Property inherited but cannot insure

[scttech]

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
There are 4 siblings total which inherited 2 separate properties (45 acre farm & house) due to my father's passing away. 3 of the 4 siblings want to sell all properties with the exception of 1 who wants to purchase everything. Because we've made the decision to sell, this 1 sibling has been unresponsive with any communication with this transaction. So, we are having to work with an attorney on forcing the sale using legal means.

The thing that complicates this is that the 1 sibling mentioned above also let some 'seedy' characters on the farm and this 'friend' was busted for having a meth lab on the site. The property wasn't cleaned up in due time and is now considered (permanently by the state of TN) a meth-contaminated property. The result is that we now cannot get insurance on the property until it is cleaned up.

QUESTION
If there is an accident on the property due to the farm not being insured, (ie., someone drowns in the pond, hurts themselves, etc), can the siblings be held responsible and sued? Would the liability insurance on each of our current properties protect us? I'm asking because my wife and I are concerned that if anyone gets hurt or dies on the farm property, we could be financially brought to ruin. It seems like our hands are tied and it's just a race to get the first house sold, take the proceeds of the sale & clean up the farm & sell it. During this time, something could happen and we're concerned.

Location: TN

 

[Mass_Shyster]

3 of the 4 siblings want to sell all properties with the exception of 1 who wants to purchase everything.

Why don't the three sell to the fourth? You'll probably get more than a court-ordered sale after legal fees.

If there is an accident on the property due to the farm not being insured, (ie., someone drowns in the pond, hurts themselves, etc), can the siblings be held responsible and sued?

Yup.

Would the liability insurance on each of our current properties protect us?

I don't know. Maybe an umbrella policy? Hopefully, our resident insurance expert (ecmst12) will pipe up shortly.

 

[tranquility]

I completely agree with Stevef and add, the sibling who allowed possession to the meth cookers might be guilty of "waste" and be forced to come up with the money to remediate. This is an additional twist to the usual facts in a partition lawsuit and might make it easier to come up with a fair resolution to the problem.

 

[latigo]

BACKGROUND / ISSUE
There are 4 siblings total which inherited 2 separate properties (45 acre farm & house) due to my father's passing away. 3 of the 4 siblings want to sell all properties with the exception of 1 who wants to purchase everything. Because we've made the decision to sell, this 1 sibling has been unresponsive with any communication with this transaction. So, we are having to work with an attorney on forcing the sale using legal means.

The thing that complicates this is that the 1 sibling mentioned above also let some 'seedy' characters on the farm and this 'friend' was busted for having a meth lab on the site. The property wasn't cleaned up in due time and is now considered (permanently by the state of TN) a meth-contaminated property. The result is that we now cannot get insurance on the property until it is cleaned up.

QUESTION
If there is an accident on the property due to the farm not being insured, (ie., someone drowns in the pond, hurts themselves, etc), can the siblings be held responsible and sued? Would the liability insurance on each of our current properties protect us? I'm asking because my wife and I are concerned that if anyone gets hurt or dies on the farm property, we could be financially brought to ruin. It seems like our hands are tied and it's just a race to get the first house sold, take the proceeds of the sale & clean up the farm & sell it. During this time, something could happen and we're concerned.

Location: TN

You write that you have retained an attorney to force a sale of the properties. That can mean but one thing and that is filing an action for partition.

Before you allow that please take the time to read Tennessee Code Sections 29-27-101 et seq. describing that complex, expensive and time consuming partition process. After which you will surely agree that it should be taken up ONLY AS A LAST RESORT!

And if this attorney whom you have hired (undoubtedly at considerable and continuing expense) hasn’t explained that to you and that it should first be used as a threat to the recalcitrant sibling and as leverage to bring him around to agreeing to marketing the property in a normal fashion and not be sold by a group of commissioners appointed by the court – who also need to be paid, then FIRE YOUR ATTORNEY!
________________

And speaking of attorneys, someone should have sued the attorney for your father’s estate for malpractice in permitting the property to be distributed in kind rather than having it sold during probate and thus avoided creating the legal nightmare of an estate in cotenancy!!!!

Also I have trouble with your finger pointing at a single cotenant as being solely responsible for the chemically contaminated condition of the “farm house” when all four of you had equal access and say as to its usage.

 

[scttech]

Also I have trouble with your finger pointing at a single cotenant as being solely responsible for the chemically contaminated condition of the “farm house” when all four of you had equal access and say as to its usage.

We have told the sibling that under no circumstances were his friends to be going out to the farm w/o a family member present. We changed the locks, yet the keys were always distributed to his friends. If they couldn't get in through the locked gate, they would come in through the wooded area. The sibling's friend who was busted for the meth lab was also confronted by one of the siblings personally and told explicitly not to be on the property w/o a family member present. Unfortunately, this property had become a 'party location' and it was only a matter of time that something happen. As a family, we couldn't monitor these properties every second of the day as it has been unoccupied for several years. The police were told what was going on, but they can also only do so much.

 

[tranquility]

While I generally agree with what latigo wrote above, I do have a problem with:

Also I have trouble with your finger pointing at a single cotenant as being solely responsible for the chemically contaminated condition of the “farm house” when all four of you had equal access and say as to its usage.

All owners have right of possession. How can the other owner's prevent a single cotenant from allowing another to use his right?

 

[latigo]

While I generally agree with what latigo wrote above, I do have a problem with:
All owners have right of possession. How can the other owner's prevent a single cotenant from allowing another to use his right?

And I agree that either could permit an invitee on to the property. But that wouldn't prevent the others from learning and complaining as to the invitee's use of the property particularly when it is hazardously illegal, such as cooking methamphetamine crystals.

My comment to the OP was meant to illustrate that anyone of the other three in exercising their common rights could have prevented one of the major difficulties now confronting them.

But then maybe one of the other difficulties was in dealing with a pampered baby brother. And of course that are some places in those Tennessee Mountains and hollers where it’s not safe to wander even in broad daylight.

Best regards