P
panathon
Guest
Hi everyone - This question relates to disclaiming in a will.
A person I know was left a 25% share in his mothers house when she died. Unfortunately his sister basically owned the majority of the house, but due to the sisters own oversight in signing ownership papers at the time of purchase - the house ownership was signed as 'tenants in common' with her mother - even though the mother only had put a small amount of money towards the house purchase (sorry I am unsure of these terms myself - I am only relaying a question), thus the house she was paying for is not wholly hers after the mothers death as she thought it whould be.
The point is to do what's fair - he wants to 'disclaim' his part of the will and allow his sister to just take what she has rightfully paid for (still some mortgage on the house) and she has or had gratefully accepted that this would be the process (the mother was only trying to cause trouble). All sounds fine BUT!
He has done as much paperwork as he needs to do and all his sister needs to do is sign completed forms to free him from any obligations - tax wise etc., but she is finding every possible hurdle not to sign while still purporting that she wants her ownership (this is going on 3 years now) His solicitor unfortunately has spoken to the sister personally and also a third sibling who went in to inquire on the sisters behalf (?!) Is this not very incorrect behaviour? My friend just wants free, doesn't know what's going on and my question is what on earth would benefit a person like her to stall on taking ownership of something she wants?! He can't understand it - any input would be welcome...
Is there a faster way of him disclaiming than having to wait for her signature and has the solicitor done wrong speaking directly to opposite party members who he is not acting for rather than just speaking to acting solicitors - why the hell would he do that?
Basically something stinks and all my friend wants is to be free of it...
Thanks for any help
A person I know was left a 25% share in his mothers house when she died. Unfortunately his sister basically owned the majority of the house, but due to the sisters own oversight in signing ownership papers at the time of purchase - the house ownership was signed as 'tenants in common' with her mother - even though the mother only had put a small amount of money towards the house purchase (sorry I am unsure of these terms myself - I am only relaying a question), thus the house she was paying for is not wholly hers after the mothers death as she thought it whould be.
The point is to do what's fair - he wants to 'disclaim' his part of the will and allow his sister to just take what she has rightfully paid for (still some mortgage on the house) and she has or had gratefully accepted that this would be the process (the mother was only trying to cause trouble). All sounds fine BUT!
He has done as much paperwork as he needs to do and all his sister needs to do is sign completed forms to free him from any obligations - tax wise etc., but she is finding every possible hurdle not to sign while still purporting that she wants her ownership (this is going on 3 years now) His solicitor unfortunately has spoken to the sister personally and also a third sibling who went in to inquire on the sisters behalf (?!) Is this not very incorrect behaviour? My friend just wants free, doesn't know what's going on and my question is what on earth would benefit a person like her to stall on taking ownership of something she wants?! He can't understand it - any input would be welcome...
Is there a faster way of him disclaiming than having to wait for her signature and has the solicitor done wrong speaking directly to opposite party members who he is not acting for rather than just speaking to acting solicitors - why the hell would he do that?
Basically something stinks and all my friend wants is to be free of it...
Thanks for any help