help with will

I see what you say but her sister lives right next door and is much closer than she is. If you knew her, you would understand what I am talking about. She is a manipulator,theif, and whatever else you want to call her She didn't follow what her dad asked her to do with the large life insurance policy that he told her. She even told him that she would split the life insurance policy,$17,000, with her siblings, which she didn't do. If you had a brother or sister who acted like that, would you really let them get away with thinking that they could get something for free??? She even said that she had a buyer for the house and since it was court supervised, she said that she couldn't do it. That was a total lie as I talked to people who knew the law and they said that could sell it anytime. She just needed to get the go ahead from the court. What goes around comes around!! Nuf said on this subject as I don't feel that I am really getting anywhere. But thanks for the advices from all of you. Will take more if you have anymore.

j.

Sorry for breaking into your topic. Did you find the answer that you were looking for??

j.

Grace, I did not say that YOU brought it up. I said that given the timing and circumstances she was usurping the property that should be sold to benefit the heirs. The only way to get her out of the property is to force the question of rent to compensate the heirs. If you read my point of view, I don't think we are that far apart but for the issue of the time frame. You are stating a point of view about a TEMPORARY residential situation and here we are speaking directly to a LONG TERM suspiciously undocumented usurpation of property rightfully belonging in the estate and to the full list of heirs.

The only way to bring out the truth is to bring it to probate and then if she has no documentation as proof, charge her rent for the time she stays before she is evicted for the sale to take place. And I'd seriously reconsider the idea that a judge would not see this situation just as suspiciously as all of us have. If testimony is given as to what she CLAIMS without any documents to prove it, the judge will certainly see that she is delaying the probate and needs to be removed.... in more ways than one.

As for rent, it is purely a matter of TWO YEARS of living in that house with no move toward probate. Her intention is pretty clear... stated it, she did. Her actions show her only as a squatter. She has to be dealt with... but no JUDGE is going to let somebody move in and take over indefinitely (not even an executrix) without paying the estate for the use of the property and to provide for maintenance of the property. If it is willed to her, indeed, there are no grounds to evict... nor to ask for rent. But without that document and probate, it is still part of the estate and the assets of the estate should not go inordinately to ONE party of the many heirs. So the judge would order that she pay rent because she has not moved forward with her duty as executrix and has not provided documentation of any of her claims. He won't ask her to pay back rent, but I'd bet she will be forced to move if she refuses to pay rent. The heirs can see to that by petitioning the judge to stop the waste of a potential income producing asset.

You have already agreed that her claims are suspicious ... now why don't you see that committing waste on the assets of an estate are grounds for her to be removed as executrix and then evicted if she refuses to pay rent. It has NOTHING to do with using your grandmother's house temporarily while probate is proceeding or being prepared for. It is a legal situation creating a loss to the estate perpetrated by the executrix for a lengthy undocumented stay with no probate even attempted.

There are two separate ideas on this thread. One, does the executor who is carrying out their duty in a responsible manner have to PAY if he or she stays in the house. The answer is NO.

However, my comments were not directed at anyone who has moved into and illegally taken over a dead persons property. Obviously, there is no parallel.

I am speaking in general legal terms---an executor who is carrying out their duties in a responsible timely manner isn't supposed to PAY for doing so. You keep saying rent rent rent--and I am simply pointing out instances where rent ISNT appropriate. In my book, what the poster is describing ISNT an executor situation.

ANY executor acting APPROPRIATELY as such is not responsible for PAYING to do the same.

In any regard, I still disagree that the woman living in the house can be ORDERED to PAY rent. You cannot institute an agreement and make it retroactive, when both parties have not agreed to it. The judge does not have the legal authority to "back charge" her for rent. HE DOES have the authority to EVICT her and charge her for the cost of doing the same, and he does have the ability to fine her or find her in contempt for dereliction of duty as the executor, but to arbitrarily make up a number and assign it to the property as 'rent', sight unseen? Isn't going to happen.

Should the imposter be removed? Sure. Is she following the law? Nope. However, that doesn't give the judge the LEGAL authority to ASSIGN ( arbitrarily) a "rent" amount for her being there. It may make sense to you, but there is no LEGAL basis for doing so. He cannot simply institute a retroactive "rent" agreement, when there is no prior consent to doing so.

As I mentioned, he CAN fine her, and institute financially punitive measures, but to suddenly assign a rent figure ( based on property he has never seen, been in , or appraised) and demand it from her RETROACTIVE is ridiculous. He CAN punish her and hold her accountable in those areas where she AGREED BEFOREHAND ( before being executor) those things you swear to do---THOSE he can hold her accountable for. Fines? You betcha. RENT? Isn't going to happen for the simple reason that there is no BASIS for doing so.

If you can find some law that allows judges to assign arbitrary RENT amounts where an executor is failing in their duty and is living in the house and not closing out the estate, please post it.

He is limited by the law. And by what they AGREED upon---and where she falls short in THOSE places, he can and should act accordingly.

My opinion. Feel free to disagree.

Wow. I must have MISUNDERSTOOD this part.

Your statement asserting a case and denying it in a one liner:

"But, to say that for the duration of a LEGALLY executed estate, (and the time frame that entails) the executor cannot be in the home without paying to be there is, in my opinion, incorrect."

and followed by comments indicating that you wanted to debate the TEMPORARY use of the residence by the executrix.

I didn't want to debate something that had no bearing on jetlag's situation. You brought up your grandmother's situation and your TEMPORARY use and then tried to say I was wrong because in YOUR example it didn't make sense. The fact was simply that this was not like your grandmother's estate probate nor were you usurping her house for a long period of time. So I was NOT interested in debating it.

It had NOTHING to do with the question or CASE at hand.

I actually said earlier that I thought being there at least for a short duration was a GOOD thing and should not require compensation to the estate because it was a trade off with what it would cost to have guards check the premises.

But you went for the full on restatement using double negatives and presented it as if it had something to do with this posting... NADA... it was YOUR case, NOT jetlag's. That made it an irrelevant position. Thus I declined to debate it.