Estate question - anyone know? - Page 4

hyacinth003 · ‎03-12-2010

On 1/2/2014 KathyPet said: If I recall correctly from Hyacinth's previous posts about this there are 4 brothers involved. Two of the brothers (but not Hycanith's DH) we're appointed co executors of the father's will. One of the brother's basically took over everything and was not forthcoming about any monetary details of the estate settlement. He refused to provide information to either his co-executor or the other two brothers. The father's house was rented and he refused to provide any information about the rental income or expenses or disburse any funds. Three of the four brothers wanted to sell the house when the lease was up and he fought that tooth and nail. Then he wanted to purchase the house himself at a price well below the potential selling price. he finally agreed to get a formal appraisal of the house and then when the appraisal came in he said it was appraised to high and fought the other brothers about that. I think that they went to court to force him to settle the estate. The attorney's fees probably were accrued because he had to be forced to move forward with the estate settlement process.

Totally awesome and correct, Kathy Pet, except for one thing. Brother #1 and #3 wanted to keep the house as rental property, and were supposed to buy it together. The "binding agreement" all 4 signed with each other said the price would be set by a professional appraiser. It also said "if for any reason" they didn't purchase the house, it was to go on the market "as soon as possible." Agreement signed May, 2012, house on the market June, 2013 - as soon as possible??????????????? And only by court order.

Hyacinth

KathyPet · ‎03-09-2010

We'll, I guess I got most of the story correct from memory. I assume that the attorney's fees were incurred when Brother #2 (co-executor) had to take brother # 1 to court to force him to move to settle the estate? Does the state your FIL lived in require that a final accounting of assets and expenses be done and filed with the court and provided to the beneficiaries.?? The attorney will know the answer to that and I am sure would tell your DH if one will be provided.

hyacinth003 · ‎03-12-2010

On 1/2/2014 KathyPet said: We'll, I guess I got most of the story correct from memory. I assume that the attorney's fees were incurred when Brother #2 (co-executor) had to take brother # 1 to court to force him to move to settle the estate? Does the state your FIL lived in require that a final accounting of assets and expenses be done and filed with the court and provided to the beneficiaries.?? The attorney will know the answer to that and I am sure would tell your DH if one will be provided.

Yes, most of the expenses were incurred by #4 having to fight #1 to move with the Estate. So, as of this moment, it is supposed to go to a "special master" to determine who will pay the legal fees. #1 is ignoring all attempts at a settlement. He is threatening to file a motion to go back to court to have #4 removed as a Trustee. It is so specious at this point, because the Estate work is mostly done. It is an attempt to stall and punish.

Two of the brothers had no standing in this dispute, so they rightfully don't feel they should have to pay for it. So #4 wants to make his case that #1 is the cause of the mess and should pay for it. The judge who issued the court order to finally put the house on the market said #1 was the cause of the mistrust and that the lawsuit was justified.

#1 is still holding Estate funds that #4 has no access to and no idea of the amount because he won't tell him. Remember, these are "brothers!" Part of the court order was that #4's attorney would get the funds when the house sold, or #1 could hold that hostage too.

So, the beneficiaries still don't have their inheritance. All it takes is one BAD person to do this. Hopefully, there aren't that many, but we sure didn't expect this.

The beneficiaries have a good idea of what is in the Estate. I don't know what the state law there is. #1 is a bona fide sociopath, and is able to do this without conscience or shame.

Hyacinth

tansy · ‎01-02-2011

Hyacinth, this is a confusing story, okay, so I am probably missing something. It would seem that #4 was acting in the interests of his other two brothers and the legal fees incurred should be split. Hope it's resolved soon.

KathyPet · ‎03-09-2010

Well, logically it would seem that at least a large portion of the legal fees should come out of the amount Brother #1 would receive since it was his failure to properly execute his responsibilities as executor that caused these fees to be incurred. However, we all know that what appears to be logical is not always what occurs. Granted that brother 2 did incur the fees but brothers 3&4 were beneficiaries of the legal action that 2 took to force the sale of the house otherwise it still would not be settled.

