
The children of (B) wish to proceed with the sale of the property.
Unfortunately the children of (C) cannot afford the full market value
to purchase their 25%. They maybe able to raise between 15/20%
The children of (B) wish to proceed with ToTLA section 14 act 1996 and force a sale
My deceased client (C) children owning the majority 75% with a life interest to reside in said property (the child has never lived elsewhere)
are, as am i flumexd as to where they stand and how to proceed without incurring horrendous court costs.
There are no horrendous court costs. The house should be sold as part of the probate process and the proceeds of sale divided among those entitled. There’s no reason for the house to remain unsold. If those entitled can afford the full market price they can buy it from the others if they want, but if not the house can be sold and the proceeds divided.
Thank you for replying Julien.
My clients who own 75% of the property do not wish to sell, surely their greater % ownership overides the other parties 25%!
Is this where ToLATA S14 would be enforced?
One last point, my deceased clients will grants “right to live in the property, for the youngest child” would ToLATA make said will null and void?
I don’t believe the IIP helps at all as it was only granted over the 75%.
It’s really just a question of TLATA and presumably that goes (at best) to purpose. I can’t imagine it is fair for a 75% owner to prevent a 25% owner from selling indefinitely unless there is some agreement in place: I would suspect/fear that the agreement (in principle) between C&B would be to allow C to occupy the property for life, not necessarily to allow him and all his descendants to occupy for life. There must be a relevant background that explains why B came to own 25% of C’s house.
Some background info…
My client (C) originally held 50%
The other 50% was held by the father of (C) & (B) when the father passed away, 25% was given to his two sons, hence the now 75%/25% split.
** You may only act for both parties where there is no conflict of interests between the two, and no significant risk of such a conflict arising **
paragraph 6.2 of the SCCS and SCCF
The Last Will & Testament of both brothers were written by the same law firm, albeit 2 years apart, neither will shows their property %.
(C) will actually names the full address of his property, whereas his brother’s (B) will, just states, my property!
Am I right in thinking, conflict arising, has now risen?
I am trying to safeguard my clients 75% in particular the life interest of the youngest son.