Impasse over land ownership

[Loup321]

There is something that you need to check. If there is livestock on the land, I think that the landowner is liable if they get out and cause any damage. My father owns land, and he used to have to have his house insurance with National Farmers Union of Wales because they included the liability insurance. It doesn't matter whose livestock it is, but whose land it is. If a sheep got out, the sheep's owner might have a dead sheep as their loss, but you might have a multicar pile up as your loss. I know you're thinking of a horse, so there might be more care taken by the owner because it might be worth more.

Please do check this out before allowing animals onto the land. And please also make sure you are happy that the land is secure to your satisfaction. Putting a clause in the contract to say that the tenant is responsible for keeping the fences in good repair doesn't mean that they will keep the fences in good repair.

I'm remembering how I think I understood the situation back at home when I was 10 years old, around 30 years ago. You need to check the current laws in this area, because I could be completely wrong. And apologies that it's off topic for your actual question - you may know all of this already.

LouP

[Dod101]

Presumably the half of the land owned by the late sister is actually now owned by the trustees of her estate, strictly speaking, only the brother in law? Just asking. The matter will need to be resolved sooner or later. Why does the OP not make an offer to the estate of his late sister? The BiL then simply needs to agree if he is the only Executor/Trustee. No need for probate; simply a lump of cash sitting in the estate rather than the land.

The OP then has full ownership and can do what he likes with it. I do not understand why he needs to be worrying about probate.

Dod

[Clitheroekid]

Presumably the half of the land owned by the late sister is actually now owned by the trustees of her estate, strictly speaking, only the brother in law? Just asking.

No, that's not the case. Legal ownership of the estate of someone who dies intestate is automatically vested in the Public Trustee until such time as a grant is issued.

Consequently, the brother has no right to deal with the estate unless and until he's granted Letters of Administration by the court.

The matter will need to be resolved sooner or later. Why does the OP not make an offer to the estate of his late sister? The BiL then simply needs to agree if he is the only Executor/Trustee. No need for probate; simply a lump of cash sitting in the estate rather than the land.

The OP then has full ownership and can do what he likes with it. I do not understand why he needs to be worrying about probate.

See above. The brother can't transfer what he doesn't own.

[Dod101]

I see, thanks. It seemed an obvious way out of the dilemma but I had forgotten that the OP said that his sister died intestate. The fact remains though that the matter needs to be resolved otherwise it is just storing up problems for the next generation.

Dod

[Dod101]

Coming back on this one. The Public Trustee is just that, a trustee and so in this case, they are acting as trustees for the remaining asset in the estate of the sister (I assume the only remaining asset). Suppose the OP were to get a valuation of the land and based on that, decided on an offer. He then makes the offer to the trustee of his sisters estate (The Public Trustee) and copies his offer to the BiL. It is surely not in the public interest that the Public Trustee holds assets indefinitely and so they should be keen to dispose of this holding. Furthermore, the brother (that is the OP) is being prejudiced by the current situation in that he has in effect a 'dead' asset. He can do nothing with it and may in fact have some liability in the event of a problem or maintenance requirement with the land.

Can this situation carry on indefinitely? Depending on how much monetary value is involved, I would be trying to persuade the BiL to give me a Power of Attorney to get the probate business sorted out, and get the matter resolved. All the BiL needs to do is sign a Power of Attorney and leave it to the brother to do the necessary re probate, always assuming of course that the BiL agrees to sell.

Dod

[sackofspuds]

Thanks, all, for the recent replies.

Clitheroekid - do you think I have the right to rent the land to the neighbours? This isn't simply kicking the can down the road because in years to come, if the village plan changes, the land could possibly be worth more so I am not sure I would sell even if the ownership was regularised.

Good points about agricultural land and horses. The land was part of a farm at one point. Unsure how it is classified now.

I will email my ex BiL and mention the idea of trying to get the Land Registry to agree to updating the deeds without a grant of probate. Expect the power of attorney idea would worry my ex BiL but worth a try.

There is no time limit on grant of probate from what I understand so I see no way of forcing the hand of my ex BiL.

[sackofspuds]

I contacted my brother-in-law and he agreed to the idea of Clitheroekid, ie, sign a Declaration of Trust to the effect that he holds his half share of the land on trust for me as the sole beneficial owner.

I got around to contacting a local solicitor yesterday and she thought this would not work:

The Declaration of Trust would only deal with the beneficial interest in the property and not the Legal Title. To be able to dispose of, lease, convey the land etc we need to be able to deal with the Legal Title and we can only do this with the Grant of Probate.

Do you think it is worth getting a second opinion on this? This question addressed to Clitheroekid mainly.

Naturally the Grant of Probate involves my BiL declaring the value of my late sister's assets, getting 3 x valuations of the land, etc. I've asked my BiL whether he's prepared to go down the probate route but somehow I doubt he will be keen on the idea.

I mentioned to the solicitor that I was not optimistic about my BiL agreeing and that so far as I knew there was no way of forcing him to do so (even though my sister died 13 years ago) and she said, somewhat enigmatically:

there are other (more protracted ways) we could go about obtaining the Grant but this may escalate costs.

Any ideas what she could be referring to? In any case, it seems far from ideal to me since if my BiL doesn't cooperate, all the costs would end up being incurred only by me yet, at the end of the day, he'd still own half the land.