entitled to share proceeds of land sale?

[user163127]

Pa
In April my brother sold a 1.6 acre parcel of land he inherited, out in the country along a country road and I believe I should share in the proceeds, based on the Will. He didn't even tell me he sold it even though he knows there is $1,000 in escrow that I can claim but don't because I believe in so doing I would forfeit my claim to the proceeds of the sale, which I had been anticipating. He was also the executor of the Will pertaining to this inherited property - doesn't this obligate him to tell me of the sale, and am I entitled to share in the proceeds of the land?

 

[justalayman]

You said there was something in the will regarding the property so, what was in the will regarding the property?

 

[anteater]

Can you clarify what you mean when you say that "he inherited" the land?

If he became the sole owner, then he can sell the land and he would be entitled to the proceeds.

You also use the past tense when referring to the will. Was probate opened and was the land an asset subject to probate?

 

[user163127]

You said there was something in the will regarding the property so, what was in the will regarding the property?

The will states "I give and devise my real estate situate at (location) to (my brother's name) provided he pay $1,000 to each of (my other siblings). If (my brother) doesn't want the said real estate, I direct my executors to sell said real estate provided they first offer same to (name of another private individual)."

It seems that this can be interpreted to mean that if my brother, who is also the executor, sells the property, it means that he "doesn't want" it, which begs the question: if he sells the property, should the proceeds be distributed, by the executors, to the siblings WHO HADN'T RECEIVED, OR REFUSED TO ACCEPT, THEIR $1,000 payment? I never accepted the $1,000 payment and it's in escrow.

The deceased died about 3 years ago, my brother took title of the land, then sold it this April.

Now, is my brother overstepping his bounds as executor by keeping all the proceeds, since the sale seems to violate the intention of the Will regarding that he "keep" the property? The grammar of the Will would seem to be significant, regarding his "wanting" the property, since it seems it wouldn't be necessary to say, in the Will, that if he doesn't want the land he can sell it.

The will also states that "all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal and mixed, wherever situate, I give, devise and bequeath, share and share alike, to my nephews and nieces (lists me and my 4 siblings, including the brother who got the land, who are the nieces and nephews)." In combination with the grammar regarding the condition of "wanting" the property, doesn't this indicate a degree of fairness and impartiality that would extend at least several years past this persons death, such that it would justify my claim for a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the land?

It might also be noted that my brother, who was the executor, wouldn't discuss the property with me, during all this time, going so far as to warn me against raising the subject - even though, his also being executor, it would seem he would be legally OBLIGATED to at least answer any questions I might have regarding its sale.

In fact, I haven't mentioned the subject to him during all this time, and assumed he would keep the property - and only discovered accidentally, hours ago, that the property has another owner and haven't yet mentioned my knowledge of this to my brother.

 

[anteater]

Are we to assume that probate was concluded?

Is this "$1,000 in escrow" the $1,000 mentioned in the will if your brother kept the property?

I really don't see that you have a claim to a part of the proceeds from the sale. Your brother accepted the devise and took title to the land.

But you can run it by an attorney to get an opinion.

The will also states that "all the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, real, personal and mixed, wherever situate, I give, devise and bequeath, share and share alike, to my nephews and nieces (lists me and my 4 siblings, including the brother who got the land, who are the nieces and nephews)." In combination with the grammar regarding the condition of "wanting" the property, doesn't this indicate a degree of fairness and impartiality that would extend at least several years past this persons death, such that it would justify my claim for a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the land?

Not in my opinion.

It might also be noted that my brother, who was the executor, wouldn't discuss the property with me, during all this time, going so far as to warn me against raising the subject - even though, his also being executor, it would seem he would be legally OBLIGATED to at least answer any questions I might have regarding its sale.

He isn't/wasn't legally obligated to discuss the property or its sale with you.

 

[justalayman]

If the property was transfered to your brother, it was his to do what he wishes. You are due the $1000

And no, it is not your option to refuse the $1000 and make a claim on the land. If you refuse the $1000, you are going to get nothing so it's your choice: $1000 or nothing

 

[Eekamouse]

Sounds like you're reading whatever you want to read into the wording of the will because you want more than what you have coming to you., OP.

 

[user163127]

Is there a reason the language "if he doesn't want the property for the executors to sell it" shouldn't be taken literally? Obviously if a person inherits land they can sell it, but this Will stipulates that "the Executors" sell it. What is the point of this language, if not to direct the proceeds into the hands of all the beneficiaries in an equal, "share and share alike" manner?

 

[Zigner]

Is there a reason the language "if he doesn't want the property for the executors to sell it" shouldn't be taken literally? Obviously if a person inherits land they can sell it, but this Will stipulates that "the Executors" sell it. What is the point of this language, if not to direct the proceeds into the hands of all the beneficiaries in an equal, "share and share alike" manner?

Your question is moot. He DID want it. He took title to it, then he sold it.

 

[justalayman]

sure it should be taken literally but but that only applies to him refusing acceptance of the property in the probate process. If he refused acceptance of the property, the executors would then be directed to sell the property with the proceeds being put into the estate general funds and used or distributed as directed.



Since it was put in his name, that proves he wanted it. It does not state how long he had to want it for nor did it prohibit him from doing whatever he wanted to do with it once he accepted it.

What is the point of this language, if not to direct the proceeds into the hands of all the beneficiaries in an equal, "share and share alike" manner?

because the "share and share alike" was not what was written regarding the house.

 

[tranquility]

I agree with the others. Brother did want the land and inherited it. He provided even provided money as required by the will to show he wanted it. People can change their minds. If the will wanted to give the property to brother with the restrictions the OP seems to want, it would have had to been far more specific in creating a reversionary interest in case the brother no longer used or decided to sell the property.

 

[user163127]

He sold it right away. That means he DIDN'T want it. The fact that he put it on the market and sold it right away proves he DIDN'T want it. Of course he has to put it in his name first, but that "legal technicality" doesn't prove he wanted it, in light of the fact that HE IMMEDIATELY TURNED AROUND AND SOLD IT! - which proves he DIDN'T want it. That being the case, which seems obvious, seems to mean the executors, as per the Will, would sell it and divide the proceeds.

 

[Zigner]

He sold it right away. That means he DIDN'T want it. The fact that he put it on the market and sold it right away proves he DIDN'T want it. Of course he has to put it in his name first, but that "legal technicality" doesn't prove he wanted it, in light of the fact that HE IMMEDIATELY TURNED AROUND AND SOLD IT! - which proves he DIDN'T want it. That being the case, which seems obvious, seems to mean the executors, as per the Will, would sell it and divide the proceeds.

He DID want it. He wanted it so that he could sell it!

 

[user163127]

I don't know what you mean by "far more specific." The language addresses the scenario where the brother "doesn't want" the property, and what to do in that case, in a way that would seem to go BEYOND the usual specifics of a Will.

 

[user163127]

He DID want it. He wanted it so that he could sell it! [/QUOTE

But the Will stipulates that the Executor sell it, which seems to imply something besides the usual "for sale by owner."