Q on inheritance tax

Where there's a will, there's a way.

And who signs on behalf of the vendor?

Its not getting the buyer to sign that is the problem, its finding somebody to sign on the vendor's side. Only executors can sign as vendor and they are not appointed until the will is proved in probate.

Anybody can sign as vendor. They don't actually need to own the house. This is only a contract promising that you *will* sell, you aren't actually selling it yet.

Similarly on the buyer's side. They don't generally get the dosh from their lender until the day before completion, so they have to sign their promise to pay the vendor money they haven't yet got.

?????

???? But who is the *you*?

But it is the actual 'buyer' who is signing though isnt it?

Anybody who expects, by the time agreed for completion, to be in a position to sell it. Even Al on behalf of herself and the other ice sisters Bern and Cand. Sends shivers down me spine. Just as well spring is in the air.

The heir(s) apparent, or the executor on their behalf. They might be, and often are, one and the same person.

Quite. I see now you were more concerned about the identity crisis than the wherewithal, but they do tend to go hand in hand. I was concentrating on the latter, that there is in principle no problem with contracting to sell something, even if not as agent for the current owner, before you actually own it, if you expect to own it, or to have agent authority, come crunch time.

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

I take your point, it is the old 'back to back' bills of exchange scenario, i.e. selling something you havent yet bought. I cant see the purchasers solicitors allowing the buyer to enter into that contract though, because in conveyancing one of the purchasing solicitor's main duties is to check that the vendor has a good title to sell, and prior to probate being granted, no living person has that title.

That's because you English gits do things widdershins. Up here, title checking isn't done pre-contract, it's done pre-completion. All you need do is have a clause in the contract to the effect that clear title must be exhibited prior to completion, together with all the other guff like LA searches.

Surely probate merely confirms title, it does not confer it. If there is a will and if it specifies that "the house goes to Alice", then all probate court can do is determine whether the will is valid, and will therefore pronounce either that Alice does not have title and never had it, or that she does have it and in fact had it right from the moment of death.

So Alice already has title and the power to sell prior to probate, save that it is subject to confirmation. Provided the sale contract makes due provision for what is to happen if probate finds against the would-be vendor, there ought in principle to be no reason for a buyer to shy away from such a deal. Typically the frustrated buyer would then be allowed to withdraw from the deal and be suitably compensated for his trouble.

Why not.

As long as the purchase price and the rent level represent a fair price it would seem the best of all works for the housholder.

tim

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

It appoints an executor. Prior to that point the executor is just a person of no consequence.

And appoints the executor.

Probate does no such thing, It doesnt 'pronounce' ownership of anything.

It doesnt do that either.

So the contract would say 'if I become executor I will sell you the house, and if I dont become executor then I wont'? Well I suppose there is a long shot that somebody might go along with that. I have heard of other 'conditional' contracts.

In message , "tim (back in SY)" writes

Thats part of the trouble, the purchase price and rent do not represent a fair price (IMO).

The *will* appoints the executor. Probate therefore only confirms the executor. Unless, of course, there is no will. Then a would-be executor would apply to probate to be appointed.

Indeed not, but since it pronounces upon the validity of the will, this will indirectly determine whether Alice gets title or not.

john boyle wrote

Neither does this OAP!