Can 2 of 3 beneficiaries of a will sell land without the express permission and signature if the 3rd ?

my uncle and aunt have sold land left to them and my mum without her permission.

I guessed they would need the signatures of all the children since it was left to all of them.

they approached my mum some years ago, but she wanted to hold onto the land as other family lived there.

Also if the sale has/ has not gone through what action can I take from England (the land is in jamaica) to stop the sale or to clarify the amount of sale and the persons authorising /

i think this may have been helped by a dodgy cousin working at a bank there.

if any one has any knowledge of the way things work there it would really help.

No,2 beneficiaries of a will can not sell land that was left to them in that will if there is also a 3rd beneficiarie!

It shouldn't be possible. You will need to get a Solicitor so they can make the right legal applications.

I'm no expert on Jamaica, but no, they can't legally sell it without her consent. I would contact them and let them know you're on to them. If they are trying to scam your mum out of what is hers, it is a criminal act. Call a lawyer in the area and ask for their opinion. If they have already done it, you can file criminal charges, as well as a civil suit. The criminal charges are easy enough from England, but you have to have representation for the civil case (in person, or retain an attorney). So much for family... Sorry and good luck!

had the same thing. my two sisters tried to sell my mum and dads house that had been left to 3 of us.

after legal advise i discovered that all 3 signatures were needed.

the only way round it is to offer a cash settlement before you try to sell to the 3rd party. then the land will be split between the 2 remaining beneficiaries

No, they can NOT do that. Something is wrong. You need to contact a legal worker/lawyer and stop this.

You (your mother) needs to contact a lawyer with experience in estate law and overseas (Jamaican) law ASAP! Everything is "dodgy" when dealing with overseas transactions like this and especially in the Carribean countries, where they tend to "conveiently forget" certain laws (especially if "greased"). Move quickly, or you and your mother will lose out.

No they can't.If the Land was left to all of them,then they all needed to sign a letter.Was this left to them in a will? Who was the main person named,normally the eldest child/living relative.If your mum didn't want to sell,they couldn't do it without her concent,as she would have to agree in writing.I would suggest checking with a solicitor,on where you stand.

My nan passed away this year,and she had a couple of insurance policies,my mum had to get written permission of my aunts and uncles to go ahead with claiming the policies,as it was easier for only one person to sort out the paper work.

So whatever happened,your mum would've had to sign a release of some sort.

Hi Purple,

This is interesting because it depends on a lot of things.

In UK law normally all three signatures are required unless there are very exceptional circumstances. How the law in Jamaica works I don't know but if anything goes to appeal it is heard in the UK courts in the Privy Council.

You need to contact a solicitor in Jamaica to find out how the law there works. If they use UK law and Uk jurisdiction.

If this is the case and they sell the property without consent then the transaction is illegal.

Sorry I can't be of more help.

Do we have to pay again for the new passport for second time in local hdfc bank?please help me ?

Somebody stole my passport and greencard in bangalroe airport yesterday when I landed here in bangalore.I have applied for passport today it might come on jan 2nd 2009 ,do i have to pay money to hdfc again for this new passpot which i am getting it for the second time?

Yes, you do have to pay.

How can land be mine?

My partner wants to buy a small block of land for me.

Land has to be purchased using a loan/mortgage from the bank which will be in their name only, as they are paying for it.

So, if that's the case how can the land legally be mine?

This is a relatively straightforward thing to do - despite other answers and irrelevant comments from Americans.

Your partner can buy the land in their own name, and take out a mortgage in their own name. This will make them the legal owner of the land.

You are right that for you to also be a legal owner of the land would require your name to be on the mortgage, which would make you jointly responsible to pay it off.

However, your partner can "give" the land to you without this being necessary. They simply declare a trust, stating that they are holding the land for your benefit. This makes your partner the trustee and you the beneficiary. Once the mortgage is paid off you can take full legal ownership, and if the land is sold at any time it is you that is entitled to the proceeds - of at least for them to be held and invested in your behalf.

However, there may be tax consequences of doing this - inheritance tax (yes!) has to be paid immediately on property paid into most trusts.

Your partner can put your name on the deed so that it is co-owned by the two of you. Once the mortgage is paid off, your partner can transfer their half of the land to you so you would own it completely. The lender is not going to let your partner remove their name from the deed until the mortgage is paid off as that would remove the collateral from the mortgage.

