AIBU - inheritance sad story

This happened to cousins of mine. The house was theirs (they had inherited from their mother), when the dad died they allowed the wife to continue living there as long as she wanted.

“Yes, on paper and legally it belongs to the two daughters but it is the house that he bought and paid for not them.”

The only thing that’s relevant here is that it legally belongs to the two daughters. It doesn’t matter that he bought and paid for it - he chose to give it away.

It hasn’t been his house for over two decades. If the two daughters really were ‘heartless bitches’ they could have evicted him and his family at any point from the date it became their property.

“What if his second wife, who has lived in the house for 25 years, is turfed out two years after he dies with no where to go?”

Then she’ll be turfed out with nowhere to go, I guess. She’s had twenty five years to secure her own housing, and the daughters will be giving her a grace period of two years upon the death of her husband (which they don’t need to do) to sort out accommodation. She is and will be responsible for herself.

“Also, what about the fact that he presumably did not pay rent over the past 25 years, doesn't that muddy the waters for the two heartless bitches?“

Why would it? No matter what they do he’s managed to land them with a bill, but at least in keeping the house they’ll have an asset to show for it.

In his scheme to avoid IHT he’s spectacularly failed to avoid IHT AND lost a house. He may be a lovely grandparent to OP, but he’s also a fucking idiot.

There totally is. If there's any truth to this, I'd bet on OP being the youngest child.

And since OP isn't coming back... does anyone else think there's something a bit off here? It's obviously nice if she likes her step grandma and half aunt, but it does seem unusual that a person would side so much with her grandfather's second wife and their child over her own mother and blood relatives, actively wanting an asset to pass out of her own line because the second family are so very very amazing. I'm not saying it can't possibly happen but it does seem as if there's more to the story.

Yes, on paper and legally it belongs to the two daughters but it is the house that he bought and paid for not them.

And chose to transfer to them. We don't know why but trying to dodge tax/selling for care fees seems to be the likeliest option. He chose to transfer it, it's theirs.

What if his second wife, who has lived in the house for 25 years, is turfed out two years after he dies with no where to go?

Well, why didn't she and her husband make any arrangements in those 25 years? His daughters aren't responsible for their father's new wife! Lots of people live in rented accommodation, were they even paying rent?

He can't just keep switching assets around to dodge taxes when it suits him and then have the asset when that suits him! And it's not his daughters' responsibility to take an unplanned hit to their long term finance planning because he didn't give his second family the right consideration.

Also, what about the fact that he presumably did not pay rent over the past 25 years, doesn't that muddy the waters for the two heartless bitches?

Why on earth would that muddy anything for them? I truly don't understand your point here. If he didn't pay them rent then they haven't been getting a cash flow from the property (was it owned outright or was there still a mortgage?). He's the one who benefited if that was the case, from 25 years of rent and mortgage free living. Sounds amazing, why didn't he use that advantage to set up his younger wife who was always likely to outlive him? If he was living rent free, he benefits, the daughters don't. Why on earth does that create an obligation on them? You're not making any sense.

Is it?
<Looks around in bewilderment>
Anybody seen the OP in the last 48 hours?

If he hasn't paid rent over the past 25 years whilst expecting his children to bear the responsibility and additional costs, and now expects them to fork out CGT to give the house back I'd imagine it would do the opposite!

There's a lot of filling in blanks going on here. We've no idea whether the eldest two made any contribution to the house, or if they've paid for any maintenance and improvement over the last 30 years.

This is such a weird post I can only think you must’ve misunderstood the situation.

What about that fact? They are his daughters, it is not unheard of for fathers to work and pay for things that benefit their daughters.

His wife has had her whole lifetime to work towards securing her future. It wasn’t her husband’s sole responsibility to provide for her indefinitely and it isn't her stepchildren’s responsibility either.

The fact that father and wife didn’t pay rent to live there would only muddy the waters enough to reassure the daughters that their father had plenty of opportunity to provide for his new family if he wanted to.

His two older children were abandoned by their father and probably suffered most of the fallout from their own grief, seeing the effect on their mother, becoming poorer, and having to help take care of three younger siblings most likely. Then as young adults, their father told them he wanted to ensure their future financial security with a legal process that they couldn’t be expected to know anything about. All of that will have had a huge emotional impact on them, so it’s unjustified to judge them harshly for this.

