AIBU - inheritance sad story

It has nothing to do with how the GF's future unfolded. As soon as OP's mum and her sibling took ownership of a second property they gave themselves a CGT liability - according to OP these people are business owners so they're not stupid. Even if they let his second wife live there for two years after his death and then sell the property, as they've proposed, they will still have to pay CGT when they sell it.

Oh yeah. I've often seen people online saying they did a DIY will and its fine, as though they haven't noticed that they aren't dead yet so of course there haven't been any problems.

That’s why it’s such a daft move. You get all the negatives of not owning it and still pay the tax. Why people don’t take advice I will never understand.

The rise in “diy” wills and those charity wills have a lot to answer for. Any fool can write a will it’s understanding the law around what you are doing that crucial. This is a classic example of diy.

“As he has lived in the house without paying rent the transfer may well be seen as a ruse to circumvent payments and therefore be null and void.”

That only means that it will be considered part of his estate when it comes to inheritance tax. It doesn’t make the actual legal transfer of the house null and void. The house legally belongs to his daughters.

He's had 25 years to make provision for his second wife and youngest child. That he didn't is on him, not his oldest two children.

Perhaps it never occurred to them that he'd be trying to get them to give it back to him several decades later, so he could leave it to a woman he hadn't even started a relationship with at that point.

Hence "early inheritance", as he's still alive.

I don't know the reasons he transferred it, but he chose to freely and it's reasonable for the adult children to have included it in their financial planning. I see no reason why they should suddenly have to give it back, incurring all the costs that involves, decades later, because he and his wife haven't made plans in the last 25 years.

IANAL so I can't comment on that. But I don't see any reason why his kids are morally responsible to incur losses and costs for his new wife and kid when he created the entire situation. If he did indeed transfer the house to avoid certain costs or paying rent and now wants it back at his convenience then I certainly don't see how his kids are greedy bitches but he isn't.

“Null and void”? 🤣 I think you’ll find that if you took that to a solicitor you’d get laughed at for a long time.

That poster is saying that this is a gift with reservation of benefit, which means that it will be considered part of the estate when it comes to IHT.

That isn’t the same thing as nullifying the legal transfer, making him the legal owner. He isn’t. There is no way for him to ‘retain’ ownership of a house he willingly gave away over two decades ago. He already sought legal advice as per the OP, so he’s well aware that’s he’s fucked.

Certainly OP's GF is never going to win Parent of the Year, but none of what you list is the second wife's fault. She didn't break up his first marriage. All she did was meet and marry a man she loved and had a child with him. Why should she (and their child who still lives with them) be made to suffer for her husband's behaviour? And why didn't OP's mum and her sibling tell their DF they didn't want ownership of his house as it gave them a CGT liability? Their hands are hardly clean in all this.

Mixed views on this! Assuming your grandad put the house into a trust, then legally the house is no longer his. Is he wanting the house to be given back so he can leave it to the daughter he had in later life? If so, I can understand how the other siblings would feel upset about that.

How old is your grandad’s wife? Perhaps the family could give her a lifetime interest in the property so she can live there till she dies?

Wrong! It's not an inheritance as her father is still alive! The house wasn't transferred as a gift, it was obviously to avoid some actual or potential financial liabilities.
As he has lived in the house without paying rent the transfer may well be seen as a ruse to circumvent payments and therefore be null and void.
He worked and paid for this house which is the only home he has for himself and his wife. These greedy bitches need to transfer his title back to him. If it was a ruse there will be no CGT.

He's not a tenant if he doesn't pay rent!

I don't think there's any moral obligation at all for someone who was freely given an early inheritance, by choice of the father, and who has had it as part of her estate and financial planning for 25-30 years and in which he still lived with his new family, to now give it back and incur all the costs and losses involved with that. Actually I think it's morally dubious to expect her to. She isn't responsible for her father's new wife or new child and they had decades to make arrangements.

If they never legally owned the house because there was no practical transfer, just on paper, they won't be liable for CGT. I'd like to see the greedy bitches having to pay up though!

That is true and I hope on that basis he will be able to retain ownership of the house he has worked to pay for and leave it to his wife and daughter.

Are you offering to stump up the tax this would cost them?

Actually, I can't stand her or her family and haven't had any contact with her for close on 15 years, but that's not the point. She was Dad's wife for 25 years after we lost mum and as much as I dislike her, she was my dad's choice and her care of him (which was very good) during their marriage should be recognised. Also, just like OP's mum and aunts/uncles, my siblings and I don't need my parents money (it was actually more my mum's money BTW) as we're all very comfortable. I couldn't sleep at night having some extra money that we don't need whilst knowing that Dad's wife was really struggling. It's simply about doing the right thing, regardless of your personal feelings about someone.

I know what legally is happening ima. Solicitor I see these mistakes every so often . With all due respect they can and should transfer ownership that’s what he is requesting and they should respect his wishes . It’s morally corrupt

Exactly. After what sounds like many years of fucking around/playing stupid games he is now finding out/claiming his stupid prizes. I have no idea how this is now his older children's problem to solve.

I'm finding it quite amusing, and unusual, that there are any posts actually expecting the house just to be handed back to the grandfather.

Normally MN would be highly critical of a man who leaves his wife and five children, carries out some move which we can assume was not altruistic in handing over the house to two of his children, marries again and apparently makes no financial provision over twenty-five years for his second wife and youngest child, then expects the house to be handed back now the realities of his present situation are sinking in.

The second wife would normally also be criticised for living rent-free from a relatively young age and not making any provision for her future after the death of her older husband. At least in her case she might have the defence of being lied to by the grandfather, which of course would add to his already indefensible behaviour.

Much hand wringing about the "morally right" thing to do being to hand the house back or to allow the second wife to stay for life. What I'd like to know is where the "morally right" was being considered in:

1. trying to hide assets for whatever reason in the first place (avoidance of care fees, getting caught up in a divorce etc)

2. saddling the two adult children with the responsibility of house ownership with no benefit to them. This could have cost them a lot in eg second home stamp duty on their own homes. It also exposed them to the risk of eg being forced by the council to make expensive repairs on a house they owned but did not live in.

3. Now expecting those same adult children, who have received no benefit (obv might be different if OP drips the GF has been paying market rent throughout) to fork out likely tens of thousands in CGT to hand the house back with no future benefit thus disinheriting themselves.

4. Expecting them to never realise their asset (which has as above exposed them to financial risk and likely significant expense) whilst they let the wife live out her years in it. Particularly if there is not enough in the estate to cover IHT - they need to stump that up too for her to stay?

The "morally right" thing is not nearly as clear cut as being painted by some. If anyone's morals look fucked right up to me its the GF's.

TBH your mum and the other legal owner will keep the house for themselves. Of course they will… they have already excluded their half sibling from the cut in some imagined meritocracy. Once the taxes are paid and only the proceeds are left the two owners will likely disagree on what percentage to distribute to other siblings, one might want to start acting honourably and fairly, whilst the other might start seeing the potential benefits of a larger lump sum to their lives. When money is sitting in your bank account people change. This family rift is going to get bigger. And they won’t give the mother and daughter 2 years ‘to get on their feet’ they will want them out ASAP.

I think what’s moral in this situation depends on the circumstances of the GF leaving and whether GM and children were well cared for, what sort of dad he was, what growing up was like for them all etc. The legalities are pretty clear.

Plus as others have said, GF and second wife have had 25 years to either buy a new house or save for her old age.

He decided who to give the house to 30 years ago - his kids.