Inheritance question.

Orionaut · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:27

Alice and Bob have inherited a family home between them.

Alice lives there currently but wishes to sell and move.

Bob lives some distance away, but wants to let out part of the property to provide an income.

Can Alice insist that the house is sold?

Can Bob prevent Alice from selling?

Mason- · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:29

If Alice wants to sell why doesn't she just sell her stake to Bob, she gets her money and Bob can rent it. Problem solved.

samurl · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:29

Bob should let Alice sell the house (agreeing value and sale terms) and use that money to invest one way or another.

Maundie · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:30

I think in this instance Bob would be best buying Alice's half off her.

Surely if he wants to let part of the house out he would have to get Alice's permission and if she's wanting to sell he would never get that

samurl · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:30

Mason- said:
If Alice wants to sell why doesn't she just sell her stake to Bob, she gets her money and Bob can rent it. Problem solved.

My assumption was that Bob must need the money to support his lifestyle, so therefore is unlikely to have the spare funds to buy Alice out.

Mason- · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:32

samurl said:
My assumption was that Bob must need the money to support his lifestyle, so therefore is unlikely to have the spare funds to buy Alice out.

Well Bob only owns 50% of the property so he's **** outta luck.

He can get a mortgage which will be covered by the rental costs and he'll still get some money on top.

Orionaut · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:32

Mason- said:
If Alice wants to sell why doesn't she just sell her stake to Bob, she gets her money and Bob can rent it. Problem solved.

And others...

Dont complicate the issue.

This isnt really a question looking for possible solutions. Rather a simple question as to whose wishes are given greater weight in the event of a hostile situation.

Rids · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:32

Surely Bob could acquire the property on a Buy to Let basis, he'll only need to mortgage half the property value after all, and rental income should easily outstrip the mortgage in this instance.

Edit: I don't think there is a simple answer to this, I imagine only legal resolution would decide the ultimate outcome assuming a 50/50 share.

skyripper · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:34

Mason- said:
Well Bob only owns 50% of the property so he's **** outta luck.

Alice only owns 50% of the property so she's **** outta luck too.

Mason- · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:34

Orionaut said:
And others...

Dont complicate the issue.

This isnt really a question looking for possible solutions. Rather a simple question as to whose wishes are given greater weight in the event of a hostile situation.

It is the solution though...

If a pair of siblings are left a house by their parents. If both want rid of it, they sell it and split the money.
If one wants to stay and the other sell then the one that wants to stay has to buy the other out of it.

It's true if it's split 3 ways or 4 ways. If someone wants control of the property they need to own all of it and so they need to buy the others out. It is the solution.

Rroff · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:34

Orionaut said:
This isnt really a question looking for possible solutions. Rather a simple question as to whose wishes are given greater weight in the event of a hostile situation.

I mean legally Bob could frustrate the sale but in the long run in the eyes of the law Alice's human rights would win out (in most cases).

If it was the other way around - Bob wanting to sell and Alice wanting to stay in the house Bob would have a very hard time without a very good argument forcing a sale through court.

EDIT: Would depend a bit - if Alice was sufficiently well off and/or had other property she could live in, etc. then it would likely turn into a stalemate in court and go on for a very long time.

Mason- · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:35

skyripper said:
Alice only owns 50% of the property so she's **** outta luck too.

??? How is she SoL if she want's to sell and move then she can sell her 50% to Bob and move out?

skyripper · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:40

Mason- said:
??? How is she SoL if she want's to sell and move then she can sell her 50% to Bob and move out?

She can't sell without going thru legal process if Bob doesn't want to. Which I would say counts as being out of luck (seeing as anything legal process is a way to flush money down the crapper).

The solution is for Bob and Alice to come to an agreement, but the OP shows they both want very different things.

Rroff · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:43

skyripper said:
She can't sell without going thru legal process if Bob doesn't want to. Which I would say counts as being out of luck (seeing as anything legal process is a way to flush money down the crapper).

The solution is for Bob and Alice to come to an agreement, but the OP shows they both want very different things.

Depends - this way around Alice might have a strong enough case for selling to get it through court, depending a bit on her circumstances overall.

skyripper · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:51

She may well win such a court case, but it will have flushed both money and her relationship with her brother down the crapper.
What kind of a brother wants to move a stranger into the home his sister is living in anyhow? Monster!!

samurl · 13 Mar 2019 at 11:51

Rroff said:
Depends - this way around Alice might have a strong enough case for selling to get it through court, depending a bit on her circumstances overall.

So back to my original comment... Bob would be better off agreeing terms of sale with Alice and walking away with half the house value to invest / live on.

Besides that, if Bob isn't already in a good financial position (providing an income suggests he isn't), then why would he want to become a Landlord living quite some distance away? It isn't quite that simple...

booyaka · 13 Mar 2019 at 12:03

Assuming they were both left 50% of the property each at the time of the inheritance - then neither can insist on "their" way.

Lots of money spent on lawyers is the likely outcome if they can not come to a fair arrangement for both of them.

Simplest option is to sell and move on with life.

Semple · 13 Mar 2019 at 12:04

Orionaut said:
And others...

Dont complicate the issue.

This isnt really a question looking for possible solutions. Rather a simple question as to whose wishes are given greater weight in the event of a hostile situation.

Without going through a court, i'd doubt either persons wishes have greater weight over the other. Alice would need bobs permission to sell the house, and bob couldn't just let out "his half" as the half would be based on the value of the property as opposed to physically dividing up the rooms.

IANAL but Alice could take this through the courts to force a sale, i can't see Bob having any grounds for defence, if he wants this particular property to lease out, then he needs to buy Alice's share, if he can't afford Alice's share, then that's tough luck.

Which one are you OP? If you're bob then you'd be better off just selling your half and investing elsewhere, if your sister takes it through the courts to force a sale, then that would cost you both a shed load of money.

HummuH1 · 13 Mar 2019 at 13:31

It also depends on which part of the country Bob and Alice reside in.

I can say with certainty, having been in a very similar situation myself, that in Scotland a 50% owner can force a sale of a residential dwelling and the only recourse to the party that does not wish to sell is to procrastinate the matter.

No idea about the rest of the UK though.

h4rm0ny · 13 Mar 2019 at 13:35

Actually, my immediate response to this question is to ask if they have a neighbour called Eve who listens through the walls.