Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California
Over four years ago, my mother-in-law passed away (survived by her husband) stating in her will that 1/3 of her estate would go to my wife, 1/3 to my sister-in-law and 1/3 to my sister-in-law's husband. My sister-in-law and her husband wanted to secure future full rights to the house so when they were distributing available monies at the time there was a balance of $16,000 due my wife as part of the agreement. The balance has been asked for several times, but as always, my wife's sister was "working on it". Through the family tree grapevine, my wife's daugther was told by her cousin, that her mother and father weren't going to pay up. I called to find out what was going on with the payment. My brother-in-law said that they were not going to pay my wife anymore, because the house that was valued at $335,000 was not worth only $175,000. They knew the risks and rewards of property and were glad to secure that future right of ownership at that time, but now want to penalize my wife for the state of the real estate market. Please, advise. What are my wife's legal option remedies
2 Answers from Attorneys
There's no mention in your question of a probate proceeding or the existence of an executor or administrator of the will. Usually, the handling of a will requires a probate proceeding in which someone is placed in charge as executor or administrator and must make reports and (unless excused by the maker of the will) post a bond. I think a lawyer stepping in here on your behalf would first want more background information, chiefly (1) status of the probate proceedings, if any; and (2) status of legal title to the house as reflected in the county records.
Additional questions would involve the extent to which the re-distribution of the mother-in-law's estate was placed in writing, and the quality of documentary evidence of these deals being made. Such evidence might exist in formal written agreements, reports of the executor, and the like, or, less satisfactorily, in e-mails, informal letters, canceled checks, bank statements, and the like.
Then, there is a possible statute-of-limitations problem. A right to sue must be pursued within a particular time frame after the right first arises. For oral contracts, a suit must be brought within two years of the date of breach, for example. I think any limitations problem could be surmounted here, but it would be a factor in planning litigation.
It's certainly possible that the in-laws would become more honest when confronted by the possibility of suit, or a letter from a lawyer who has done an investigation. Otherwise, a lawsuit can be designed and filed, based on facts developed upon further investigation.
Her options are the same as with any dispute, either resolve the situation informally by negotiation, or file suit to protect and assert her rights, if still within the statute of limitations. If serious about hiring counsel to help in this for consultation or litigation, feel free to contact me. I�ll be happy to help