Early payment of will benefactors
r1200rt
I am the sole executor of my fathers will, I have obtained probate, the
will has 3 beneficiaries including myself, I have been sorting out bank
accounts/ building society accounts/insurances etc and now think that
all payments are now in the executors account that I have set up,
however there is still a house to sell which is going on the market
shortly, one of the benefactors has asked for an interim payment from
the executor account.
Am I right in not paying anything out to benefactors until the house
has been sold and all bills settled.
Thanks in anticipation.
--
r1200rt
Norman Wells
You are supposed to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries.
You must of course retain enough in the estate to cover any costs that are
likely to be incurred in selling the house or dealing with any other matters
to finalise the estate. However, there is nothing to prevent you
distributing the rest of the estate in accordance with the Will, and indeed
you should do so. There is no reason why the beneficiaries should have to
wait.
Indeed, they might start to question why the house hasn't been sold already,
depending of course on the time that has elapsed since your father's death.
If you're playing 'timing games' waiting for the housing market to recover
etc, then that should only be done with the full agreement of all the
benficiaries, who are entitled to their share of the estate as soon as
reasonably practicable.
Peter Crosland
> three
> beneficiaries and one (or two...) wanted to wait for the property to be
> sold
> either at the full market price/value or when the market 'picks up' again
> rather than just sold at *any* price. I'm not even sure what sold at any
> price entails either. Auction..?
> I mean, the way the property market is at the moment, it could reasonably
> be
> a long while before any property got sold at all anyway.
> How does acting for the 'best interest' work when the "best interest"
> differs amongst the beneficiaries?
> I'm interested in this since at some point, I myself, am going to be in
> this very position (well, let's assume that nature or accident doesn't
> intervene) but with the added complication of being the executor AND a
> beneficiary, with a property being the main asset, and one I shall not
> want
> or need to sell but I know the other beneficiaries will need to have
> their
> money from it..
Unless, and until, probate is granted the executor(s) have no power to sell.
Once probate is granted the executor(s) are obliged to deal with matters as
quickly as is reasonably possible. There would seldom be circumstances where
it would be reasonable for them to delay a sale in the hope that the market
might rise. As far as the latter case is concerned it is always open to one
beneficiary to but the property in order that the others may be paid but if
so the care must be taken to ensure that price is fair.
Peter Crosland
Norman Wells
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
>> Indeed, they might start to question why the house hasn't been sold
>> already, depending of course on the time that has elapsed since your
>> father's death. If you're playing 'timing games' waiting for the
>> housing market to recover etc, then that should only be done with the
>> full agreement of all the benficiaries, who are entitled to their
>> share of the estate as soon as reasonably practicable.
>
>
> were three beneficiaries and one (or two...) wanted to wait for the
> property to be sold either at the full market price/value or when
> the market 'picks up' again rather than just sold at *any* price.
> I'm not even sure what sold at any price entails either. Auction..?
> I mean, the way the property market is at the moment, it could
> reasonably be a long while before any property got sold at all anyway.
> How does acting for the 'best interest' work when the "best interest"
> differs amongst the beneficiaries?
The beneficiaries are all entitled to their money as soon as reasonably
practicable. If the executor delays realising any of the assets, including
holding on to a house for whatever reason, then he is open to being sued by
any beneficiary who thinks he is being denied what is due to him for
maladministration of the estate. So, if the executor just decides off his
own bat not to sell the house immediately, he takes and runs that risk.
He can always apply to the court for directions, but I would have thought
that, if the beneficiaries disagree, the simplest solution is for the house
to be put on the market or auctioned off. Any beneficiaries who don't want
that could alternatively make their own arrangements with the beneficiary
who wants his money to buy out his interest in the house immediately at the
current market price so as to remove him from the equation.
> I'm interested in this since at some point, I myself, am going to be
> in this very position (well, let's assume that nature or accident
> doesn't intervene) but with the added complication of being the
> executor AND a beneficiary, with a property being the main asset, and
> one I shall not want or need to sell but I know the other
> beneficiaries will need to have their money from it..
Good luck!
RobertL
> mark wrote:
> .. the simplest solution is for the house
> to be put on the market or auctioned off.
Agreed
> Any beneficiaries who don't want
> that could alternatively make their own arrangements with the beneficiary
> who wants his money to buy out his interest in the house immediately at the
> current market price so as to remove him from the equation.
Or, more simply, they can bid in the auction. They will bid in the
knowledge that a proportion of what they bid will come back to them
anyway when the sale proceeds are distributed..
Robert
r1200rt
Peter Crosland;658246 Wrote:
> I am the sole executor of my fathers will, I have obtained probate,---
> the will has 3 beneficiaries including myself, I have been sorting
> out bank accounts/ building society accounts/insurances etc and now
> think that all payments are now in the executors account that I have
> set up, however there is still a house to sell which is going on the
> market shortly, one of the benefactors has asked for an interim
> payment from the executor account.
> Am I right in not paying anything out to benefactors until the house
> has been sold and all bills settled.
>
>
> You are supposed to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries.
>
> You must of course retain enough in the estate to cover any costs
> that are likely to be incurred in selling the house or dealing with
> any other matters to finalise the estate. However, there is nothing
> to prevent you distributing the rest of the estate in accordance with
> the Will, and indeed you should do so. There is no reason why the
>
> -
> Indeed, they might start to question why the house hasn't been sold
> already, depending of course on the time that has elapsed since your
> father's death. If you're playing 'timing games' waiting for the
> housing market to recover etc, then that should only be done with the
> full agreement of all the benficiaries, who are entitled to their
>
> Unless, and until, probate is granted the executor(s) have no power to
> sell.
> Once probate is granted the executor(s) are obliged to deal with
> matters as
> quickly as is reasonably possible. There would seldom be circumstances
> where
> it would be reasonable for them to delay a sale in the hope that the
> market
> might rise. As far as the latter case is concerned it is always open to
> one
> beneficiary to but the property in order that the others may be paid
> but if
> so the care must be taken to ensure that price is fair.
>
> Peter Crosland
Thanks for the reply's
My Father only passed away 8 weeks ago in May 2009 so I think I have
done quite well moving things along quite quickly, I have just obtained
a HIP and the property is with the estate agent and should be on the
market next week.
The person who wants the payment had not seen my father for 2 years and
is only interested in money, and has been nothing but a thorn in my side
during this process, I along with the other benefactor would rather wait
until the estate is settled before making any payment, would be good to
know how we stand legally.
I have tried researching allowable time scales but have found nothing.
Thanks again
--
r1200rt
Peter Crosland
--
Peter Crosland
"r1200rt" <r1200rt...@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote in message
news:r1200rt...@legalbanter.co.uk...
You are under no obligation to pay him until you are sure the estate has
sufficient funds. It is generally accepted that executors have a year to
resolve matters but this is not definitive. All the executor has to do is
act in a reasonable manner and not act to the detriment of the estate.
Personally I would tell him politely he will just have to wait.
Peter Crosland
steve robinson
> > rather than just sold at any price. I'm not even sure what sold at
The executors can delay a sale if the result will give the estate a better return in
the near future , you will need the agreement of the benificaries
. In my mothers will it was actually written into the will that the executors could
delay the sale of the property if they deemed a better return would be forthcoming
if the sale was delayed
Didnt specify any time scale but as the only beneficeries were my brother , myself
and two daughters it made little difference
Norman Wells
> You are under no obligation to pay him until you are sure the estate
> has sufficient funds. It is generally accepted that executors have a
> year to resolve matters but this is not definitive. All the executor
> has to do is act in a reasonable manner and not act to the detriment
> of the estate. Personally I would tell him politely he will just have
> to wait.
How is it reasonable to withhold payment of already realised assets when a
distribution has been requested and is clearly possible without prejudicing
the estate?
Peter Crosland
As you well know the executor is obliged to act in the best interests of the
estate and no particular beneficiary should be given precedence of the
others. In any case the OP has not made it clear if there really are
sufficient funds to do so before the house is sold. Given the uncertain
nature of the property market a prudent executor would not do so.
Peter Crosland
Roland Perry
12:30:06 on Sat, 4 Jul 2009, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>As you well know the executor is obliged to act in the best interests of the
>estate and no particular beneficiary should be given precedence of the
>others. In any case the OP has not made it clear if there really are
>sufficient funds to do so before the house is sold. Given the uncertain
>nature of the property market a prudent executor would not do so.
Unless there is a realistic expectation that the house is in negative
equity I don't think that letter remark makes sense.
--
Roland Perry
steve robinson
The executor has to make sure that all the realised assets are free from any luien
and that all the creditors are paid before the remaining assets are distributed in
accordance with the will
If the estate is split between cash and real estate based asets to be sold ,if you
have been left only a portion of the value of the real estate not the cash asets you
can not be paid from the cash asets
steve robinson
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:30:18 +0100, r1200rt
> <r1200rt...@legalbanter.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The person who wants the payment had not seen my father for 2 years and
> > is only interested in money, and has been nothing but a thorn in my side
> > during this process, I along with the other benefactor would rather wait
> > until the estate is settled before making any payment, would be good to
> > know how we stand legally.
> > I have tried researching allowable time scales but have found nothing.
>
> If paying this individual from funds that you already know are available
> will remove a thorn from your side, it sounds like a no-brainer to me.
