Is this right? Doesn't seem to be

[smidgin]

Greetings. I have a question I want to put to you all in the hope it could be answered. Background: Aunty passed away. 2 nephews were living and paying towards mortgage of their Aunt's property. Nephews are still paying the mortgage in the Aunty's name. No will was left. Grant of representation/Probate was given to the deceased's mother who we can refer to as G, by probate company Chorus Law. It was agreed by G that the house would go to the 2 nephews who were and still are living at the property. G instructed ChorusLaw to handle the estate and they did a deed of variation for that to happen. Chorus law contacted the nephews to inform them that in order to transfer the property into their names with Land registry for title deeds, that they would need to see a mortgage on property in the nephews name. The nephews went to get a mortgage, but were unable to, due to their low earnings. The nephews informed Chorus Law this information, and were told that the property title deeds would not be able to be transferred into Nephews names, as they were unable to get a mortgage.
The nephews asked Chorus Law what they should do, as the deed of variation was made by G for the property to go to the two nephews names. What in the event the nephews wanted to sell the house? Chorus Law informed the nephews that this would not be possible, as the person named as having probate/Grant of representation is G, and only G could do this. The nephews Grandmother G, is old and is getting stressed out by the legalities. G wants the nephews to have the house. The nephews asked that if the only person who would be allowed to sell the house is G, then could we change the name of probate/Grand of representation to the two nephew's names. Chorus Law said that it is possible. The nephews then instructed Chorus Law to go ahead to do that. some days later Chorus Law contacted the nephews and said "We have discussed your request with our solicitors and they have confirmed that as a full Grant of Representation has been taken out in the name of G, the probate registry will not accept and agree to a further Grant application for the estate".
I hope the above is not too vague. Nonetheless, I would like to know if there is any truth in what Chorus law have told the nephews. It would be very unfortunate that a house is left for them, but they are unable to claim it, with possibly the only choice being to instruct G to sell it on their behalf.

[stevemLS]

Re: Is this right? Doesn't seem to be

This doesn't make sense to me - no will - deed of variation - what is being varied.

With no will, G as Administrator is bound to distribute the estate according to the intestacy rules. Unless she was the sole beneficiary under those rules (as the deceased's mother?) she has no right herself to determine who gets what.

As for the Grant - and Administrator can renounce their position and, if the nephews (are they the children of the deceased?) are entitled to benefit under the intestacy rules, then they can apply for new Letters of Administration.

[des8]

Re: Is this right? Doesn't seem to be

Once the administrator has started to settle the estate their position cannot be renounced.
Chorus Law are correct.

[stevemLS]

Re: Is this right? Doesn't seem to be

Have re-read and whilst still a bit confused, can see no indication that G has actually done anything yet? But Des is correct, renunciation can only be done if there has been no intermeddling thus far.

[des8]

Re: Is this right? Doesn't seem to be

Your post is rather confusing regarding the relationships.
Are the "nephews" the children of the "aunty"? and brothers?
You say they can't obtain a mortgage because of low earnings.
Is the existing mortgage on a repayment basis, without the backing of a life policy?
In the long term it could be in the boys' interest to sell the house. I just wonder about problems arising in the future if one wants to set up home with a partner and then one will have to buy the other out, or the house will have to be sold then. Perhaps better to have done with it now?

[smidgin]

Re: Is this right? Doesn't seem to be

Your post is rather confusing regarding the relationships.
Are the "nephews" the children of the "aunty"? and brothers?
You say they can't obtain a mortgage because of low earnings.
Is the existing mortgage on a repayment basis, without the backing of a life policy?
In the long term it could be in the boys' interest to sell the house. I just wonder about problems arising in the future if one wants to set up home with a partner and then one will have to buy the other out, or the house will have to be sold then. Perhaps better to have done with it now?

Forgive me for the lack of clarity re the relationship.
The nephews are of the deceased Aunty. G is the mother of the Aunty. The nephews are brothers. The nephews pay the mortgage every month but in the deceased's name.
There was no life policy, thus a mortgage still needs to be repaid.

As G has the Grant of representation: Under the Intestacy rules the residuary estate passes to the deceased’s mother: Mrs G.
She made a deed of variation for the house to go to the nephews.

The amazing part of all this is that Chorus Law want to charge the nephews for their conveyancing fees etc. As in the beginning the nephews were led to believe they could get the title deeds for the house, and so they went through the procedure only to say after that it couldn't be done as the nephews couldn't get a mortage


Estate Agents fee for Valuation (118.80)
Deed of Variation charge (including solicitors' disbursements)(420.00)
Excepted Estate Probate Application (including solicitors' disbursements)(480.00)
Providing Evidence of Title(30.00)
Land Registry Office Copy Entries (6.00)
Probate Court fees (62.00)
Mrs G - Reimbursement of Postage & Oath Swear fee (retained - see notes) (30.64)

Retention for Conveyancing & Land Registry Charges (retained - see notes) (650.00)

Why did Chorus Law allow the nephews to believe that they could have the house changed into their names, then go ahead with Conveyancing & Land Registry and estate agency valuation, if only in the end they tell the nephews that they can't do it as they were unable to get a mortgage. Surely the wiser thing to have done would be to ask the nephews to see if they could get a mortgage FIRST , then if they were unable to , Chorus Law wouldn't have had to do what they did and also it would have saved the nephews some money.
They feel duped.

[des8]

Re: Is this right? Doesn't seem to be

There is something rather questionable about the way this estate has been handled.

As "A" died intestate one would expect the sons (in the absence of a surviving civil partner or spouse of "A") to be granted letters of administration.

The children of "A" inherit the whole estate. (If any of "A's" children have died, their children, if any , will inherit their share).
Assuming this matter is in England or Wales who advised: " Under the Intestacy rules the residuary estate passes to the deceased’s mother: Mrs G" There will be no residuary estate as it all passes to the children!

I have just been looking into Chorus Law and regret to advice they have some pretty awful reviews. Incompetent and overpriced seem to be the best

Certainly you should not have to pay for the deed of variation as anyone anywhere near professional would know it was not possible.
The other fees would probably have been incurred anyway, except as the property has not yet been sold the conveyancing expenses will not yet have been incurred
If you can ditch them without incurring more fees or an enormous cancellation fee it might be worth consulting a regular solicitor or doing it yourselves.