AIBU - inheritance sad story

Excellent advice. People fuck this sort of thing up all the time.

Did I say it was deprivation of assets? Did I say it was illegal? No, I did not. It is however, coming back to bite him now that he wants to leave it to his wife instead. I said nothing about it being a problem in terms of paying care fees. And, given the comment about worrying about going to charity if he got sick, reasonable thought that it likely had to do with not paying care fees (if needed down the road) and/or inheritance taxes. Still not saying it was deprivation of assets or illegal.

I'd take a back seat here. There's a lot you may not know - have your Mum / Uncle already 'spent' some of the value of this house they co-own e.g. loans secured against its value? Was it received as recompense for his lack of financial support when they were children? Your grandfather made a decision as an adult that he thought was in his financial interests but realises now was foolish. It's not your responsibility to make this better for him.

The only things I'd do if they are asking for your input is advise all of them to seek legal and financial advice (and pass in the points about IHT & CGT) and possibly make tentative suggestions about alternative compromises e g. House proceeds split 7 ways to include new wife and daughter. Ultimately though, unless your grandad has dementia it's for him and his children and wife to sort out this mess of their making.

If I were you, OP, I'd keep well out of this.

so here’s the crunch….
before he met his wife he put his house in the 2 eldest children’s names (my mum included) his train of thought was if anything happened to him or he got ill etc they’d have that house and all those things and he didn’t want it to end up in a charity or whatever I don’t know.

May well have done it as some sort of tax dodge or attempt to get out of care home fees.

Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Anyway, all this happened before he met his new wife ? So she has known all along from the year dot (at least 25 years) that he didn't actually own the house, and at some point she may be asked to leave ?

I do wish people would stop spouting this shit. It only becomes deprivation of assets when it is deliberate and can be proven as such by the local authority. A child cannot be considered to be depriving themselves of assets, just in case they might need adult social care.
Age UK have a very useful fact sheet on this. It is highly unlikely anyone would be able to prove that a man who gave away his home over 25 years ago did it with an expectation of ever needing care.

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/siteassets/documents/factsheets/large-print-factsheets/fs40-lp-deprivation-of-assets-in-social-care.pdf

No, your Mum is dead right- other than when the house is sold, the value should be divided in six.

Does your GF wish his children to get their fair share, or does he want to fuck then over one more time by giving it all to his youngest and expect them to go song with it. Either way you end up that the best solution is as it is currently set up.

This is a hard one. If your Mum gives back the house she'll be hit with taxes, plus it's incredibly unlikely that the step mum will remember the other children in any will of hers - plus Step Mum is much younger. I think in this situation giving the step Mum notice but allowing for a 7 way split of assets would be fairest - so step Mum and the half sibling get something. Your Mum would be generous in this situation as she doesn't actually have to give anyone else who is not an owner anything.

I think you should butt out OP.

From a moral standpoint, why should your GF’s older DC forfeit their inheritance because he remarried and had another child, especially after he left them as children but brought up his younger child? Did he support his older DC, provide a home for them?

Some might say he’s got his comeuppance by trying to hide his asset by signing it away to his older DC who he left. Sounds like he was a bit sneaky and I don’t buy it that he waited 25 years to realise he needed the property back after remarrying and having another child.

Practically, it will cost your mother and her sibling money to sign the house back to your GF, or presumably, his wife, and why should they be out of pocket further with no inheritance? They don’t owe her or their half sibling anything.

Would their ‘stepmother’ have shared the inheritance with them seeing as the house was paid off before your GF met her?

Your mum and her sibling could have kicked your GF’s family out of the house 25 years ago but haven’t. The stepmother has lived there rent free for years. She must have been aware that the older DC legally owned it and she had no right to live there after her DH’s death. Her DH who was a lot older than her. She should have had a plan herself.

Two years rent free after your GF’s death is reasonable. Your mum and her sibling might like to split the sale proceeds with their half sibling as well and that would be more than fair IMO.

How do you go about evicting someone living in your home without a tenancy agreement or all the certificates required to evict someone?

on here the other day was a landlord who hadn't put the checks in place on a property they were renting out, therefore they couldn't evict them - ever

so I wonder how your mum and sibling are going to get vacant procession of the house?