>
> Tony
The problem is if these funds belong to other benificeries then the executor could
end up financially liable for any losses , its quite common in wills to give one
person cash others jewlry and another real estate or a combination
If the executor pays out on the value of the house at todays rates and the value
subsequently plunges and the property is then sold off at a significant discount the
other beniferies will justifyably be slightly miffed , if any have been left a cash
sum and this is diluted by the action of the executor then he/ she could rightfully
bring an action against the executor for the difference
The correct proceedure is to make the benificary wait until the property is sold if
he doesnt like this then he/she always has the option of taking legal action ,
either way he/she would be considerably out of pocket and the timescale for the
realiseation of his bequest would extend as would the value drop as the estate would
be responsible for the legal fees of the executor
steve robinson
Of course it does , house prices are still unstable , many areas are still dropping
To make an assumption of the value then pay out on that assumption is not the
correct proceedure and could leave the executor open to legal action if the other
beneficaries lose out
An aset to be devided x ways equally means just that
Norman Wells
>>> You are under no obligation to pay him until you are sure the
>>> estate has sufficient funds. It is generally accepted that
>>> executors have a year to resolve matters but this is not
>>> definitive. All the executor has to do is act in a reasonable
>>> manner and not act to the detriment of the estate. Personally I
>>> would tell him politely he will just have to wait.
>>
>> How is it reasonable to withhold payment of already realised assets
>> when a distribution has been requested and is clearly possible
>> without prejudicing the estate?
>
>
> As you well know the executor is obliged to act in the best interests
> of the estate and no particular beneficiary should be given
> precedence of the others.
That's right of course. If an interim payment is made to one beneficiary it
should be made equally to all beneficiaries.
> In any case the OP has not made it clear if
> there really are sufficient funds to do so before the house is sold.
He said he's realised all the other assets, like insurances, and bank and
building society accounts. As long as sufficient funds are kept in the
executor account to meet any up-front expenses in selling the house, there
is no reason in my view why the rest cannot be distributed immediately.
> Given the uncertain nature of the property market a prudent executor
> would not do so.
Since most house selling expenses are met out of the proceeds of sale, I
doubt if that much needs to be retained in the estate, though the executor
should take a fairly cautious view. Any excess can be distributed.
Norman Wells
But no-one has suggested that. One beneficiary has suggested an interim
payout. That can only be out of realised assets, and not anything to do
with the house.
Roland Perry
on Sat, 4 Jul 2009, steve robinson <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk>
remarked:
>To make an assumption of the value then pay out on that assumption is not the
>correct proceedure and could leave the executor open to legal action if the other
>beneficaries lose out
>
>An aset to be devided x ways equally means just that
Does the will say that, rather than specify a fixed sum?
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
It really depends on how big the sum is in relation to the total value of
the estate and to the value of the house. The other point I was trying to
make that there is no obligation on the executors to make an interim payment
unless there is some unusual delay. It simply makes more work for the
executor and may mean extra expense if a professional is involved.
Personally I would only do it if there was a good reason such as relieving
hardship. Unpaid executors often have more than enough to do without being
pressured by greedy beneficiaries.
Peter Crosland
GB
Sorry to hear about your loss.
It is always possible that some creditors will emerge from the woodwork. I
don't see why an executor should take any personal risk of liability, and he
would be in that position if he distributed the entire estate and then found
that there were some debts outstanding. Therefore, a sensible and prudent
course would be to advertise, so as to get the benefit of the protection in
s27 of the Trustee Act 1925. I wouldn't distribute anything at all until
that process is completed, but I see no advantage in delaying placing the
ads just to spite this chap who is being awkward.
As far as the house is concerned, the executor should sell it reasonably
quickly, but not as a fire sale. As one of the beneficiaries is being
awkward, I would play this strictly by the book. So, take paid-for advice
from a surveyor and act on it. You will only pay a third of the cost.
I wouldn't pay anything out to benefiaries until you have that advice. Even
then I would be extremely cautious in keeping plenty of cash in reserve, as
there may be all sorts of expenses in connection with the property, eg
security, insurance and maintenance. I would ask the surveyor for a
worst-case estimate of those expenses and then act on that. An executor has
to act in the interests of the beneficiaries, and it is not in their
interests to distribute so much cash that there is not enough to enable the
property to be maintained and marketed properly.
So, you can certainly delay distributing cash and limit the amount you
distribute, but your original question was "Am I right in not paying
anything out to benefactors until the house has been sold and all bills
settled?", and I think that is not right in principle.
steve robinson
and those realised asssets must be distributed equally
Norman Wells
>> He said he's realised all the other assets, like insurances, and
>> bank and building society accounts. As long as sufficient funds are
>> kept in the executor account to meet any up-front expenses in
>> selling the house, there is no reason in my view why the rest cannot
>> be distributed immediately.
>>
>>> Given the uncertain nature of the property market a prudent executor
>>> would not do so.
>>
>> Since most house selling expenses are met out of the proceeds of
>> sale, I doubt if that much needs to be retained in the estate,
>> though the executor should take a fairly cautious view. Any excess
>> can be distributed.
>
> It really depends on how big the sum is in relation to the total
> value of the estate and to the value of the house.
Agreed.
> The other point I
> was trying to make that there is no obligation on the executors to
> make an interim payment unless there is some unusual delay.
You said yourself that the property market is uncertain. That means that
houses are likely to be on the market for longer than usual at present,
particularly if they're put up at too high an asking price as a laid back
executor/beneficiary might be tempted to do. If I was a beneficiary and was
told that I'd have to wait for a house to be put on the market and sold
before I could have even what I was entitled to out of the assets that had
already been realised, I think I might be a little bit cross, especially if
the delay was likely to be several months, as it would be.
> It simply
> makes more work for the executor and may mean extra expense if a
> professional is involved.
The executor merely has to decide how much money needs to be retained in the
estate, divide the rest by three, and write out three cheques. I wouldn't
have thought that too onerous.
> Personally I would only do it if there was
> a good reason such as relieving hardship. Unpaid executors often have
> more than enough to do without being pressured by greedy
> beneficiaries.
There is nothing to suggest that the beneficiaries are greedy, merely that
they would like what there is to be distributed as soon as possible, which
in my view is perfectly reasonable and indeed what the law requires. In any
case, the executor is required to act in the best interests _of the
beneficiaries_, not in a way that is merely convenient for himself. Having
more than enough to do is not a satisfactory excuse even if true, which it
doesn't actually appear to be in the present case. Everything else bar the
sale of the house has been done.
Peter Crosland
>> value of the estate and to the value of the house. The other point I
>> was trying to make that there is no obligation on the executors to
>> make an interim payment unless there is some unusual delay. It simply
>> makes more work for the executor and may mean extra expense if a
>> professional is involved. Personally I would only do it if there was
>> a good reason such as relieving hardship. Unpaid executors often have
>> more than enough to do without being pressured by greedy
>> beneficiaries.
>
> *could* be written into (the will for) the execution of the asset
> distribution of a will...?
> Or alternatively, some statement about the will not being executed for,
> say,
> one year? 3 years? (for example...) or do other obligations for the
> execution of the will, supercede the will regardless...?
> I must say, this is interesting for me, no doubt for many others, as at
> some
> point we may be faced with these quandries both from writing our own wills
> and being an executor for others (usually parents, I guess..) and I am
> certainly going to speak with my parents about these issues whilst they
> are
> still here. I know (in general terms) the main benificiaries of the will
> and their share of the assets but I know my parents would not want discord
> and confusion over delays or problems outside the control of the executor
> (...me!) .... such as not being able to realise the full value of the
> property or being unable to sell it at market value etc., what they would
> want to happen if, and when ever, this might arise...
I would suggest being very cautious in putting extra constraints such as
time limits on the executors. It is impossible to predict all circumstances
that they may face. As I said before relatives who are also executors are
often already under pressure through the loss of a loved one. In my
experience the most important thing is, if possible, to discuss things with
the testator before they die so that things can be dealt with as easily as
possible. The worst one I ever dealt with was that of a great aunt who did
not even tell me she was making me sole executor of a will that had fourteen
codicils several of which were contradictory. It took me six years to deal
with because one relative decided to take legal action which he ultimately
lost because he died, and his executor saw the common sense in not
continuing the action. The legal advice I received was not to pay out
anything because there was the distinct possibility that the estate could be
liable for heavy legal costs that were just not predictable. The
beneficiaries were aware of this and all but the one supported my actions.
In fact the estates increased significantly during the six years so everyone
including the Inland Revenue did quite well out of the delay. I accept that
this was an extreme case but they do happen. Contrast that with the will of
my late mother who had discussed everything at length with me so it was all
settled and distrubuted in nine weeks. The bottom line is for testators to
keep it simple!
Peter Crosland
steve robinson
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>
> > It really depends on how big the sum is in relation to the total
> > value of the estate and to the value of the house. The other point I
> > was trying to make that there is no obligation on the executors to
> > make an interim payment unless there is some unusual delay. It simply
> > makes more work for the executor and may mean extra expense if a
> > professional is involved. Personally I would only do it if there was
> > a good reason such as relieving hardship. Unpaid executors often have
> > more than enough to do without being pressured by greedy
> > beneficiaries.
>
> Which has lead me into thinking if it is possible that some time scale
> could be written into (the will for) the execution of the asset
> distribution of a will...?
Not really feasable mark , wills are often written years in advance of death your
commitments change over the years , if your estate is complicated or your family
extended which is oten the case these days it makes the executors job very
difficult .
My wifes father left before she was born , saw her twice in his lifetime , she has
step sisters , half sisters stepmothers step father .
She is aware of at least two marriages , and several children with his varoius
partners outside his marriages (her mother was one of these women)
> Or alternatively, some statement about the will not being executed for, say,
> one year? 3 years? (for example...) or do other obligations for the
> execution of the will, supercede the will regardless...?
> I must say, this is interesting for me, no doubt for many others, as at some
> point we may be faced with these quandries both from writing our own wills
> and being an executor for others (usually parents, I guess..) and I am
> certainly going to speak with my parents about these issues whilst they are
> still here. I know (in general terms) the main benificiaries of the will
> and their share of the assets but I know my parents would not want discord
> and confusion over delays or problems outside the control of the executor
> (...me!) .... such as not being able to realise the full value of the
> property or being unable to sell it at market value etc., what they would
> want to happen if, and when ever, this might arise...
