Can anyone explain what this means please?

I can see the beginnings of an argument that without his financial input the house would still have been rented, and that he became involved as a joint purchaser on the understanding that the house would eventually be his. I’m not saying that is what happened or that such an argument would stand up, especially as he later transferred his interest to his mother. However his financial assistance has obviously resulted in the value of the estate being considerably enhanced. We don’t know enough about the background but this is very relevant. This has to be dealt with by a solicitor.

GSM - we are not being difficult about a solicitor. At times we have afforded 1.5-2 hour sessions with a solicitor, and a barrister has read over the case and given advice. Sadly, no matter how much we wish to be represented we do not have the financial wherewithal to do so. None of us are eligible for legal aid etc. Solicitors are invaluable, but none of us can afford a loan of the amount required, none of us have savings of this level, not do we know anyone wealthy who might lend to be repaid if we win, and very patient if we lose.

At first within 6 months of Mum dying he said their agreement (verbal) was that he paid the mortgage and he'd inherit the house. He did not pay the mortgage apart from 1982-1986. He persuaded (badgered) my Mum into agreeing 2 'loans', he paid 99% of the first to start a business, the second around 30,000 to buy a property as Finnish mortgages were too expensive.

When he removed his name from the register he used the same legal appointment for Mum to 'write her Will', but he basically told the solicitor what to put. This was found, as a draft, unsigned, 26 years later when she died, in amongst a bag of wallpaper waste in the airing cupboard...hardly the actions of someone who intended to implement that Will.

My brother can prove he paid under 10,000, we can prove Mum paid 34000 in total...of his debt, and her 11,000 mortgage. Mum didn't 'give him' a regular income - she paid the original mortgage and his loan to keep her home as she was his guarantor.

Please understand we do want to be represented - we know it is a complicated situation but also that it is incredibly expensive, at least 25- 35000 possibly up to 50,000. Where are we expected to find this amount of money?

You need legal advice and representation. Look around for free help via CAB.

I know you’re not being difficult. You can access barristers who are willing to give pro bono (free) help in some circumstances. See link below.
weareadvocate.org.uk/what-we-do.html

Thanks GSM, I tried something similar locally but they had no specialist available. I've sent the link to my sister who is the administrator and see what happens, it really helps that someone knows what they're doing! xx

Grantanow - we applied locally via CAB, but they had no expert available, but thanks for the suggestion x

The CAB can’t deal with complex issues like this. Do, please, try the link I sent you. This case is complicated and you need expert advice.

If my sister doesn't apply within 24 hrs I will do so GSM. We have been told by the Judge that we are highly unlikely to receive a court date within the next 8-9 months. My Mum will have been gone over 4.5 years I have also discovered we may be covered for family law protection through our house insurance, i will be calling tomorrow too. Thank you all for the support and advice, I'll let you know if there are any developments

CAB cannot deal with this as it is too complex, but they may be able to signpost or refer you to a local law centre, or will have a list of other possibilities, eg through the local university if they have a Law School. You really do need a pro bono lawyer as GSM suggests.

Did the draft will, prepared at the same time your brother transferred his interest in the house to your mother, leave the house to him?

GSM, yes it did x

Oh dear. He was a joint owner of the house, which would not have been purchased without his financial assistance, and it looks as though he transferred his interest to your mother on the understanding the house would be left to him. This is where the estoppel argument comes from. He is saying the executors are estopped from denying that arrangement. At least your mother paid the original mortgage, with which the house was bought, for a while (make sure you know for how long and if possible how much she paid), as well as paying much of a subsequent mortgage which you hint was taken out for his benefit, and without your parents having rented the house for many years there would not have been such a big discount when it was purchased from the council - your lawyer needs to emphasise all this. I hope you will consult a barrister via the link I sent you. This is a complicated intestacy and a specialist is needed.

Thanks again GSM, my sister is filling the form out. We know and can prove he paid 9,000 and Mum over 30,000.

When he transferred his share, he did so for no consideration, yet can claim estoppel? Obviously there is nothing written supporting or denying anything.

