mouser...hi all

[mouser5]

hello again all
i would be interested to have members opinions on the following ,ref the above situation

mediation has been agreed as the way forwards
if you can put yourselves in our shoes,what would you consider a reasonable outcome to the above
what would you aim for...just to recap
we are liable to pay rent under tolata, that is the law, and we accept that
the second flat is unused but free to be rented or occupied,is it creating a financial imbalance unjustly
the resulting position as it stands at the moment is there is a big win for the side that collects rent,but the side that pays the rent loses out
one interesting fact to perhaps take into account is that the executor chargeing the rent is actually losing out herself,her claim will only give her half of the rent of one unit,whereas if she had agreed to rent the other unit ,she would have in affect doubled her compensation for not haveing had her money yet.
the situation for ourselves in that case would be that in accounting terms we would have not been penalised for our occupation
can it be said that the other executor is ....cutting off her nose to spite her face.... just to punish the other executor

your opinions will be greatly appreciated

[des8]

Just to clarify;
Both parties are wearing two hats as they are both beneficiaries and both executors.

As executors they both have to collect and preserve the estate assets and act in agreement, but remain neutral if there are competing claims from the beneficiaries!

As I understand the position the property is still registered in the name of the deceased, and so is an undistributed part of the estate.
The property has been divided with a view to each of the beneficiaries owning a part.
The division was paid for by your wife (?) but agreed to by the executors.
The executors agreed that your wife could live in one part (presumably you understood rent free), whilst the other part was to be sold, the proceeds (less a contribution to the cost of division) passing to the other beneficiary. The other executor was responsible for overseeing the sale.
The sale never materialised.
The other executor is now demanding that your wife as beneficiary pays occupation rent, which has to be included in the estate assets.

It is easy to see how solicitors make their money out of contentious litigation when this sort of situation arises where roles of executor and beneficiary become confused.

IMO your sister in law is entitled to zilch.
The estate might be entitled to occupation rent, although this would be contrary to the verbal agreement reached by the executors
However financially it is much better to go to mediation than law.
Assuming you are using a professional mediator I would be stressing the verbal agreements that had been in place and working to reduce the amount of rent to be paid.
The other party failed to carry out her side of the agreement by not selling the other part of the bungalow.
You also require repayment of the building costs, plus interest on that money, plus discount for the inconvenience caused during building works plus anything else you can think of!

[mouser5]

Thankyou for your response des8
The point about both parties wearing two hats is indeed at the centre of all this
It seems that the law creats as many : grey: areas as it clarifies sometimes,Your understanding of the situation is correct,i am pleased to read the way you view the problems supports my own thoughts on the matter, in stressful times anothers unbiased confirmation of one being on the right track is indeed helpful
Mediation will hopefully settle matters in a fair and equitable way,if not ,i can see any court costs seriously eating into the estates value to the benafit of no one other than the players in legal system
Tks again ,and i will post any updates