>
That again causes problems , if the estate owes local tradesmen money they may be
prepared to wait a short time for thier money asking them to wait 12 months or more
is unreasonable and likely to result recovery action and interest being levied
against the estate
>
> mark
steve robinson
You could always ask the executors to put the house into auction , the downside of
this is its unlikely to reaslise its full value and if other beneficaries feel that
this is inappropriate the executor again could end up having to reimburse them
personally
The executors duty formost is to the estate to realise as much value as possible for
the benificaries , not to give any one claiment preferencial treatment at the
possible detriment of the others
>
> > It simply
> > makes more work for the executor and may mean extra expense if a
> > professional is involved.
>
> The executor merely has to decide how much money needs to be retained in the
> estate, divide the rest by three, and write out three cheques. I wouldn't have
> thought that too onerous.
If he /she makes a mistake as executors they will be responsible for making good the
errors
>
> > Personally I would only do it if there was
> > a good reason such as relieving hardship. Unpaid executors often have
> > more than enough to do without being pressured by greedy
> > beneficiaries.
>
> There is nothing to suggest that the beneficiaries are greedy, merely that they
> would like what there is to be distributed as soon as possible, which in my view
> is perfectly reasonable and indeed what the law requires. In any case, the
> executor is required to act in the best interests _of the beneficiaries_, not in a
> way that is merely convenient for himself. Having more than enough to do is not a
> satisfactory excuse even if true, which it doesn't actually appear to be in the
> present case. Everything else bar the sale of the house has been done.
Thats the point , in the best interest of the beneficiaries , not beneficiary .
Waiting for the housing market to stabalise would fit into that criteria
In my mothers will , it clearly stated that the executors could delay sale of asets
if it was beneficial to the estate
steve robinson
> >> It really depends on how big the sum is in relation to the total
> >> value of the estate and to the value of the house. The other point I
> >> was trying to make that there is no obligation on the executors to
> >> make an interim payment unless there is some unusual delay. It simply
> >> makes more work for the executor and may mean extra expense if a
> >> professional is involved. Personally I would only do it if there was
> >> a good reason such as relieving hardship. Unpaid executors often have
> >> more than enough to do without being pressured by greedy
> >> beneficiaries.
> >
> > Which has lead me into thinking if it is possible that some time scale
> > could be written into (the will for) the execution of the asset
I can never understand why solicitors allow so many codisils to be added to a will
in these modern times of word processors , its as quick just to rewrite the will ,
it saves all the hassle you went through
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>
>> You said yourself that the property market is uncertain. That means
>> that houses are likely to be on the market for longer than usual at
>> present, particularly if they're put up at too high an asking price
>> as a laid back executor/beneficiary might be tempted to do. If I
>> was a beneficiary and was told that I'd have to wait for a house to
>> be put on the market and sold before I could have even what I was
>> entitled to out of the assets that had already been realised, I
>> think I might be a little bit cross, especially if the delay was
>> likely to be several months, as it would be.
>
>
> You could always ask the executors to put the house into auction ,
> the downside of this is its unlikely to reaslise its full value and
> if other beneficaries feel that this is inappropriate the executor
> again could end up having to reimburse them personally
Not so. The auction value is unimpeachable. It is, by definition, the
market value.
If the beneficiaries disagree as to what is to happen to the house, then
going to auction without delay is the right way to proceed.
> The executors duty formost is to the estate to realise as much value
> as possible for the benificaries
That's correct, but you have to add the word 'now'. All the beneficiaries
are entitled to what they have been left as soon as reasonably practicable.
Unless they _all_ agree to delay until a time when they all then agree to
sell, those who want their money first can force the issue. Unless some
other arrangement is made between the beneficiaries, such as those who want
to retain the property until later buying out the interests of the others,
then the house must be sold, and quickly.
> not to give any one claiment
> preferencial treatment at the possible detriment of the others
No-one has ever suggested that.
No-one has ever said, either, that the value of the estate will necessarily
be enhanced by holding on to the house until later. It costs in the
meantime, and the value could go down. Then, if the executor decided to
retain it, contrary to the wishes of the beneficiary who, sensibly, wanted
his money out earlier, he would be personally liable for any loss sustained.
>>> It simply
>>> makes more work for the executor and may mean extra expense if a
>>> professional is involved.
>>
>> The executor merely has to decide how much money needs to be
>> retained in the estate, divide the rest by three, and write out
>> three cheques. I wouldn't have thought that too onerous.
>
> If he /she makes a mistake as executors they will be responsible for
> making good the errors
It goes with the territory of being an executor. The answer is to be
cautious, but not excessively so. There would be no grounds whatsoever for
retaining, say, £500,000 of already realised assets pending the sale, which
could take a year, of a house worth just £100,000.
>>
>>> Personally I would only do it if there was
>>> a good reason such as relieving hardship. Unpaid executors often
>>> have more than enough to do without being pressured by greedy
>>> beneficiaries.
>>
>> There is nothing to suggest that the beneficiaries are greedy,
>> merely that they would like what there is to be distributed as soon
>> as possible, which in my view is perfectly reasonable and indeed
>> what the law requires. In any case, the executor is required to act
>> in the best interests _of the beneficiaries_, not in a way that is
>> merely convenient for himself. Having more than enough to do is not
>> a satisfactory excuse even if true, which it doesn't actually appear
>> to be in the present case. Everything else bar the sale of the
>> house has been done.
>
>
> Thats the point , in the best interest of the beneficiaries , not
> beneficiary .
>
> Waiting for the housing market to stabalise would fit into that
> criteria
>
> In my mothers will , it clearly stated that the executors could delay
> sale of asets if it was beneficial to the estate
And the trouble with any market is that it is just as likely to go down as
up. Sell now, and there's no problem. Delay and the market goes the wrong
way, and you're personally liable.
Roland Perry
Jul 2009, Norman Wells <no-...@myarl.co.uk> remarked:
>The auction value is unimpeachable. It is, by definition, the market
>value.
This is a legal fiction. If houses really did obtain their true value at
auction, everyone would sell that way.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
>>value.
>
> This is a legal fiction. If houses really did obtain their true value at
> auction, everyone would sell that way.
What do you define as the "true" value? There are many reasons for selling
by different methods according to the circumstances of a seller. No single
method is ideal for all sellers. People often have opinions of house values
that differ wildly from the reality. Even independent professional
valuations will seldom agree precisely. If a house is sold at auction then
by definition this is the open market value on the day and in law there
cannot normally be any argument that it has been sold at too low a price.
Peter Crosland
Roland Perry
21:45:04 on Sun, 5 Jul 2009, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>>>The auction value is unimpeachable. It is, by definition, the market
>>>value.
>>
>> This is a legal fiction. If houses really did obtain their true value at
>> auction, everyone would sell that way.
>
>What do you define as the "true" value?
The price of the house in a free market. Auctions are not a free market
(at the very least they are restricted to people who are looking to buy
a house in a very short time window, know about auction houses and can
take the time off to attend, and can arrange finance for the situation.
I have bought several cars at (professional) auctions, and there is a
very clear discount on the normally accepted price, and a very limited
audience of buyers.
>There are many reasons for selling by different methods according to
>the circumstances of a seller. No single method is ideal for all
>sellers. People often have opinions of house values that differ wildly
>from the reality.
It's true that some sellers are over-optimistic, but that is disjoint
from giving the property away at an auction.
>If a house is sold at auction then
>by definition this is the open market value on the day and in law there
>cannot normally be any argument that it has been sold at too low a price.
I know, but it is not in any sense a "just" price except in very
particular circumstances.
--
Roland Perry
GB
If you take into account the costs of holding onto an empty house, the
auction route has more appeal. If you are living in the house you don't have
those costs, so you can afford to take a more leisurely approach to selling.
Also, most vendors want to exchange on their sale of existing property and
purchase of their new one simultaneously, which is not possible with an
auction.
Having said that, most repos these days are not ending up at the auction
houses but are being sold through estate agents.
steve robinson
> steve robinson wrote:
> > Norman Wells wrote:
> >> Peter Crosland wrote:
> > >
> >> You said yourself that the property market is uncertain. That means
> >> that houses are likely to be on the market for longer than usual at
> >> present, particularly if they're put up at too high an asking price
> >> as a laid back executor/beneficiary might be tempted to do. If I
> >> was a beneficiary and was told that I'd have to wait for a house to
> >> be put on the market and sold before I could have even what I was
> >> entitled to out of the assets that had already been realised, I
> >> think I might be a little bit cross, especially if the delay was
> >> likely to be several months, as it would be.
> >
> >
> > You could always ask the executors to put the house into auction ,
> > the downside of this is its unlikely to reaslise its full value and
> > if other beneficaries feel that this is inappropriate the executor
> > again could end up having to reimburse them personally
>
> Not so. The auction value is unimpeachable. It is, by definition, the
> market value.
This is not always the case , in recent years it has been realised that putting
property into auction often realises a lower value , this is well documented
The executor duty is to get best possible value , putting it into auction should be
the last option
>
> If the beneficiaries disagree as to what is to happen to the house, then
> going to auction without delay is the right way to proceed.
>
The beneficaries can not force an executor to do anything without taking legal
action which is self defeating , its not for the beneficaries to tell the executor
how to proceed
>
> > The executors duty formost is to the estate to realise as much value
> > as possible for the benificaries
>
> That's correct, but you have to add the word 'now'. All the beneficiaries
> are entitled to what they have been left as soon as reasonably practicable.