YOUR name would have to be the deed to have any claim to it

the loan on the loan doesn't matter

and until it is actually PAID OFF, it's kind of meaningless. You probably won't be able to build on it until the loan is paid

Once you complete with the legal formalities then you can be a part of that land as your partner has mentioned the name in that but until and unless you will completely get off to the loan the lad cannot be completely yours.

Me and my wife owned a lad and it was on the name of her but when i am done with the formalities of loan then only I would was able to have that land completely named on her.

I have never heard of a lender requiring someone to be on the mortgage if they are on the deed. I suppose it is possible, lenders are changing how they do business often. But if you are indeed on the mortgage, make sure you are on title (deed) as well.

I would not be part of this as it may leave you with a mortgage you don't want.To buy land with a mortgage? What is this land to be used for?All sounds a bit iffy to me but I don't know your partner or the circumstances so maybe I am being a bit cynical.

Should Israel invade West Bank and Gaza?

I think they should just invade that land and end the madnesss. A century ago they would easily get away with it. What do you think?

I am not sure that it would mean end of the madness.

It is not difficult to invade gaza and occupy it and it is not difficult to subdue the West Bank ; what the "heroic mujaheddins" are worth in combat we have recently seen in Gaza .

But what to do with them after that?

To make 3 millions of hostile arabs the citizens of Israel? It is impossible.

To hold them as the occupied popuation? It means to provide them with anything they want: from cheap school- books to German cars , Japanese computers and Israeli medical equipment. And all this- without getting a cent from them , because they are "occupied","poor" and "innocent victims".

I do not say that this second variant is impossible; Israel is strong enough economically to maintain another 3 millions of arabs loafers ,in addition to almost 2 millions she has been maintaining for the last 60 years, but I do say that it would be simply silly.

The best solution, of course, would be to just throw them all out of Gaza and West Bank, paying them the compensation and offering a good stimulus package to any country which would agree to accept them. The first and most evident candidate is Jordan 80% of whose population are the palestinian arabs. But Jordan becomes hysterical at the simple mentioning of the perspective that these 3 millions of arabs from West Bank and Gaza would move to Jordan. It scares Jordan much more than the open war with Israel although they know full well that they will be defeated in a week, because the jordanians also know very well that the Israelis will come - and go , while 3 millions of palestinian arabs guided by the bandits of Hamas, Fatah and Jihad Islamica will come- and stay. But Israel must continuosly probe this variant with different arab countries, and as soon as one of them agrees - throw this plague called "the palestinian arabs" out of Israel without any hesitation.

Second variant is just declare the unilateral separation from the West Bank , announcing officially that Israel since this day considers her borders passing...where Israel considers best for her,without taking in the least consideration the screams of the "International Community (if this "Community" swallowed Iranian nukes, it will also swallow this, and all will end in "protests" and "activists landing in Gaza") , and that she will defend these borders from any attacks with all means at her disposal. After that arabs can create their "state" whenever they want and take for this all the time they need (such as I see the situation, it will take them some 200 - 300 years) .

No, they just gave them back in 2005. And the backlash they'll suffer from the global community would be a lot worse then anything they'd gain.

What would be the justification for that? You know there are real live PEOPLE living there. I know Israel would like us to believe the Palestinians are sub-human animals, but that is not the case. What is wrong with people these days?

No, more invasion means more blood of civilians.

no one is thirsty for blood.

No I think they should Invade your house.

In your dreams.

why israel do this?brothers hamas and on fath do thir best and more than that israel can do,,,,as wee see and hear about fighting and killing between our beloved brothers

Israel already occupies 85% of the West Bank. There's not much left to invade.

Israel's problems stem from the fact that it is always invading, killing, and occupying. As long as Israel continues to do this it will suffer the consequences.

A big cure for this problem would be the end of all US aid to Israel.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF), commonly known in Israel by the Hebrew acronym Tzahal (צ×""ל), are Israel's military forces, comprising the ground forces, air force and navy. It is the sole military wing of the Israeli security forces, and has no civilian jurisdiction within Israel. The IDF is headed by its Chief of General Staff, the Ramatkal, subordinate to the Defense Minister of Israel; the current Chief of Staff, since 2007, is Lieutenant General Gabi Ashkenazi.

