AIBU - inheritance sad story

An awful lot of people showing they know absolutely NOTHING about the law, inheritance, tax or home ownership here.

OP mother owns the house not the grandfather, whoever paid it off circa 30 years ago does not matter it was legally gifted to them (there is no other way to transfer ownership unless they paid in which case they bought it). The cost of home ownership has then been on the OPs mother and attempting to get the house back is HIGHLY ILLEGAL.

The grandfather hid his assets from the tax man by transferring all the negatives to his children. They are not getting a 'free' house, it has cost them for over 25 years.

OP grandfather is a con man, theres no debating that. He tried to get around the law by putting his kids on the hook and they haven't played ball at their own loss.

The problem here is that your grandfather (and possibly your mum and her siblings too) have been trying to have their cake and eat it. When you do that and it involves property it gets very complicated very fast. Your grandfather wanted his children to own the house when it suited him (presumably for tax reasons) and yet wanted to retain the use of it for him and his (new) family. Does your mum own other property? Did she properly declare and pay the right tax/duties on her “second” home if so?

There can be expensive implications from giving young (ish) people property that they’re not going to live in. It stops them being first-time buyers for their actual home. Who pays the council tax in the house your grandfather lives in? Is it in an area with increased council tax for “second homes” and if so has that being declared and paid properly? etc. etc.

Sadly it seems legally your granddad can't make them sign the house back over however i do think legal advice should be sought as they've lived in the property so I'm sure there's some sort of rights of interest or something at stake.

It sounds like the step mum is a similar age to the eldest children, if they let her stay for life they’re unlikely to get any benefit from owning the house

Your mother should allow your step mum use of the house until she passes at the very least. 2 years is ridiculous and cruel.

Telling someone that they are going to kick you out of the home you have lived in for the last 25 years with their husband isnt a dick move?

As the siblings are already in their 60's, then it is possible they might die before the second wife, so I guess they want the money while they are still around to use it and not have to wait until she dies, while also paying to maintain the property.

All I can think when I read these posts is this is such a class issue. Before baby boomers normal people rarely had an inheritance to pass down and now they usually have the home they live in (which weirdly- they’ve all “worked so hard” to pay off - aka had a job) the end of life hysteria about inheritance is real.
With no (actual) wealth or contacts with which to get real beneficiary tax avoidance advice they try these weird workarounds that “sound at the time” like they should work then end their life as a stressed guilty split and awkward family trying to pick through the crisis of someone’s 3 bed semi as though they’re the Duke of Westminster

I am praying my parents and in-laws don’t hit us with this shit (in laws are always trying)

Totally agree with this.
Need to also add OP doesn’t seem to be able to empathise with how her own mother must have felt as a child. Losing her father running away leaving his wife to look after 5 children on her own, & especially OP’s DM being the oldest & probably feeling she had to help her Mum & missed her childhood. That’s just skimming the surface!
You never forget how awful you felt as that child, maybe the new woman shouldn’t have stolen the Dad?

This happened to someone I know. They didn't even give her the two years that their dad had requested, she was given 6 weeks while grieving for her partner of 25 years.

The house is on the market now and it's so sad to see all her furniture ( they wouldn't even let her take that as she couldn't prove she bought any of it)

For 25 years she had Christmas with these people and they basically turned on her, threatening her and not caring where she went.

How do you know they are well off ?

I'm pretty sure if you asked a lot of my relatives whether I was well off they would say yes, and if there was 100K up for grabs they would say that they were more deserving of it than me and I don't need it at all and they should have it instead.

It may not be life changing for me, but that doesn't mean I couldn't use money and do something interesting and fun with it though.

And no one knows the amount of money at stake here or the state of the other peoples finances, if it is a SE house it could easily be half a million split between the children so not necessarily pin money.

People who say other people are well off and don't need money are often making snap judgements as they aren't always privvy to the detail of other peoples finances. Some people may look rich but may have massive debts.

Most people have a use for money somewhere unless they are absolutely awash with the stuff.

Morally, this is a shitty thing to do. I wouldn’t do something this and would be really disappointed in my Mum if she did it too.

However, it was done initially to avoid paying for care etc etc so you could see it as that is what can happen to you when you try and cheat the system.