> Unless they all agree to delay until a time when they all then agree to
> sell, those who want their money first can force the issue. Unless some
> other arrangement is made between the beneficiaries, such as those who want
> to retain the property until later buying out the interests of the others,
> then the house must be sold, and quickly.
>
Rubbish
Beneficaries cant force anything without taking legal action , the estate will cover
the executors costs
> > not to give any one claiment
> > preferencial treatment at the possible detriment of the others
>
> No-one has ever suggested that.
>
> No-one has ever said, either, that the value of the estate will necessarily
> be enhanced by holding on to the house until later. It costs in the
> meantime, and the value could go down. Then, if the executor decided to
> retain it, contrary to the wishes of the beneficiary who, sensibly, wanted
> his money out earlier, he would be personally liable for any loss sustained.
>
> >>> It simply
> >>> makes more work for the executor and may mean extra expense if a
> >>> professional is involved.
> > >
> >> The executor merely has to decide how much money needs to be
> >> retained in the estate, divide the rest by three, and write out
> >> three cheques. I wouldn't have thought that too onerous.
> >
> > If he /she makes a mistake as executors they will be responsible for
> > making good the errors
>
> It goes with the territory of being an executor. The answer is to be
> cautious, but not excessively so. There would be no grounds whatsoever for
> retaining, say, £500,000 of already realised assets pending the sale, which
> could take a year, of a house worth just £100,000.
That depends on how the will is structured .
>
>
> > >
> >>> Personally I would only do it if there was
> >>> a good reason such as relieving hardship. Unpaid executors often
> >>> have more than enough to do without being pressured by greedy
> >>> beneficiaries.
> > >
> >> There is nothing to suggest that the beneficiaries are greedy,
> >> merely that they would like what there is to be distributed as soon
> >> as possible, which in my view is perfectly reasonable and indeed
> >> what the law requires. In any case, the executor is required to act
> >> in the best interests _of the beneficiaries_, not in a way that is
> >> merely convenient for himself. Having more than enough to do is not
> >> a satisfactory excuse even if true, which it doesn't actually appear
> >> to be in the present case. Everything else bar the sale of the
> >> house has been done.
> >
> >
> > Thats the point , in the best interest of the beneficiaries , not
> > beneficiary .
> >
> > Waiting for the housing market to stabalise would fit into that
> > criteria
> >
> > In my mothers will , it clearly stated that the executors could delay
> > sale of asets if it was beneficial to the estate
>
> And the trouble with any market is that it is just as likely to go down as
> up. Sell now, and there's no problem. Delay and the market goes the wrong
> way, and you're personally liable.
Thats why you take advice from proffesionals
steve robinson
Banks and building society were lambasted a few years back for selling through
auction when it was shown they could realise more if sold on the open market
Peter Crosland
It seems that what you consider a "true" value, or a "just" value, is
hypothetical meaningless concept. To suggest that an auction is not a free
market is absurd as are comparisons with auctions of relatively low value
items such as cars with those for houses. Whatever your opinion may be, it
is very well established fact that a sale by auction open to the public does
result in the open market value, unless there is some credible evidence of
fraud.
Peter Crosland
Roland Perry
11:55:11 on Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>It seems that what you consider a "true" value, or a "just" value, is
>hypothetical meaningless concept.
Auctions are well known to be places to get a "bargain", whether it's a
house, a car, or a bit of antique furniture.
>To suggest that an auction is not a free market is absurd
A free market implies that there is widespread involvement by buyers and
sellers. The buyers at auction are a tiny fraction of the total number
of buyers, because the nature of the sale is "too scary" for most
people.
>as are comparisons with auctions of relatively low value items such as
>cars with those for houses.
The same criteria apply, although it could be argued that buying a house
is even scarier than a car, so will reduce the market of buyers even
more.
>Whatever your opinion may be, it is very well established fact that a
>sale by auction open to the public does result in the open market
>value, unless there is some credible evidence of fraud.
It defines an abstract legal concept, but doesn't say very much at all
about the value of the item in a "free market".
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>> steve robinson wrote:
>>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>>> Peter Crosland wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You said yourself that the property market is uncertain. That
>>>> means that houses are likely to be on the market for longer than
>>>> usual at present, particularly if they're put up at too high an
>>>> asking price as a laid back executor/beneficiary might be tempted
>>>> to do. If I was a beneficiary and was told that I'd have to wait
>>>> for a house to be put on the market and sold before I could have
>>>> even what I was entitled to out of the assets that had already
>>>> been realised, I think I might be a little bit cross, especially
>>>> if the delay was likely to be several months, as it would be.
>>>
>>>
>>> You could always ask the executors to put the house into auction ,
>>> the downside of this is its unlikely to reaslise its full value and
>>> if other beneficaries feel that this is inappropriate the executor
>>> again could end up having to reimburse them personally
>>
>> Not so. The auction value is unimpeachable. It is, by definition,
>> the market value.
>
> This is not always the case , in recent years it has been realised
> that putting
> property into auction often realises a lower value , this is well
> documented
The auction value is the true value. It's an open market. No court would
ever dispute it.
> The executor duty is to get best possible value , putting it into
> auction should be
> the last option
If that were the case, he should keep hold of it for ever. But he can't.
He has to administer the estate and distribute the assets in as short a time
frame as is possible.
>> If the beneficiaries disagree as to what is to happen to the house,
>> then going to auction without delay is the right way to proceed.
>>
>
> The beneficaries can not force an executor to do anything without
> taking legal
> action which is self defeating , its not for the beneficaries to tell
> the executor
> how to proceed
The beneficiaries are the people who know what is in their own best
interests. And the executor is duty bound to act in those best interests.
If they tell the executor what they want, the executor is then in a very
difficult position indeed if he ignores them. If he wants to avoid personal
liability, he really has to comply.
>>> The executors duty formost is to the estate to realise as much value
>>> as possible for the benificaries
>>
>> That's correct, but you have to add the word 'now'. All the
>> beneficiaries are entitled to what they have been left as soon as
>> reasonably practicable. Unless they all agree to delay until a time
>> when they all then agree to sell, those who want their money first
>> can force the issue. Unless some other arrangement is made between
>> the beneficiaries, such as those who want to retain the property
>> until later buying out the interests of the others, then the house
>> must be sold, and quickly.
>>
>
> Rubbish
>
> Beneficaries cant force anything without taking legal action , the
> estate will cover
> the executors costs
Only if they're reasonably necessary for the administration of the estate.
If he has acted contrary to the beneficiaries' expressed best interests, I
doubt if his costs would be met by the estate.
>> It goes with the territory of being an executor. The answer is to be
>> cautious, but not excessively so. There would be no grounds
>> whatsoever for retaining, say, £500,000 of already realised assets
>> pending the sale, which could take a year, of a house worth just
>> £100,000.
>
> That depends on how the will is structured .
How so?
>>
>> And the trouble with any market is that it is just as likely to go
>> down as up. Sell now, and there's no problem. Delay and the market
>> goes the wrong way, and you're personally liable.
>
> Thats why you take advice from proffesionals
Or even professionals.
Or, better still, from the beneficiaries, who actually know what's in their
best interests.
Roland Perry
Jul 2009, Norman Wells <no-...@myarl.co.uk> remarked:
>He has to administer the estate and distribute the assets in as short a
>time frame as is possible.
In which case put it into the auction for tomorrow, in a town 200 miles
away if that's where you have to go to find a sale happening so soon.
No prospective buyers will have a chance to view, or raise the money, or
even have any idea what house prices are 200 miles away, for this
property that have a few minutes to evaluate.
But apparently any court will agree that the house fetched its full
market value.
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
> In message <JEk4m.45008$HE6....@newsfe27.ams2>, at 11:50:17 on Mon, 6
> Jul 2009, Norman Wells <no-...@myarl.co.uk> remarked:
>
>> He has to administer the estate and distribute the assets in as
>> short a time frame as is possible.
>
> In which case put it into the auction for tomorrow, in a town 200
> miles away if that's where you have to go to find a sale happening so
> soon.
> No prospective buyers will have a chance to view, or raise the money,
> or even have any idea what house prices are 200 miles away, for this
> property that have a few minutes to evaluate.
Since any executor knows that, he would be acting in dereliction of his duty
to the beneficiaries if he did that.
> But apparently any court will agree that the house fetched its full
> market value.
There's of course always some leeway. But an executor is duty bound to
realise the assets promptly in ways that are reasonable and designed to get
best value. That may mean selling the house through an estate agent, it may
be through an auction. But it does not include holding onto it, with no
prospect of it being sold while he does so, merely because he speculates
that the market will go up. Unless all the beneficiaries agree otherwise,
he must take steps to sell it.
Roland Perry
>>> He has to administer the estate and distribute the assets in as
>>> short a time frame as is possible.
>>
>> In which case put it into the auction for tomorrow, in a town 200
>> miles away if that's where you have to go to find a sale happening so
>> soon.
>> No prospective buyers will have a chance to view, or raise the money,
>> or even have any idea what house prices are 200 miles away, for this
>> property that have a few minutes to evaluate.
>
>Since any executor knows that, he would be acting in dereliction of his
>duty to the beneficiaries if he did that.
And all I'm saying is that pretty much *any* sale by auction has an
element of the same under-valuation.
>> But apparently any court will agree that the house fetched its full
>> market value.
>
>There's of course always some leeway.
Some pretty uncompromising statements have been made in this thread
about auctions always finding the true value of a property.
>But it does not include holding onto it, with no prospect of it being
>sold while he does so, merely because he speculates that the market
>will go up. Unless all the beneficiaries agree otherwise, he must take
>steps to sell it.
Yes, I agree that a sale must be arranged as soon as is *reasonably*
practical.
--
Roland Perry
GB
>>
>> Having said that, most repos these days are not ending up at the
>> auction houses but are being sold through estate agents.