@Genevieva Not really sure how they can get around it and if the daughter can now still gift the house back to her dad so to speak but I would imagine that would look extremely dodgy. Appreciate that lawyers are pretty limited in the scope of the advice they can give. Tax folk can be consulted but also don't know what they could possibly advice here. What a nightmare this is! It teaches all a lesson to be careful with what they do with their homes and when they do it and consult all relevant specialists beforehand!

Clearly, in the end, even if the daughter was willing to "give it back" in the loosest possible sense of the phrase, it wouldn't be as easy as her dad imagines it to be and could still cause a rift in the family!

I notice you say your mum's point of view is "he left when they were kids and this new child got more of him than they did growing up"

Often in these situations it is not only about the money but also emotions

I don’t think there’s evidence that he gave it to avoid care fees. The avoidance of IHT seems more likely. Tax avoidance is legal - reducing your tax bill through careful planning is encouraged through policies like pension relief and ISAs for example. Tax evasion is illegal. But the motivation can be the same.

Either way, there had been no mention of him paying rent, so if the house exceeds the value of the IHT threshold then IHT is due, because he has retained a beneficial interest. This would be paid by his estate, so other assets that he might have and is leaving (IHT free) to his wife. Only if the rest of his estate is worth less than the tax bill does the recipient of the gift (the legal owner of the house) get called upon for the recovery of the tax owed.

It’s a total mess.

I don’t think you’ll be successful in persuading them to give it back and there won’t be any way to get it back legally as it’s so long ago, so I’d try and persuade them to agree to let his wife live there for the rest of her life. The priority has to be her welfare.

It would be very very wrong of your mum and her sibling to not include your grandfather's sixth child, their half-sister, in the split. However I don't think they are wrong to refuse to sign it back to him and disinherit themselves. He has demonstrated himself untrustworthy and has treated many people abominably.

The house won't be your grandad's only asset. He can leave everything else to his new wife and she'll be ok

There nothing a lawyer can do retrospectively. They can’t create a deed of trust or make the gift contingent on fulfilling certain obligations retrospectively.

There is perhaps a moral (not legal) on the owners to consider his wishes, but as they might have to sell when he dies (to pay IHT due to his ongoing beneficial interest in the property) they shouldn’t even promise to let his wife remain there for 2 years. If you have to borrow money from the bank to pay IHT before recovering the costs when a property sells, they usually only give you a year interest free. After that it gets expensive.

I never said that the house was his - I agree that it isn't.

I said that he gave it to his children to avoid it being sold for care fees and/or inheritance taxes. You said that he didn't, because care home fees wouldn't have been on his radar.

I know you didn't mention charity but, as I said in the post that you disagreed with, the OP did. She said that he gave the house to avoid it going to "charity" if he got sick or died. If, according to you, it wasn't done to avoid care fees and/or inheritance taxes, what "charity" was he worried about getting it?

ETA - yes, I saw your correction after my post.

This is a moral dilemma but even without all the issues that have been raised here, if I were your mum if there was any way of giving it back I would. 25 years is a very long marriage to be made homeless after.

It's a difficult one indeed. A mess I would say as now his kids can't just "give it back" without selling it and paying taxes due. I wonder if he understands that and still would like to do it? Can't really see a way forward without consulting the tax folk and lawyers. I was just referring to the so called moral dilemma when I responded really but that aside, I do see what you mean.

PS I corrected the dates issue. House must have been given over 25 years ago.

I’m not sure what you are talking about. I never mentioned a charity.

m There’s nothing to disagree on. The law is absolute. The house is not his.

Greed isn’t illegal. The law upholds the absolute nature of giving unless there is evidence of coercion or lack of capacity. He can’t give away something twice.

We'll have to agree to disagree, but, in your version, what "charity" was he worried about getting the money?

Also, your dates are wrong. He remarried in his late 50s and has been with his second wife for 25 years - so his youngest daughter is likely younger than that age (definitely well under 50).

Thanks. You are right. After writing it I went back to have another look. She must be mid 20s. Still, the house was transferred more than 25 years ago.

The daughter isn’t in her 50s. It says he had the daughter when he was in his late 50s. Which makes the daughter late 20s/30ish.