He left their mum when they were small kids.. I feel like there may be more to this backstory which could be driving this decision, especially based on the comment that he gave more of himself to his new family.. sounds like some resentment from decisions made in the past which were outside of their control.

If he left their mum alone and destitute to bring up 5 kinds alone, then I don't have that much sympathy for him now, he should have been thinking about this 25 years ago when deciding to re-marry and have another child, and what the future would hold for them if anything happened to him.

OP has conveniently skipped that entire part of the back story.

I actually think you're wrong OP, you weren't there when they were growing up and don't know what they went through when the parents split up.
Your grandfather signed over the house to avoid tax, so he really doesn't have a right to moan about it now. I also think all his children deserve monies from the house, not just his current wife and their child. Why should the other 4 be left out?
I think the right thing to do would be to extend the 2 years. Did his new wife ever work herself?

25 years or so ago, your grandad decided to dispose of his assets. Presumably to avoid future care home fees/tax. When he did this he was not a vulnerable elderly man. He was a middle aged man trying to circumvent the system. Unfortunately for him, he placed his trust in the wrong people and its backfired. Presuming he signed the house over legally, there's nothing he can do now. Yes, his eldest children are behaving badly, but this is the risk you take when you try to 'hide' your assets to avoid them being used for care.

They're being despicable.

The value of the house split 5 ways to households already well off isn't worth the loss of a home to someone who has lived there as your grandads wife for 25 years with a child of their own together.

How can they see him so upset and not give the legal rights to his own house back to him? Awful.

Did your mum say the five children, or does she plan on including their half sister? (they should IMO).

This wasn't done to stop 'the house going to charity', it was done to avoid taxes and responsibilities, but this is the risk you take, legally the two children could have evicted them all 25 years ago and not batted an eyelid as it is their house to do with as they wish, it would be morally wrong but once it is gifted they are under no obligation to return that gift.

Where is all his money and assets from the last 25 years of marriage? He hasn't been paying any accommodation fees, so surely there must be more than just the house, if he died any time in the last couple of decades, or if your mum and sibling died they would potentially have been made homeless anyway, so why is it so important now?

I feel like you don't know enough about the situation to make an informed assessment and are going on gut feeling, have you actually spoken to your mum about it?

If it was me (I was your Mum), I epumd let his wife live in the property until death. The house would then be sold and split 6 ways.

Karma may come back to haunt them if they go ahead with their plan.

You may want to encourage them to look further into this because depending on home value and their own cash liquidity, they may not even be able to give her 2 years. CGT is fine, as that’s not payable until the property is sold (and as others have said, they can’t transfer it back to your grandad as over 25 years of house price rises, the CGT due will be huge), but if he’s lived there rent free since he transferred ownership and that is picked up, they’ll end up liable for IHT as well. If they aren’t planning to sell immediately, they’d need to be able to pay that out of their own pockets in the interim.

The likelihood is that if that happens, they won’t pay it - they’ll sell the house straight away to cover it (and understandably so). So she needs to be aware of, and have a chance to plan for, this possibility.

Fault here lies 100% with your grandfather - he created this mess, which they can’t actually get out of even if they did want to. Don’t blame your mum.

Yep. This. 99% of the time it backfires.

This could be deemed very dodgy.

For you grandfather the tax man will see it as a way to hide wealth, a deprivation of assets.

For your mam it will have cost her money. If they own their own houses then they will have double liabilities for owning two homes, if the tried to buy houses after they would lose their 'first' status all for zero gain just to have it taken back.

What you grandfather is trying to do is illegal.

As your Mum and siblings are in their sixties there was very little in the way of welfare when they were children.

Utter bollocks. The 1960s were hardly Dickensian. We had the full welfare state.

Having done well for themselves doesn't mean they know anything about CGT, IHT, deprivation of assets rules, or property law.

Everyone involved needs to take professional advice to understand the tax implications of their current situation and the legal implications of the house ownership and who can live in it. And then once that is understood they can try to find a way forward.

Yes but he gave it away, he lived in it for free despite not owning it. And so did his wife.

Yes he did own it once but then he gave it away. I think he made a bad decision.

I expect the siblings have already taken professional tax advice hence their stance! The OP describes her mother/uncle as having 'done well for themselves' so I doubt after 25 years ownership they are unaware of the CGT implications raised on this thread.