>
>
> Banks and building society were lambasted a few years back for
> selling through auction when it was shown they could realise more if
> sold on the open market
I am sure they were lambasted, but I'm not sure it's fair. If you need to
sell in a hurry, you need to provide a discount to the price you could get
if you had loads of time. So, the gap between auction prices and forced sale
prices in the open market is drastically reduced. Then there's the time
factor. It does not help the borrower if the property is sold for 5% more
but in the meantime 5% more interest and other costs are accrued (or worse
still, 6%).
Norman Wells
> In message <jSm4m.23814$_d3....@newsfe03.ams2>, at 14:25:10 on Mon,
> 6 Jul 2009, Norman Wells <no-...@myarl.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>>> He has to administer the estate and distribute the assets in as
>>>> short a time frame as is possible.
>>>
>>> In which case put it into the auction for tomorrow, in a town 200
>>> miles away if that's where you have to go to find a sale happening
>>> so soon.
>>> No prospective buyers will have a chance to view, or raise the
>>> money, or even have any idea what house prices are 200 miles away,
>>> for this property that have a few minutes to evaluate.
>>
>> Since any executor knows that, he would be acting in dereliction of
>> his duty to the beneficiaries if he did that.
>
> And all I'm saying is that pretty much *any* sale by auction has an
> element of the same under-valuation.
Not according to any court.
>>> But apparently any court will agree that the house fetched its full
>>> market value.
>>
>> There's of course always some leeway.
>
> Some pretty uncompromising statements have been made in this thread
> about auctions always finding the true value of a property.
They do, provided only that they're 'local', which is an obvious qualifier
anyway. There is no other reasonable definition of what 'true value' is,
other than the price something fetches on the open market.
>> But it does not include holding onto it, with no prospect of it being
>> sold while he does so, merely because he speculates that the market
>> will go up. Unless all the beneficiaries agree otherwise, he must
>> take steps to sell it.
>
> Yes, I agree that a sale must be arranged as soon as is *reasonably*
> practical.
Good.
And how long do you think that is?
Don Aitken
wrote:
>Some pretty uncompromising statements have been made in this thread
>about auctions always finding the true value of a property.
>
The problem with "true value" is that it has meaing only in relation
to that mythical construct, a "free market". The free market is an
economists' fiction, which bears little relation to anything in real
life.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Roland Perry
>> And all I'm saying is that pretty much *any* sale by auction has an
>> element of the same under-valuation.
>
>Not according to any court.
So you think the court would agree that the 200-mile-away auction the
next day didn't result in under-valuation?
>There is no other reasonable definition of what 'true value' is, other
>than the price something fetches on the open market.
But an auction is not an "open market" in the economic sense, even if
it's conducted in public.
>> Yes, I agree that a sale must be arranged as soon as is *reasonably*
>> practical.
>
>Good.
>
>And how long do you think that is?
Based on my own experience of selling houses after I've been "forced" to
move somewhere else and pay two mortgages? Six months to a year
depending on the kind of property. Long enough for at least one sale to
fall through because the buyer pulls out at the last minute. In other
words, long enough for the "right" person to some along. Auctions don't
have many of those kind of people at them, unfortunately.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Don Aitken <don-a...@freeuk.com> remarked:
>>Some pretty uncompromising statements have been made in this thread
>>about auctions always finding the true value of a property.
>>
>The problem with "true value" is that it has meaing only in relation
>to that mythical construct, a "free market". The free market is an
>economists' fiction, which bears little relation to anything in real
>life.
When I bought a house in Cambridge ten years ago it was generally
reckoned that desirable houses first advertised in the mid-week paper
had sold by the weekend, therefore making it difficult for people who
could only house-hunt on a Saturday. That was a pretty "free" market,
there were plenty of buyers literally waiting to pounce.
In other places it's been pretty obvious that you need to wait for the
annual "buying season" to come round, in order to get a decent price.
It's well known that no houses sell "when there's snow on the ground"
(although taken literally have snow less often these days).
Relying upon those people who happen to be in an auction room one week,
having got the catalogue the week before, is extremely risky.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
>>>about auctions always finding the true value of a property.
>>>
>>The problem with "true value" is that it has meaing only in relation
>>to that mythical construct, a "free market". The free market is an
>>economists' fiction, which bears little relation to anything in real
>>life.
>
> When I bought a house in Cambridge ten years ago it was generally reckoned
> that desirable houses first advertised in the mid-week paper had sold by
> the weekend, therefore making it difficult for people who could only
> house-hunt on a Saturday. That was a pretty "free" market, there were
> plenty of buyers literally waiting to pounce.
>
> In other places it's been pretty obvious that you need to wait for the
> annual "buying season" to come round, in order to get a decent price. It's
> well known that no houses sell "when there's snow on the ground" (although
> taken literally have snow less often these days).
>
> Relying upon those people who happen to be in an auction room one week,
> having got the catalogue the week before, is extremely risky.
You have suggested a "true" value, a "just" value and now a "decent" price
none of which you have defined. The reality is that many people have a
wildly optimistic opinion of what their house is worth and bury their heads
in the sand when told the reality. Ask any estate agent and they will be
able to tell you of people that insisted on a far too high a price only to
see it remain on the market for months without any interest being shown by
buyers.
If, as you suggest, houses were selling so quickly in a particular market
that suggests one of two thing. Either the hoses were priced towards the
bottom of what buyers perceived as the market value or that there was
considerable excess of demand above supply. Neither of these is likely in
current market conditions which is still volatile but predominately falling.
It is improbable, to say the least, that people just happen to be in an
auction room, and suddenly decide to buy a house on a whim. The house will
almost certainly have been advertised over a period of weeks giving
prospective buyers time to view it and arrange finance to buy. Nor is true
to say that no houses sell in the winter months though sales are usually
lower than in the spring.
Executors have a legal obligation to handle all matters concerning an estate
in a reasonably competent manner and this has to be balanced against the
need to deal with matters in a timely manner. This does not offer them the
luxury of putting off sales of property for more than a few months. Also
consider that in a falling market a speedy sale at auction may well result
in a higher price than one through an agent some months later. The bottom
line is that the valuation of houses is not a precise science and executors
just have to make a judgement based on the facts available to them.
Peter Crosland
Humbug
wrote:
>On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 14:55:06 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Some pretty uncompromising statements have been made in this thread
>>about auctions always finding the true value of a property.
>>
>The problem with "true value" is that it has meaing only in relation
>to that mythical construct, a "free market". The free market is an
>economists' fiction, which bears little relation to anything in real
>life.
The "true value" of any item is only the amount which somebody is
prepared to pay for it, whether it is a house, a car, or second hand
toaster.
I don't care how much my house is "worth" on the "free market".
It's my home.
ATM it could be considered as worth nothing, or even priceless,
because I have no intention of selling it.
--
Humbug
Roland Perry
Mon, 6 Jul 2009, mark <no-on...@noads.com> remarked:
>Is there ANY evidence that house prices do not go up over time..?
>There are, of course, moments when property prices do go down (or, at least,
>do not go up) and those moments can last months or perhaps a year (or
>two..?)
Prices peaked in 1989/90 and then fell; they didn't recover until 1999
if you count the "pound price", or 2002 if you take inflation into
account.
http://www.mortgageguideuk.co.uk/housing/average-house-prices.html
Of course, these are averages, and some locations will have bucked both
trends.
> but to suggest that property prices might go down in the long run is
>without any prevailing statistics and evidence frankly.
>Perhaps the periods of price decline are too lengthy for the purpose of
>realising the assets of a will but I don't think anyone could argue that
>property prices do not tend to rise over time.
I'm not advocating people wait more than 6 months to "test the market",
but I do think that rushing to auction is a bad move, unless the
property is such a wreck that only by going to auction will anyone touch
it.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
23:15:06 on Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>You have suggested a "true" value, a "just" value and now a "decent" price
>none of which you have defined.
I've suggested that it reflects the price you'd achieve when the "right
person" comes along - allowing six months to a year for that to happen.
>The reality is that many people have a wildly optimistic opinion of
>what their house is worth and bury their heads in the sand when told
>the reality.
I understand that, but having sold five homes in the last twenty years
you soon get to find out what the realistic price is.
>Ask any estate agent and they will be able to tell you of people that
>insisted on a far too high a price only to see it remain on the market
>for months without any interest being shown by buyers.
I've found it's normally the estate agent who is over-optimistic, and
have always had to sell at below their initial estimate, which was
always more than I had valued it at myself.
>If, as you suggest, houses were selling so quickly in a particular market
>that suggests one of two thing. Either the hoses were priced towards the
>bottom of what buyers perceived as the market value or that there was
>considerable excess of demand above supply.
In Cambridge it was the latter.
>Neither of these is likely in current market conditions which is still
>volatile but predominately falling.
Actually, the reports the last month have said prices are rising because
of a shortage of property on the market. But this may vary from place to
place.
>It is improbable, to say the least, that people just happen to be in an
>auction room, and suddenly decide to buy a house on a whim. The house will
>almost certainly have been advertised over a period of weeks giving
>prospective buyers time to view it and arrange finance to buy.
Ah, the concept of a "properly run auction". So a "poorly run auction"
won't get as high a price, despite "all auctions getting the market
price"? Can you see the contradiction there?
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Humbug <hum...@tofee.net> remarked:
>>The problem with "true value" is that it has meaing only in relation
>>to that mythical construct, a "free market". The free market is an
>>economists' fiction, which bears little relation to anything in real
>>life.
>
>The "true value" of any item is only the amount which somebody is
>prepared to pay for it, whether it is a house, a car, or second hand
>toaster.
However, people aren't the same. Some will pay more than others -
otherwise there couldn't be such a thing as an auction, would there?
The problem with selling a house at auction is that you can't be sure
the "right person" is in the room that day.
