How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Clare Your Own Question
Clare, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 34888
Experience:  I have been a solicitor in High Street Practice since 1985 with a wide general experience.
Type Your Law Question Here...
Clare is online now

In the case of three people who have an equal share in a

This answer was rated:

In the case of three people who have an equal share in a property.
One person in consideration of a sum payment relinquishes there share of
the property, would that preclude another party from claims against the estate at
a later date.
Thank you for your questionMy name is ***** ***** do my best to help you but I need some further information firstCould you explain a little more about the background please
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter,
The property is a house left to them by there parents will and is now passed through probate,
part of the left estate is a cash sum which undivided would go
to one of the parties while the house would then belong to the other two who are reluctant to sell.
Would that then constitute in law the ownership of the house by the remaining two and therefore be unavailable to any claim against it through the one time partner, say for example care cost if they should become too ill.
Paul Bernson
For clarityThe Cash assets represent the equivalent of half of the value of the property is that correct?The whole Estate is divided equally between the three of them?
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
That is not correct. Our case is perhaps unusual. The cash assets amount to £30.000 the property was valued in probate at £250.000. The cash sum is considerably less that would have been received if the house were to be sold and the estate divided equally ( £83.333 plus the 10.000 of the cash sum). The cash sum is simply what is available to be received. The reason being that our sibling sister was badly disabled as a child physically and mentally, and accepts our more
valuable usage.
I would like it affirmed from a legal point of view that a waver of rights to the property in consideration of the £30.000 cash assets would leave the remaining two share holders the sole property rights.
Paul Bernson
I am afraid that if the third person needed care funded by the state the fact that she had given up £60,000 she was entitled to would mean that she would be assessed as though those funds were still available to herI am sorry I know this is not what you hoped to hear but sadly this is the case.
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Thank you for your answer that her care cost would be regarded as gifted away
That however is still in the future.
I have one final question if I may, can that mean that my sister would still have the right
To leave her share of the property or remuneration from it in a will (she has a spouse)
and my brother and I would not have sole property rights.
Regards Paul
Assuming that she had the capacity to agree to the gift to you both of the £60,000 then the fact that she had agreed to accept the lower sum means that she cannot leave it elsewhere as she has already gifted it to you both
Customer: replied 1 year ago.
Thank you for your answer's that's all I need for the present
You are most welcome - I hope all goes well
Clare and 2 other Law Specialists are ready to help you