How to stop development

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    How to stop development

    Mum died recently and left the bulk of the estate including house with paddock to myself and my sister. She wants to demolish the house and build on the land. Mum wanted it to stay as it is so I want to stop any development. We expect to get probate soon. Is there a watertight way I can prevent development of the land? Either an outright ban or 100% clawback (which may turn into 50% as I will only own half?) but perhaps enough to stop a developer. It seems impossible we will agree so what happens if there's stalemate?

    #2
    You are entitled to claim 50% of the asset and for it to be sold as is immediately.

    As there will be a 50% share between you and your sister, then 100% of the now owners of the estate must agree to what hapens to it.
    Be prepared for a battle, but if there is not 100 % agreement, someone has to go to court to force the sale, as is.

    Comment


      #3
      Can you buy your sister out?

      Comment


        #4
        Not at the value she thinks it's worth for development

        Comment


          #5
          Ram - Can I place a restrictive clause such as 100% clawback on my 50% without her agreement?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by royw View Post
            Ram - Can I place a restrictive clause such as 100% clawback on my 50% without her agreement?
            No. That is not possible.

            In this situation if your sister wants to sell then really you have to sell. Neither of you can refuse a sale on reasonable terms. So, without planning permission for development, your sister cannot hold out for a sale with a "hope" value. You cannot hold out for a sale with a clawback or which imposes restrictions on future development which in any event will be difficult to enforce.

            Whatever your feelings on the matter may be the law will not take inoto account your mother's wishes. The property belongs to you and your sister now and you both have to decide between you what to do. You should at all costs avoid getting into a dispute as only lawyers will benefit.

            Comment


              #7
              Mum died recently and left the bulk of the estate including house with paddock to myself and my sister. She wants to demolish the house and build on the land. Mum wanted it to stay as it is so I want to stop any development.
              The person who wanted the land to remain as a paddock is now dead.
              The two children who inherited the land are not.

              One wants to gain an immediate benefit from ownership of this land by maximising the value of it.
              The other does not, because it is considerd by that party that the Mum would not want this to happen.

              As someone who completely understands why the sister wants to gain the maximum financial benefit following the death of her mother, I would need it explained to me who benefits from leaving the land as a paddock?

              The idea that because the deceased parent had a particular viewpoint, that now the children should agree with that viewpoint seems completely unreasonable and not at all sensible.

              After the age of majority at 18 many children no longer slavishly follow the opinions of a parent, because they start to lead their own lives and create their own opinions.

              Once the parent is dead, then any surviving children need to accept that fact and base decisions on what is best for them.

              Trying to impose the will of a deceased parent on one's living sibling just seems wrong and completely unrealistic when it is the siblings who now need to accept that it their standard of living that now matters.

              The idea that a deceased parent looks down on what is happening with disapproving eyes belongs in the Middle Ages not in the 21st century.

              Comment


                #8
                pilman,

                Rather harsh. The op was asking for help, not criticism. Your answer is not helpful to the op and comes across as a bit of a rant and an almost an attack.His mum has just died for crying out loud.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Even though post number 7 may be seen as a rant, it also gives ROYW another thought to investigate.

                  But royw has not said what the development is.
                  If it's just pull down a £ 100,000 house and build another £ 100,000 house and landscape the rest, then a total waste of money. ( back to square one )
                  you need to increase the sale of the whole estate by the £ 100,000 you have just lost by demolishing an asset.

                  WHO is going to finance this developement ? the sister, or both.
                  If only the sister pays for the development, then Royw will not be entitled to 50 % of the profit ( allowing £ 100,000 loss of the original house ) if he did not finance the deal.
                  Then there comes the court battle for Royw to want 50% of the profit and the sister saying he did not conribute and is not entitled to any extra profit.

                  This is a Landlord and tenant site, so arguments about the legality of share of land, who pays what, who finances, and who gets the profit, is best looked into via paid for legal advice on these matters.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by pilman View Post
                    The idea that because the deceased parent had a particular viewpoint, that now the children should agree with that viewpoint seems completely unreasonable and not at all sensible.
                    It is very common to respect someone's wishes after they have died, and act accordingly. I am fairly sure that is what I would do in the circumstances described.
                    There is a fine line between irony and stupidity. If I say something absurd please assume that I am being facetious.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I find it hard to believe how nasty some people can be in response to a simple query.
                      Pilman - I see no reason why I should follow my sister's opinion just because she is still alive. Some things are more important than money. It is my childhood home and I do not want to see it demolished (an opinion I arrived at all by myself).
                      Ram - I intend to take legal advice but would like to know something about it first. There are many knowledgeable people on this site whose advice I appreciate. Most of the time they manage to be polite too.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Roy, if you could change your sisters mind or stop her, what would be your intention for the property?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          In response to the poster making this statement "Mum wanted it to stay as it is so I want to stop any development." I responded in what I did not consider to be a rude way, but rather a realsitic way.
                          Now the latest comment from the poster is "It is my childhood home and I do not want to see it demolished"
                          That is completely different from wanting to preserve a paddock because that was what the mother wanted when she was alive.

                          Too many people confuse bluntness for rudeness, but if a responder has to agree with every poster, then this web-site will fail to achieve its aim of offering advice that sometimes sees matters in a different way to the original poster.

                          So if someone posted that they wanted to know what calibre of pistol would be best used to kill an enemy, those telling him that a .38 was better than a .45 may assist the poster, but someone telling him that killing someone is totally wrong, would be accused of being nasty and rude?

                          Because I disagreed with someone originally claiming to do something in order to respect his deceased mother's wishes, rather than give due consideration and respect to his living sister's wishes, I have been labled as "nasty".

                          I am still of the opinion that a living person ought to have more consideration given to their particular circumstances and requirements rather than an absolute committment to observe the wishes of the deceased parent irrespective of the way that decision impacts on a sibling.

                          If the Poster is a 50 year old single man who had always lived at home, but the sister was recently widowed and is now trying to raiise her three young children on a widow's pension, should that affect how the inheritance is dealt with by each of them?

                          Perhaps less nasty people than me can comment on that possibility, because so far we know nothing about the circumstances of either living sibling, although we are supposed to support the male sibling because he posted on this web-site.

                          I did not af gree with his sentiments as originally expressed, so I said so.

                          That does not make me nasty. It makes me truthful.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Empathy is the capacity to understand what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's shoes.

                            When a bereavement is involved, usually one of the things we normally bring to bear when dealing with the relatives.

                            Comment

                            Latest Activity

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X