--
Roland Perry
Paul Rudin
> In message <HL-dndTls71RS8zX...@brightview.co.uk>, at
> 11:55:11 on Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
> remarked:
>>It seems that what you consider a "true" value, or a "just" value, is
>>hypothetical meaningless concept.
>
> Auctions are well known to be places to get a "bargain", whether it's
> a house, a car, or a bit of antique furniture.
>
>>To suggest that an auction is not a free market is absurd
>
> A free market implies that there is widespread involvement by buyers
> and sellers. The buyers at auction are a tiny fraction of the total
> number of buyers, because the nature of the sale is "too scary" for
> most people.
If houses were consistently selling well below what they could attract
by other means at auction then people would buy them up at auction to
sell them by other means and make a nice profit.
To the extent there is a discrepancy I suspect that it's largely
accounted for by a) the condition of houses sold at auction; often
they're in a poor state and you need to spend 10s or 100s of thousands
to get them to a nice habital state; b) the costs of peoples' time when
selling by other means - if you sell at auction you don't have to put up
with all that tedious showing people around. Which is rather expensive
if you value your own time sensibly - or factored into the estate agents
fees if they do it.
If you truly believe that they're "cheap" at auction then buy up loads
at auction, sell them off the normal way and retire on the resulting
millions! :)
Roland Perry
Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> remarked:
>>>It seems that what you consider a "true" value, or a "just" value, is
>>>hypothetical meaningless concept.
>>
>> Auctions are well known to be places to get a "bargain", whether it's
>> a house, a car, or a bit of antique furniture.
>>
>>>To suggest that an auction is not a free market is absurd
>>
>> A free market implies that there is widespread involvement by buyers
>> and sellers. The buyers at auction are a tiny fraction of the total
>> number of buyers, because the nature of the sale is "too scary" for
>> most people.
>
>If houses were consistently selling well below what they could attract
>by other means at auction then people would buy them up at auction to
>sell them by other means and make a nice profit.
That's what they do. But it's not a free market any more than the car
auctions are (which is where the dealers buy their cars, but again is
too scary for the average member of the public to buy).
>If you truly believe that they're "cheap" at auction then buy up loads
>at auction, sell them off the normal way and retire on the resulting
>millions! :)
I've bought cars at auction (to save money rather than make a profit). I
don't have the capital to buy houses like that.
--
Roland Perry
Paul Rudin
> In message <87y6r1t...@rudin.co.uk>, at 08:30:04 on Tue, 7 Jul
> 2009, Paul Rudin <paul....@rudin.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>If you truly believe that they're "cheap" at auction then buy up loads
>>at auction, sell them off the normal way and retire on the resulting
>>millions! :)
>
> I've bought cars at auction (to save money rather than make a
> profit). I don't have the capital to buy houses like that.
Plenty of people do. If it really was the money machine you suggest
they'd be wading in to do exactly that.
Roland Perry
>>>If you truly believe that they're "cheap" at auction then buy up loads
>>>at auction, sell them off the normal way and retire on the resulting
>>>millions! :)
>>
>> I've bought cars at auction (to save money rather than make a
>> profit). I don't have the capital to buy houses like that.
>
>Plenty of people do. If it really was the money machine you suggest
>they'd be wading in to do exactly that.
They are called property developers.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
and typed:
>Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> writes:
>
>> In message <HL-dndTls71RS8zX...@brightview.co.uk>, at
>> 11:55:11 on Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
>> remarked:
>>>It seems that what you consider a "true" value, or a "just" value, is
>>>hypothetical meaningless concept.
>>
>> Auctions are well known to be places to get a "bargain", whether it's
>> a house, a car, or a bit of antique furniture.
>>
>>>To suggest that an auction is not a free market is absurd
>>
>> A free market implies that there is widespread involvement by buyers
>> and sellers. The buyers at auction are a tiny fraction of the total
>> number of buyers, because the nature of the sale is "too scary" for
>> most people.
>
>If houses were consistently selling well below what they could attract
>by other means at auction then people would buy them up at auction to
>sell them by other means and make a nice profit.
In some cases, they do.
>To the extent there is a discrepancy I suspect that it's largely
>accounted for by a) the condition of houses sold at auction; often
>they're in a poor state and you need to spend 10s or 100s of thousands
>to get them to a nice habital state; b) the costs of peoples' time when
>selling by other means - if you sell at auction you don't have to put up
>with all that tedious showing people around. Which is rather expensive
>if you value your own time sensibly - or factored into the estate agents
>fees if they do it.
Both of those can be true, but the latter is the main reason why it
isn't usually profitable to buy houses at auction and then resell them
at a profit via a different method.
>If you truly believe that they're "cheap" at auction then buy up loads
>at auction, sell them off the normal way and retire on the resulting
>millions! :)
Some people do make a good living that way. Just as some people make a
living buying cars at auction and then reselling them, or buying
antiques at auction and then reselling them. In all these cases, the
key factor is being able to accurately judge the value of what you're
buying and know when you're likely to be able to resell at a profit.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
GB
>>> But it does not include holding onto it, with no prospect of it
>>> being sold while he does so, merely because he speculates that the
>>> market will go up. Unless all the beneficiaries agree otherwise,
>>> he must take steps to sell it.
>>
>> Yes, I agree that a sale must be arranged as soon as is *reasonably*
>> practical.
>
> Good.
>
> And how long do you think that is?
That's actually a completely daft question (with respect!). What is a
reasonable time-scale will depend on the type of property, where it is
situated, and the state of the market. That's a question for a property
expert. It's not a legal matter, at all. Once you accept that the executor
is not holding onto the property speculatively, then it's a simple matter of
his taking advice on marketing.
If you put the property on the open market, you can't arrange for a sale
within a particular time-scale. Clearly, if you over-price it, it won't sell
or at least it won't sell at all quickly. If you price it on a fire sale
basis, it will sell quickly, but the price may be too low.
So, the prudent executor will take advice. That advice may be to put it in
an auction or sell it through an agent. Either way, the executor is
bulletproof.
steve robinson
No he has to dispose of it within a resaonable time exercising diligence
>
> >> If the beneficiaries disagree as to what is to happen to the house,
> >> then going to auction without delay is the right way to proceed.
> > >
> >
> > The beneficaries can not force an executor to do anything without
> > taking legal
> > action which is self defeating , its not for the beneficaries to tell
> > the executor
> > how to proceed
>
> The beneficiaries are the people who know what is in their own best
> interests. And the executor is duty bound to act in those best interests.
> If they tell the executor what they want, the executor is then in a very
> difficult position indeed if he ignores them. If he wants to avoid personal
> liability, he really has to comply.
>
Wrong the executors duty is to comply with the terms of the will not jump around at
the beneficaries request
>
> >>> The executors duty formost is to the estate to realise as much value
> >>> as possible for the benificaries
> > >
> >> That's correct, but you have to add the word 'now'. All the
> >> beneficiaries are entitled to what they have been left as soon as
> >> reasonably practicable. Unless they all agree to delay until a time
> >> when they all then agree to sell, those who want their money first
> >> can force the issue. Unless some other arrangement is made between
> >> the beneficiaries, such as those who want to retain the property
> >> until later buying out the interests of the others, then the house
> >> must be sold, and quickly.
> > >
> >
> > Rubbish
> >
> > Beneficaries cant force anything without taking legal action , the
> > estate will cover
> > the executors costs
>
> Only if they're reasonably necessary for the administration of the estate.
> If he has acted contrary to the beneficiaries' expressed best interests, I
> doubt if his costs would be met by the estate.
Its not for the benefiaries to dictate terms
GB
> Relying upon those people who happen to be in an auction room one
> week, having got the catalogue the week before, is extremely risky.
Last time I attended an Allsop auction, there were (at a guess) 500 people
there, and this was not during a property boom. Barnard Marcus had slightly
fewer people, maybe 300.
Lots of auction properties are advertised on Rightmove and in the local
papers. If it's done right, there is a lot of exposure to the market.
Mr X
"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rFBgUO4K...@perry.co.uk...
> In message <oKn4m.22804$Xb3....@newsfe17.ams2>, at 15:25:06 on Mon, 6
> Jul 2009, Norman Wells <no-...@myarl.co.uk> remarked:
>
>>> And all I'm saying is that pretty much *any* sale by auction has an
>>> element of the same under-valuation.
>>
>>Not according to any court.
>
> So you think the court would agree that the 200-mile-away auction the next
> day didn't result in under-valuation?
>
one way to get a cheap house as there will be few bidders and local
developers and buyers from the area of the house are unlikely to be there.
Roland Perry
Mon, 6 Jul 2009, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
Agreed, there are "right" ways to sell by auction and "wrong" ways. They
won't both get the same price, so the price achieved cannot inevitably
be the one-true-market-price for the house.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
20:55:03 on Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Mr X <inv...@invalid.com> remarked:
>I'm looking at buying a house and I've been told that this is
>one way to get a cheap house as there will be few bidders and local
>developers and buyers from the area of the house are unlikely to be there.
It's the same at a car auction - they tend to specialise in one sort of
car, whether that's "nearly new" executive repossessions, ex-rental,
3yr-old company cars or whatever. You'll get the best deal if you go to
an auction where the kind of car you are looking for is an "odd one
out".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Mon, 6 Jul 2009, mark <no-on...@noads.com> remarked:
>Coming into the auction - that is on the day - the auctioneer said he had
>one person who was extremely keen to buy and would see how things went...
>Well, they went with a fizzle until the autioneer actually started taking
>bids off no-one in the room against the person he knew was interested in
>buying who was sat in the second from front row....(ever noticed how people
>in autions seldom look round?) .... he pushed the price, I kid you not, to
>£10,000 over the reserve before letting the only buyer interested in buying,
>have it...