At the order of Defense Minister David Ben-Gurion on May 26, 1948, the Israel Defense Forces were officially formed as a conscript army out of the paramilitary group Haganah, incorporating the militant groups Irgun and Lehi. It served as Israel's armed forces in all the country's warsâ€"the 1948 Arabâ€"Israeli War, the 1956 Sinai War, the 1967 Six-Day War, the War of Attrition, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the 1982 Lebanon War, and the 2006 Lebanon War. While originally the IDF was operational on three frontsâ€"against Lebanon and Syria in the north, Jordan and Iraq in the east, and Egypt in the southâ€"after the 1979 Egyptianâ€"Israeli Peace Treaty, its activities have mainly been concentrated in southern Lebanon and the Palestinian Territories, including the First and Second Intifada.

The Israel Defense Forces differs from most armed forces in the world in many ways, including the conscription of women, and the structure, with close relations between the ground forces, air force and navy. Since its founding, the IDF has striven to be a unique army fitting Israel's specific requirements. The IDF uses several technologies developed in Israel, many of them made specifically to match the IDF's needs, such as the Merkava main battle tank, advanced Hi-Tech weapons systems, Uzi submachine gun, the Desert Eagle and the Galil and Tavor assault rifles. It also has close military relations with the United States, including development cooperation, such as on the F-15I jet, THEL laser defense system, and the Arrow missile defense system.

I'm ashamed to say that I used to feel this way. I felt like how dare Israel compromise and give away the Holy land that G-d has given them. Well you know what? If you truly believe that G-d has given Israel the land, then you must know that He will bring it to pass that every bit of the land that He has given them will revert back to His people. And Biblical Israel is three times the size of the land that is now called Israel. So the battle for the land is far from over. Israel however does not have to fight, or fret, cry or moan, complain or kvetch. Suck it up Israel. The promises of G-d are yea and amen. Or dont you believe Him?

A century ago is 100 years ago. And 100 years ago the Holy land was called the British Mandate of Palestine. And although the British were negotiating with the Zionists (even before the Holocaust happened) for a Jewish state in the Holy land do you think that the British would let them invade it right away without any further reason (the Holocaust and anti-semitism in Europe was the only reason for them to have Palestine!). I also think that it should be the Europeans that should pay for their atrocious holocaust and centuries of anti-semitism (even in the most religious enviornements, aka RCC) and not put the burden of it on Arabs who were not anti-semetic and allowed Jews, as well as Christians to practice their religion freely in their own communities known as "Millets" in the Ottoman Empire. And invading the West Bank and Gaza won't end the "madness" you describe, it would only cause more madness. Because when a power occupies your country, kills women and children and innocent men, destroys and demolishes homes people tend to get upset. It is such a shame you don't realize that.

No.

is this b'itch for real? b'itch, are you for real?

yeah man! more war!,

what a wonderful idea.

no...i think the IDF girls should invade my house and interrogate me while we're all in the hottub together.

A century ago they were all over Europe, even longer some of them were not even of the Je wish faith. News flash, they already invading the the West Bank, and Gaza. The West Bank / Gaza was for Jordan and Egypt prior to 1948. Why don't you take a history class.

West Bank? What is it?

South France id North Bank, not The West Bank.

No, if a century ago people could get away with theft, murder, evading taxes, doesn't mean there is not a higher moral absolute.

Rural land pond house cattle chickens ducks sheep birds husband?

Is there any Banks out that doe's rural land loans. I'm In Houston TX. My house is payed for. I have my 90 year old Mom at home. This is hard to say but she will not be with me very much longer and I need to start looking for another house when shes gone. When you lose your 92 year old Dad here and your Mom too.It's really hard to stay here. All my Family has left Houston but me and after 54 years I think it's time. I could sell the house and then buy another after shes gone but that means I would have to stay longer............................... .

Check with your local Farm Service Agency (FSA), they have programs for beginning farmers and loan the money through their office. Most banks will give loans on almost any home, the interest is much higher than going through the FSA. Good luck

I could marry you if all else fails!

If Banks received a huge bailout to buy bad loans-why cant the people keep their homes? the banks get both?

With Banks receiveing 850 billion and now I see they are looking for another 800 billion-why is it that the people who bailed them out (taxpayers) are losing their homes? Was the bailout not ment to buy up the bad mortgage debt? why does the bank get the land, the payments from the people who were trying to pay their mortgage and over a trillion dollars that you poor hardworking americans will never see again.

because the banks can pay back these loans.

The people that put $0 down, and got a rate a 1% hoping their house would go up in value so they could afford their loans, cannot

it isn't fair to paying Americans that did not over spend on a home and were prudent in their finances

Because those people who are losing their homes didn't pay their mortgages. The bailout was to bailout the bank...not the People. Those people shouldnt have gotten the loans to begin with since they couldn't afford them.