Mj12 · ‎03-09-2010

On 1/2/2014 hyacinth003 said:
My father-in-law passed away in 2011. He did leave a Will and Trust, leaving all to be split among his 4 sons equally. He named the two brothers (#1 and #4) as Trustees. They were in the same state, NOT the one we live in. It is a simple Estate, and included a house. It didn't even require an attorney, except to make sure it was wrapped up.

Brother #1 held everything and was loathe to share with the other Trustee. He did anything and everything to do it all himself. Brother #4 finally retained an attorney to make #1 move on anything. My husband #2 and #4 wanted the house assets as a lump sum distribution, and the other two wanted to keep the house as a rental property. #1 refused to remove the tenants, buy the house, or sell the house. He just kept collecting rent, which no one has seen.

No one thought of having the jewelry appraised because you don't realize a BROTHER will be dishonest. Now he says he cannot find it. We don't believe him. There are photos, but I don't think they illustrate real/costume.

For all who think my husband should have had an attorney - real nice if you have $300/hour to spend when your other 2 brothers are each spending possibly your inheritance on lawyers. Especially in another state. These are your BROTHERS - and at first you don't know they aren't to be trusted!

The house finally sold under court order in November. Now #1 is obstructing resolution in what he has been doing all along to his brothers.

I hope no one else goes through something like this. Finding out your closest family members will cheat you and don't care about you at all. Finding out your father's memory has been trashed for no good reason.

Hyacinth ${#emotions_dlg.sad}$

No, if anyone looks bad in situations like these, it's the family left behind haggling and stonewalling and litigating everything. I'm talking about the executor-brother you're posting about.

I'd say to just walk away. It's not worth making yourself, your family sick with worry and grief; it's stealing time and peace from YOUR family and its not worth it at some point.

KathyPet · ‎03-09-2010

Sorry, I am getting the brothers mixed up. I meant that brother 4 (the other executor) incurred the fees but did so in a effort to force # 1 brother to settle the estate and that action did benefit the other two brothers who are beneficiaries. Brother #1 should pay the fees since he was the one who caused all the problems and delays but who knows who will be ordered to pay them.

Anniecamp · ‎03-12-2010

MJ12, I think that H and her dh would be willing to ignore it at a certain point, but are getting concerned about what kind of bills they may end up being charged with as a result of brother #1's misdoings.

In descriptions of how to handle wills, it is recommended that people not use a family member as an executor. I sure can see why. Yet, I wonder how many people have someone they can truly trust to be executor, when it's not a family member?

I was executrix for my parents' estate. What a nightmare. My sister kept calling everybody and claiming I was stealing all the money. Ugh! In hindsight, I would have told my parents "no". They didn't ask me. Just did their wills that way.

hyacinth003 · ‎03-12-2010

On 1/2/2014 tansy said: Hyacinth, this is a confusing story, okay, so I am probably missing something. It would seem that #4 was acting in the interests of his other two brothers and the legal fees incurred should be split. Hope it's resolved soon.

Well, it seems to me that NO legal fees needed to happen for anyone. This simple Estate did not require lawyers to administer.

You should NOT have to FORCE a Trustee to perform "fiduciary duty" which is expected of them. A Trustee is supposed to put the interests of the beneficiaries first. He clearly did not. He could have put a stop to this at any time by doing the right thing.

THe beneficiaries should not have to pay for a Trustee just to do the right thing and follow the Will and Trust. I would like to see #4 make the case that #1 should pay for his mess.

In the end, the beneficiaries will have no say in what happens. Even if they have to pay for it.

Hyacinth

KathyPet · ‎03-09-2010

ITA that brother 1 should pay since it was his failure to execute his responsibilities as executor that caused these fees to be incurred by the other co-executor. I cannot believe that brother 1 actually called your DH and wanted him to back the removal of the other co-executor after he was the one who caused all the delays. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall during that conversation. What did your DH say to him??