>Who knows if it was sold for the *true* value....... who knows..
And if that keen buyer hadn't been in that room that day?
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
> Norman Wells wrote:
>
>>>> But it does not include holding onto it, with no prospect of it
>>>> being sold while he does so, merely because he speculates that the
>>>> market will go up. Unless all the beneficiaries agree otherwise,
>>>> he must take steps to sell it.
>>>
>>> Yes, I agree that a sale must be arranged as soon as is *reasonably*
>>> practical.
>>
>> Good.
>>
>> And how long do you think that is?
>
> That's actually a completely daft question (with respect!). What is a
> reasonable time-scale will depend on the type of property, where it is
> situated, and the state of the market. That's a question for a
> property expert.
You mean what you couldn't bring yourself to say for fear of ridicule, ie an
'estate agent'!
> It's not a legal matter, at all.
The legal matter is the duty of the executor towards the beneficiaries.
They are entitled to what they were left in the Will as soon as reasonably
practicable. That means, regardless of the state of the market, that the
executor must take steps to sell the house expeditiously. It is not for the
executor to try to time the market or to speculate with the assets in the
estate. And that's particularly so if one or more of the beneficiaries has
said they want what they are due as soon as possible.
> Once you accept
> that the executor is not holding onto the property speculatively,
And how long do you think that takes? One month, ten years, a hundred
years?
> then it's a simple matter of his taking advice on marketing.
No it isn't. Unless all the beneficiaries agree, not putting the property
on the market quickly is simply not an option.
> If you put the property on the open market, you can't arrange for a
> sale within a particular time-scale. Clearly, if you over-price it,
> it won't sell or at least it won't sell at all quickly. If you price
> it on a fire sale basis, it will sell quickly, but the price may be
> too low.
>
> So, the prudent executor will take advice. That advice may be to put
> it in an auction or sell it through an agent. Either way, the
> executor is bulletproof.
Then he doesn't need the advice.
GB
> GB wrote:
>> Norman Wells wrote:
>>
>>>>> But it does not include holding onto it, with no prospect of it
>>>>> being sold while he does so, merely because he speculates that the
>>>>> market will go up. Unless all the beneficiaries agree otherwise,
>>>>> he must take steps to sell it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I agree that a sale must be arranged as soon as is
>>>> *reasonably* practical.
>>>
>>> Good.
>>>
>>> And how long do you think that is?
I think you may be getting hung up on words like 'arranged'. You can arrange
to market something as soon as is reasonably practicable, but you can't
arrange for a buyer to make an offer as that's up to the buyer.
>>
>> That's actually a completely daft question (with respect!). What is a
>> reasonable time-scale will depend on the type of property, where it
>> is situated, and the state of the market. That's a question for a
>> property expert.
>
> You mean what you couldn't bring yourself to say for fear of
> ridicule, ie an 'estate agent'!
I wrote in a different message somewhere (possibly in this thread!) that I
thought it would be sensible to get paid-for advice from a surveyor.
However, the important point is to get advice from a reasonable source. It's
certainly reasonable to ask an estate agent for advice about marketing, as
that is their job, but what they say has to be taken with a pinch of salt of
course.
>
>> It's not a legal matter, at all.
>
> The legal matter is the duty of the executor towards the
> beneficiaries. They are entitled to what they were left in the Will
> as soon as reasonably practicable. That means, regardless of the
> state of the market, that the executor must take steps to sell the
> house expeditiously. It is not for the executor to try to time the
> market or to speculate with the assets in the estate. And that's
> particularly so if one or more of the beneficiaries has said they
> want what they are due as soon as possible.
Yes, we all agree on that, I think. Well, I do. That's why I said "Once you
accept that the executor is not holding onto the property speculatively,
then it's a simple matter of his taking advice on marketing."
Your use of the word expeditiously sort of implies a fire sale. I'm not sure
you mean that, though?
>
>> Once you accept
>> that the executor is not holding onto the property speculatively,
>
> And how long do you think that takes? One month, ten years, a hundred
> years?
Funnily enough, I think that depends on (as I said before) "the type of
property, where it is situated, and the state of the market. That's a
question for a property expert." If it's a derelict castle in the Hebrides,
it may just possibly take longer to sell than a semi in Carshalton. Wouldn't
you expect that?
Or do you mean how long does it take to hold onto the property
speculatively? Don't understand that question at all.
>
>> then it's a simple matter of his taking advice on marketing.
>
> No it isn't. Unless all the beneficiaries agree, not putting the
> property on the market quickly is simply not an option.
I think you must be misunderstanding what 'taking advice on marketing'
means. It means asking how best to sell the property now, rather than
holding onto it speculatively. It's advice about marketing, rather than
timing.
>
>> If you put the property on the open market, you can't arrange for a
>> sale within a particular time-scale. Clearly, if you over-price it,
>> it won't sell or at least it won't sell at all quickly. If you price
>> it on a fire sale basis, it will sell quickly, but the price may be
>> too low.
>>
>> So, the prudent executor will take advice. That advice may be to put
>> it in an auction or sell it through an agent. Either way, the
>> executor is bulletproof.
>
> Then he doesn't need the advice.
Let's say he doesn't take advice and just sticks a for sale board outside.
It might languish like that for years, depreciating in value. Conversely, he
sticks it in the wrong sort of auction, and it doesn't sell or worse still
he forgets to put a reserve on or ... Surely, he does need advice.
Peter Crosland
>>>> short a time frame as is possible.
>>>
>>> miles away if that's where you have to go to find a sale happening so
>>> soon.
>>> No prospective buyers will have a chance to view, or raise the money,
>>> or even have any idea what house prices are 200 miles away, for this
>>> property that have a few minutes to evaluate.
>>
>> Since any executor knows that, he would be acting in dereliction of
>> his duty to the beneficiaries if he did that.
>>
>>
>>> market value.
>>
>> to realise the assets promptly in ways that are reasonable and
>> designed to get best value. That may mean selling the house through
>> an estate agent, it may be through an auction. But it does not
>> include holding onto it, with no prospect of it being sold while he
>> does so, merely because he speculates that the market will go up. Unless
>> all the beneficiaries agree otherwise, he must take steps to
>> sell it.
>
>
> There are, of course, moments when property prices do go down (or, at
> least,
> do not go up) and those moments can last months or perhaps a year (or
> without any prevailing statistics and evidence frankly.
> Perhaps the periods of price decline are too lengthy for the purpose of
> realising the assets of a will but I don't think anyone could argue that
> property prices do not tend to rise over time.
> *might*
> want to agree with the executor to hold on to the property (paying any
> costs
> of doing so from the estate) because at some point, maybe next year
> perhaps,
> the price of property will almost certainly start to rise again..
> Could the beneficiaries agree (or instruct?) the executor to let the
> property in the meantime..?
> It seems to me that if it is agreed that at some point in the whole
> process,
> a property is unsold within a reasonable time and therefore entering it
> into
> auction is prudent I most certainly would want to write into my will that
> any property I leave MUST not be sold at auction... in fact I'm going to
> advise my parents of this situation and allow them to consider this
> scenario
> when the times comes..
Long term property prices have always risen but in the case of an executor
they don't have the time consider long trends. Unless they have a very good
reason then executors are expected to get probate and distribute the estate
within one year. Hence auction is often the best course because it does,
despite the muddled assertions to the contrary, achieve the open market
price and the funds become available without any undue delay. Most property
auctions are collective, and with appropriate advertising, result in a wide
selection of buyers. From instructing an agent to receiving the fund should
take around three months.
Beneficiaries have no right to instruct executors on how to carry out their
responsibilities. Of course there are often circumstances where an executor
and the main beneficiaries are close family they may well discuss the
options, but ultimately the choice is the executors alone. For example a
beneficiary might want to buy a property and subject to an independent
valuation that would quite OK. In particular they need to be seen not to
favour any particular beneficiary as opposed to another. Letting a property
is not usually to be recommended due to the possible difficulties in getting
possession again. Whilst I can understand your feelings regarding your will
you need to be careful that you don't force the executors into a particular
course of action if some unexpected circumstances arise. Discuss it with
your solicitor first.
Peter Crosland
Roland Perry
20:10:08 on Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>Hence auction is often the best course because it does,
>despite the muddled assertions to the contrary, achieve the open market
>price
It doesn't matter how often that assertion is made, it just isn't the
case. Unless you define "open market price" to be what an auction gets,
and have "some other name" for the somewhat higher value you'll achieve
going through a less distressed channel.
--
Roland Perry
Peter Crosland
>>despite the muddled assertions to the contrary, achieve the open market
>>price
>
> It doesn't matter how often that assertion is made, it just isn't the
> case. Unless you define "open market price" to be what an auction gets,
> and have "some other name" for the somewhat higher value you'll achieve
> going through a less distressed channel.
You seem to imagine that there is some magic way of defining "open market
price" in only one way. The reality is that nobody can give an all
encompassing finite definition of what it is to the exclusion of all others,
because it is a constantly moving target. The price achieved at a normally
advertised public auction is by definition the open market price on that day
and this fact is very well established in law. You have so provided no
credible evidence whatsoever to support your argument that other methods
will always achieve a significantly higher price within a given time scale.
As you well know other methods always have the element of uncertainty, and
delays, that can often, indeed almost always, occur and may be for many
months. Given the fact that executors are obliged to deal with estate in a
timely manner they have to make a choice of what is appropriate having
considered all the circumstances. As long as they do this then they have
done their duty.
Peter Crosland
GB
>>> Hence auction is often the best course because it does,
>>> despite the muddled assertions to the contrary, achieve the open
>>> market price
>>
>> It doesn't matter how often that assertion is made, it just isn't the
>> case. Unless you define "open market price" to be what an auction
>> gets, and have "some other name" for the somewhat higher value
>> you'll achieve going through a less distressed channel.