I’d expect them to share what is left after the house has been sold and taxes have been paid with their younger siblings, but they don’t need to do anything more than that to keep their morality in tact. This isn’t their fault, and it probably feels quite upsetting to know that when your father did something meaningful to show that he loved you, what he actually meant was that he wanted the right to take it back and hurt you again if he changed his mind.

They clearly aren’t awful people as they’ve said they would give the wife a whole two years after the death of their father before expecting her to have moved. If they were really being that selfish, they’d be kicking her out after six months.

What about the fact that the GF worked for and paid for this house. Yes, on paper and legally it belongs to the two daughters but it is the house that he bought and paid for not them. What if his second wife, who has lived in the house for 25 years, is turfed out two years after he dies with no where to go?
Is it just a case of tough shit as far as the two daughters are concerned?
Their father made a bad decision and they don't care about that.

Also, what about the fact that he presumably did not pay rent over the past 25 years, doesn't that muddy the waters for the two heartless bitches?

And assume that she is financially set for life without doing anything to provide for herself.

“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”

“3 years ago as he’s getting very old now he asked them to sign the house back to him…they have refused him the house and have said when he dies she can stay for 2 years to get on her feet and find somewhere then they will sell it and split the money between the 5 children.”

In response to the GF trying to legally get it back:

“Because the 2 eldest children are basically the home owners now. He’s tried x”

I can imagine how that solicitor’s appointment went. It’s frankly ludicrous that he thought, or indeed that anyone thinks, the legal system was or is going to reward him for trying and failing to dodge IHT.

I suspect OP called her mother and aunt ‘basically the home owners’ because she sees the house as belonging to her grandfather, when the reality is that they legally are the homeowners, no ‘basically’ about it.

He’s not getting the house back. That he regrets his original decision does not mean he’s entitled to reverse it. If he wanted a house to leave to his wife, he had twenty five years to secure another one. He didn’t, and that too is on him (and indeed his wife if she spent decades with him knowing they didn’t have secure housing).

I'm not sure I understand what you folks are arguing about here. If ownership was transferred to the daughters, T's crossed and i's dotted, as OP suggested then the daughters own the house, no ifs, no buts.

Only the daughters can then transfer ownership back to the grandfather, the step mum, or if they wanted, Joe Bloggs up the road. The wishes of the Grandfather are neither here nor there.

Are you a family member? What do you mean by practical transfer? Transfer of Deeds? If it’s just a transfer on paper i.e. a written contract then he can transfer the Deeds to his current wife.

Is it ok to transfer ownership to avoid tax or other liabilities? I think it’s pretty sneaky.

ETA what payments would they be avoiding? I don’t understand your bit about the ruse.

If it's done on paper then it was legally transferred. That's the point!

OP said the two eldest children are "basically the home owners now" and that he has tried to get the house back and can't.

OP, do you have any further details? The actual legal status, whether he paid rent and so on?

If he put the house in two of his children's names as OP has said, I assume that he did this via the Land Registry and these two adult children are on the deeds as the owners of the property. It is unclear whether he did this by setting up a trust and making them trustees or whether it was a straightforward transfer of equity meaning that they now own the house outright.

the person who will suffer most from this current mess is the second wife who has done nothing wrong.

Other than have poor taste in husbands.

Not entirely of his making - OP's mum and sibling were involved too and they could have refused, saying it's a bad idea. And it's the estate that pays the IHT so it would actually have been his children who would have benefitted from IHT avoidance, not him (he'd be dead).
I think they should all engage in formal mediation to try to find a solution that they can all live with. I don't think the father or his two children have behaved entirely honourably and it seems to me the person who will suffer most from this current mess is the second wife who has done nothing wrong.

Is it shit for the new wife? Yes. Is that the fault of the daughters and/or their problem to solve? No, and no.

The blame lies entirely with her husband if he concealed this from her for twenty five years, or with both of them if they knew and yet didn’t bother to secure their own house during that time.

But the GF wants them to transfer the property back. Not sell it. That's what the CGT liability in the post you quoted is referring to.

Any plans made when they took ownership would be about paying CGT when they have the profits from the asset to fund it. That's what was predictable and needed to be prepared for. Not getting stuck with a CGT liability with no asset to show for it.

Op is distressed at her grandfather's treatment and is very critical of what she sees as her mother's greed and selfishness.

Op presumably won't want to benefit from her mother's greed, as she rightly or wrongly sees it, so in future she can give away any inheritance from her mother. Maybe to the second wife if she is still alive.