The facts point to him transferring his share on the understanding that he would be left the house - transfer and instructions for will drafting done at same meeting with the solicitor. The consideration for the transfer can be argued to be the promise that he would inherit the house. He has made some payment towards the cost of the house and had he not done so it seems your parents would have continued to rent it so it would not form part of your mother’s estate today. There is in my view an argument there in his favour, against which must be offset what your mother paid under the original mortgage, and the subsequent mortgage for his benefit as I understand it, which she ended up paying off. My belief is that, on the basis of what you have said, he may well be able to make out a case for receiving more than a quarter share of the estate.

Thanks, we've already offered a much larger share of the results, but he has turned us down.

Don’t make any more offers without legal advice, please. There’s a rule whereby if you make an offer to settle and the other side is awarded more than your offer, you have to pay their costs as well as your own. Please do nothing more until you have the benefit of legal advice.

Thanks GSM, my sister has completed the form, but feels given some of the questions we may not qualify. We are waiting to see. I wonder if the above is why his solicitor keeps pushing us to higher and higher offers...

I hope you qualify. In the meantime, please don’t make any more offers.

What on earth was the brother thinking allegedly spending £77k fighting an estate of £176k, if you were fighting and spending the same its all gone

He may well deserve a larger share but it should have been settled by negotiation a long time ago. He is saying now that he wants £50k plus costs that’s admitting how weak his claim is.

It seems to me if you fight there will be little left, if you give in there will be £176 - 127 £49k to share out. You can risk spending a few thousand and hope for a sympathetic judge. From what you have explained a judge might award him a half share £88k.

Costs are uncertain if the judge thinks the 3 sisters had been unreasonable he might not order each side pays their own, maybe GSM has knowledge how costs are allocated.

He is fighting on the basis that he believes he is entitled to the house Katie, and I can see merit in that claim subject to adjustment to reflect mortgage monies paid by the mother. The danger is that if the sisters continue to claim that this is a straightforward intestacy with all four siblings being equally entitled, they will be ordered to pay the brother’s costs, which are only going to increase. I hope they can get pro bono advice. They have apparently already had some advice from a solicitor and barrister, but we don’t know to what effect - and the quality of any advice relies on the advisor knowing all the facts.

Thanks both, the Barrister and Solicitor (knowing we couldn't afford to use their services further) advised we fight. It was also suggested that as my Mum had paid so much of his house loan, that we 'could' claim part of his house as her estate...we have never and would never do so. We aren't going straight intestacy but that he should only be entitled to slightly larger percentage...perhaps 40%. He appears to expect 85%+. Without typing out 4 years of aggression on his part it is impossible to tell the story in this manner...We have applied to Advocate and our house insurance is 'considering', thanks to advice received here x

GSM - Sadly it appears we've been turned down by Advantage. They have asked why we haven't used no win no fee (they say it's too complicated) and why my sister hasn't mortgaged her home to pay, this is being kept to pay costs if we lose. Still waiting for home insurance, but the form gave the impression they are expecting simple arguments...not 1000 pages of evidence and correspondence.

1000 pages is rather extreme, to put it mildly!

This is a small estate and I imagine the house makes up the vast majority of the value. If your brother’s claim to the house succeeds, which I think likely subject possibly to some adjustment for mortgage payments made by your mother, and you have to pay your brother’s costs as well as your own you and your sisters could well be bankrupted. Imagine that tomorrow judgement was given in his favour and you three sisters had to pay his costs. What on earth would you do?

He has offered to settle for £50k plus his costs. You are holding out for a quarter each of the estate - £43,750 each. He is actually only asking for a little more than a quarter share plus the costs he has run up in proving his claim, leaving each sister with £16k. I think you need to reflect on the figures and what you stand to lose by continuing to argue.

He actually turned down our offer, and we can't make another...he says one thing but insists on another when you offer what he wants. My Mum lived in penury from age 60 until shortly before her death. Within days of her death he was hurling abuse at her - when all she'd done was, all his life, to help HIM. I'm not handing my mums reputation over on a platter...and my sisters are more vehement than me. Any costs, to the court limit will be done by mortgaging a house with no mortgage. We know the risks, but why should a liar, cheat and generally ungrateful miserable old man win? His solicitor in court admitted that they had no written proof! Why should we just hand it over if he cannot prove a single fact he claims???