>
>
> You seem to imagine that there is some magic way of defining "open
> market price" in only one way. The reality is that nobody can give an
> all encompassing finite definition of what it is to the exclusion of
> all others, because it is a constantly moving target. The price
> achieved at a normally advertised public auction is by definition the
> open market price on that day and this fact is very well established
> in law.
This conversation is going round in circles because people are getting hung
up on the term 'open market value'. Surely, the duties of an executor are:-
1. To realise the assets of the estate for a reasonable figure, bearing in
mind the second requirement, namely
2. To do this reasonably quickly.
These are somewhat incompatible aims, as the faster you aim to sell the less
you will (in all probability) get. However, taking into account costs,
realising the asset faster may make more sense.
I thought it's well-established that a suitable auction will in nearly all
cases be regarded as satisfactory by the courts, so the executors are in the
clear. The courts are not aiming for perfection, so they won't find against
an executor who acts reasonably. There must be exceptions, though. For
example, sticking a London house in an Aberdeen cattle auction would not be
reasonable. Likewise, there might be something about the property which
makes a sale by one method or the other unreasonable.
> You have so provided no credible evidence whatsoever to
> support your argument that other methods will always achieve a
> significantly higher price within a given time scale.
As soon as you *fix* a fairly short timescale, you more or less rule out a
sale by private treaty. However, leaving that to one side, I think it is
obvious that a sale by private treaty over a reasonable and flexible
timescale will usually achieve more than an auction.
> As you well
> know other methods always have the element of uncertainty, and
> delays, that can often, indeed almost always, occur and may be for
> many months.
> Given the fact that executors are obliged to deal with
> estate in a timely manner they have to make a choice of what is
> appropriate having considered all the circumstances. As long as they
> do this then they have done their duty.
So, open market value does not come into it, and acting reasonably
(preferably acting on advice) is all that's required.
Old Codger
>
> Auctions are well known to be places to get a "bargain", whether it's a
> house, a car, or a bit of antique furniture.
Not always, depends on the enthusiasm of the bidders. I have seen
auctions (genuine) of surplus/bankrupt stock where prices paid have
exceeded, sometimes by a considerable margin, the prices listed for
similar new items in a shop down the road.
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Roland Perry
Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Old Codger <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> remarked:
>> Auctions are well known to be places to get a "bargain", whether
>>it's a house, a car, or a bit of antique furniture.
>
>Not always, depends on the enthusiasm of the bidders. I have seen
>auctions (genuine) of surplus/bankrupt stock where prices paid have
>exceeded, sometimes by a considerable margin, the prices listed for
>similar new items in a shop down the road.
Let me know if you ever see that for a house.
--
Roland Perry
Chris R
>>> it's a house, a car, or a bit of antique furniture.
>>
>> Not always, depends on the enthusiasm of the bidders. I have seen
>> auctions (genuine) of surplus/bankrupt stock where prices paid have
>> exceeded, sometimes by a considerable margin, the prices listed for
>> similar new items in a shop down the road.
>
> Let me know if you ever see that for a house.
There was a claim to that effect on this week's "Property Snakes and
Ladders" - it was claimed that houses in need of refurbishment can achieve
better prices at auction (as opposed to marketing through an agent) if
several would-be amateur developers are competing for it, who will often
over-pay.
Chris R
Roland Perry
13:44:09 on Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Peter Crosland <g6...@yahoo.co.uk>
remarked:
>>>Hence auction is often the best course because it does,
>>>despite the muddled assertions to the contrary, achieve the open market
>>>price
>>
>> It doesn't matter how often that assertion is made, it just isn't the
>> case. Unless you define "open market price" to be what an auction gets,
>> and have "some other name" for the somewhat higher value you'll achieve
>> going through a less distressed channel.
>
>You seem to imagine that there is some magic way of defining "open market
>price" in only one way. The reality is that nobody can give an all
>encompassing finite definition of what it is to the exclusion of all others,
>because it is a constantly moving target.
For houses a more generally accepted definition of the *open* market
price for a house would be one sold through the normal channels over
approximately a six month period. Not at an auction/fire sale.
>The price achieved at a normally advertised public auction is by
>definition the open market price on that day and this fact is very well
>established in law.
It's not a "fact" so much as a "legal fiction". I realise it's supported
by law, but doesn't reflect the reduction in value resulting from both
the speed of the process and the difficulty for the ordinary person to
raise the finance to buy with cash on the spot, let alone the much
smaller number of people attempting to buy through the auction channel.
>You have so provided no credible evidence whatsoever to support your
>argument that other methods will always achieve a significantly higher
>price within a given time scale.
Did I say "always"? Of course there are exceptions, but the very fact
that developers prefer to buy at auction means they are getting a
bargain compared to buying through an estate agent.
>As you well know other methods always have the element of uncertainty, and
>delays, that can often, indeed almost always, occur and may be for many
>months.
Agreed. I suppose my main objection is the "fire sale" mentality where
the true value of the estate isn't realised.
>Given the fact that executors are obliged to deal with estate in a
>timely manner they have to make a choice of what is appropriate having
>considered all the circumstances. As long as they do this then they have
>done their duty.
Just like councils do their duty from time to time by throwing away all
of a person's possessions when they clear a house, sometimes even when
the person strongly objects. It doesn't make it "right".
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
15:55:47 on Wed, 29 Jul 2009, Chris R <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk>
remarked:
Yes, that's the classic modality for auctions - houses that you couldn't
probably sell through an agent because they are in too dire a state.
What percentage of estate sales are of that type (more than average, I'm
sure - but is it a significant percentage?) Counterbalanced by the
larger than average number of estate sales of "retirement flats" which
are not the sort of thing a developer is interested in (and might even
be prohibited from buying).
--
Roland Perry
Percy Picacity
About 10 years ago I sold a house at auction for 50% more than the
(realistic) guide price and 3.5 times what I had bought it for 13 years
before: two people at the auction were really very keen to get it.
For complicated reasons I didn't gain much from it though.
--
Percy Picacity
Stakey
'Norman Wells[_4_ Wrote:
> ;658544']Peter Crosland wrote:
> -
> You are under no obligation to pay him until you are sure the estate
> has sufficient funds. It is generally accepted that executors have a
> year to resolve matters but this is not definitive. All the executor
> has to do is act in a reasonable manner and not act to the detriment
> of the estate. Personally I would tell him politely he will just have
> to wait.-
>
> How is it reasonable to withhold payment of already realised assets
> when a
> distribution has been requested and is clearly possible without
> prejudicing
> the estate?
The duties of an Executor are to administer the estate in accordance
with the Will and the wishes of the deceased.If the Will has certain
wording which are along the lines of " delay a sale of property" (
usually in the case of a trust arising from the Will) you have the
right to do this. As you are already in the process of selling the
property I think you have done everything possible in such a short
timescale. However the buck stops with you and you alone are personally
responsible if anything goes wrong. Dont feel you have to move things
along at someone elses pace. What if you receive an unexpected bill or
something comes to light later and you need funds. Yes the sale costs
could come from the sale proceeds but why should you expose yourself if
you feel uncomfortable. Double check everything first and as you have
already been advised , a year to conclude an estate is not uncommon.
All the best
Stakey
--
Stakey
Norman Wells
> Peter Crosland;658246 Wrote:
>> Indeed, they might start to question why the house hasn't been sold
>> already, depending of course on the time that has elapsed since your
>> father's death. If you're playing 'timing games' waiting for the
>> housing market to recover etc, then that should only be done with the
>> full agreement of all the benficiaries, who are entitled to their
>> share of the estate as soon as reasonably practicable.-
> Thanks for the reply's
> My Father only passed away 8 weeks ago in May 2009 so I think I have
> done quite well moving things along quite quickly, I have just
> obtained a HIP and the property is with the estate agent and should
> be on the market next week.
> The person who wants the payment had not seen my father for 2 years
> and is only interested in money, and has been nothing but a thorn in
> my side during this process, I along with the other benefactor would
> rather wait until the estate is settled before making any payment
Why?
Your responsibility as executor is to the beneficiaries. They, not you, are
entitled to their share of the estate, and you should distribute what you
can as soon as practicable.
There seems no reason to delay distributing what you have already realised.
Peter Crosland
A prudent executor would have got on with the task much quicker. In
particular why the executor did not put the house up for auction months ago?
In any case it might not be prudent to start distributing the estate until
the house is sold because of the risk that it would not fetch as much as
expected.
Peter Crosland
Big Les Wade
>That's interesting. What would be the likely case if, say, there were
>three beneficiaries and one (or two...) wanted to wait for the property
>to be sold either at the full market price/value or when the market
>'picks up' again rather than just sold at *any* price. I'm not even
>sure what sold at any price entails either. Auction..? I mean, the way
>the property market is at the moment, it could reasonably be a long
>while before any property got sold at all anyway. How does acting for
>the 'best interest' work when the "best interest" differs amongst the
>beneficiaries?
The executor must decide for himself, using some criterion of
reasonableness. (In fact, he always has the power to do this, whether or
not the beneficiaries have conflicting views).
Of course matters are more complicated when several executors disagree
...
>I'm interested in this since at some point, I myself, am going to be
>in this very position (well, let's assume that nature or accident
>doesn't intervene) but with the added complication of being the
>executor AND a beneficiary, with a property being the main asset, and
>one I shall not want or need to sell but I know the other beneficiaries
>will need to have their money from it..
Lots of us are or have been in this position.
The OP doesn't say whether the estate was subject to IHT, but that can
emerge as an issue too, because if the house is sold at a different
price than was submitted for IHT purposes there may have to be a later
adjustment. CGT might appear too if the house's value increases
significantly between probate and sale.
--
Les