The relevant date for establishing the law relating to immovable property is the date of death of the deceased. A subsequent sale of the land does not change its status for the purpose of administering an estate.
The High Court considered this issue in Changizi v Mayes and another [2024] EWHC 6 (Ch); [2024] PLSCS 10, a family dispute over the administration of an estate.
The case concerned the estate of Parviz Changizi, who died in 2010. His domicile of origin was Iran but at his death he was domiciled in Spain. His will dealt only with his estate in England, which principally concerned two long leasehold properties in London SW5 which were to be sold and the proceeds divided between his widow and children. The claimant was one of the deceased’s four children and one of the defendants was his widow and joint executor and trustee of the will, with the other defendant.
The case was the latest challenge to the administration of the estate by the claimant, a number of previous ones having failed, resulting in cost awards of £116,000 being made against him. Allowing for inheritance tax, and interest, he owed the estate more than £100,000. The defendants sought a stay of the proceedings pending discharge of the cost orders and a decision as to whether immovable property at the date of the deceased’s death became, on sale, immovable property to be distributed in accordance with Spanish rules of succession.
The sale of the leasehold properties did not affect their status under English law as immovable property. The validity of the will in relation to immovable assets in England was to be assessed, at the date of death, by English law, as the law where the assets are located. The decisive moment is when the property vests in the personal representatives. Therefore, the subsequent sale and distribution of the proceeds of sale of the properties was purely a matter of application of English domestic law in accordance with the will: see Re Berchtold [1923] 1 Ch 192. There is no change upon sale when immovable property becomes movable property.
The first claimant had decided not to pay the previous costs orders and had not provided a complete picture of his finances. Consequently, the court could not conclude that his claim would be stifled if it was stayed pending payment of the previous cost orders. However, it would be unjust and unfair to the defendants to allow the claim to proceed without those costs being paid. The claim was stayed pending payment of the cost orders.
Louise Clark is a property law consultant and mediator
