To think it would benefit my 2 sons if their grandad's house didn't have to be sold in the future for care home fees

[supersec]

We have 2 sons (aged 16 and 18). Everyone knows about the dire prospects of any teenagers today ever getting on the property ladder. My sons have always been close to their paternal grandparents. Grandmother died 4 years ago after having Alzheimer's for 7 years. She ended up in a home for last 6 months as my father in law looked after her at home.

He is now 81 and has been diagnosed with dementia. We own our house outright. My husband has one brother who is married, nearly 5o with no children. He owns 2 houses outright, one which he rents out.

We save extremely hard for our future and hopefully house deposits for our sons but the outlook is very bleak from reading the papers/watching the news and I find the outlook for their future very depressing - will they be living with us until they are 40

After the diagnosis my brother in law said he thought it would be a good idea to get his dad's bank balance down as he has nearly £90,000 in the bank. He and my husband withdrew £3,000 each a few months ago with my father in law's approval But I think it is too late for this to make any difference to any possible future care needs. Even if it was reduced to under £23,000 which I understand is the threshold limit for contributing towards your care, the care home would say the house had to be sold.

I am sure my father in law would like to see his only grandchildren live in the house when he passes away, rather than it being sold for care home fees. My brother in law has no children to worry about, has a brilliant final salary pension and a very large bank balance.

I don't know why he came up with the idea to start reducing the bank balance when it will make no difference to his dad having to fund his care if the time comes. No more money has been withdrawn yet but my husband is burying his head in the sand over this and is just agreeing with his older brother.

I do not want a penny from any estate, I would just love to see our sons get a helping hand for the future but this would be via us as the will is 50/50 between my husband and his brother.

I am a very positive person and don't get depressed about much but I feel utter despair at the housing prospects for today's teenagers.

Please tell me if I am being out of order .

*grabby

Will they be living with us until they are 40?

No, they'll rent, just like everyone else who doesn't have a deposit to buy.

What you're suggesting - putting the inheritance before FIL's care needs, is not OK. Maybe you've been counting on this money being an inheritance but it isn't your money. Also, yes FIL would probably prefer the money to go to his family but that's not really relevant now. You also haven't considered whether the grandchildren will want to live in their grandfather's house. What if they want to make their own choices in life rather than having you map it out for them?

When my grandparents needed full time residential care we had a grabby Aunt suggesting exactly the same - that her ds lived in the house. Everyone was appalled by the idea.

I think despair that they might not be able to buy a house is a bit of an over-reaction. We'll never afford it and we're in our forties. Ity would be nice but it's not something to "despair" over.

WooWooOwl How is it fraud and illegal? A man gave his sons three grand each, where's the issue?

After the diagnosis my brother in law said he thought it would be a good idea to get his dad's bank balance down as he has nearly £90,000 in the bank. He and my husband withdrew £3,000 each a few months ago with my father in law's approval

Could be a gift. OTOH it could be pressurising an old man with dementia, and waiting until after the diagnosis to do so. I can understand the brother's reticence to do it again. He probably realises how dodgy it is to go around withdrawing money from his ill father's bank account.

I am assuming this task involved taking his bank card over a period, or did it involve a visit to the bank with the father present?

Unfortunately it does not sound as though the father has independent legal or financial advice and no-one looking after his interests who is likely to challenge these acts.

At least the OP better hope not.

So you expect US, THE TAXPAYER, to fund your care home fees? What the fuck??

Do you have the same problem with paying for the healthcare or residential care needs of people who have never owned an asset?

If you do, then fair enough, but if you would happily contribute your tax to pay for the care needs of people who have worked very little, or who have spent all their money on luxuries, then I find your point hypocritical.

And OP and her DH are probably TAXPAYERS as well.

I hope when you're old and frail your sons start helping themselves to your money.

You and your sons could look after your father in law round the clock therefore saving his money and his house from having to be sold.

Ummm, apparently the FIL didn't take out the money, the sons did!

I must have missed that bit, that really is very immoral.
Especially as they did it AFTER he was diagnosed with dementia!

Do any of you legally have power of Attorney for your FIL?

You sound like every NRP who thinks it would be better if the taxpayer supported his children (and I doubt if any comparison I could make on MN would sound harsher than that) because it would "benefit" him and his new DP and any children they have.

We must all expect to fund our own nursing care till the money runs out if we need it.

"My brother in law said he thought it would be a good idea to get his dad's bank balance down"

After the diagnosis....

Be very careful. This is verging on financial abuse of a vulnerable adult imo. Your FIL didn't hand out £3k to his children before he was diagnosed with dementia, but now you think he's fine with it? Do your dh or BIL have power of attorney?

I'm sure the money would come in very handy, but it's not your money. I hope you will be helping your FIL live as comfortable a life as he can in the time he's got left and not with a gimlet eye on your sons' future prospects.

If you choose to spend your money on a house, you have to pay your own care. If you choose to spend the same amount of money on holidays and fast cars, you get your care for free. That is how people are penalised for saving money and buying property, and it's not fair.

Or you can work hard all your life, pay your taxes, scrimp and save, suffer an alarming lack of fast cars and holidays, and still not have enough money to buy your own home. Meanwhile, people who should know better are working out ways to fiddle the existing tax and inheritance laws to benefit themselves.

If you think the tax laws are wrong, then work to change them. Don't fiddle the laws, and pretend it's totes ok and moral because all those other bastards are fiddling it, too.

Op wouldnt it be better to encourage your sons to do well rather than wrong footing them from the start by treating them like they will never get anywhere?

I am sure my father in law would like to see his only grandchildren live in the house when he passes away, rather than it being sold for care home fees.

If he did want this, he'd have said so in his will, which he didn't when he had the opportunity

How is it fraud and illegal? A man gave his sons three grand each, where's the issue? Parents are allowed to give their children money! Tax will be payable if the gift is large enough, but there's nothing immoral about it.

I think it depends on his mental faculties. If he's unable to manage his own money affairs because of his Alzheimer's and family are managing his asserts they have to do it with a mind of his best interests – not their own.

Moving his money to make it look like he has none so he can then obtain help from council in paying care home fees – in effect being given money under false pretences – well that is fraud.

I know IL and wider family ensured money was spent over a long period of time to ensure there was none left and council paid for care home - though they used the money for the elderly relatives benefit - not theirs or their DC and they had a mind to the rules. It was on carers and cleaners and stuff to make that person life better. Morally a bit perhaps as it was deliberate but the money was used appropriately for that person benefit not to fund a house deposit for someone else.

What have your DH and his BD done with the 6k they've taken out of their father's account?

if they pay rent on the property he can use that for care fees

so an old man's two sons are stealing from him? is that right?

I am sure my father in law would like to see his only grandchildren live in the house when he passes away, rather than it being sold for care home fees

Even this part. You are trying to make it sound better than it is. Why on earth could you possibly know that a 16 and an 18 yo would want to share living in their grandfather's house? What about if they travel for work or uni or want to live independently amongst friends (like many young people do).

You are getting the house in his will anyway. The only thing that will stop you is if it going to be sold to pay for care home fees. Stop dressing it up as something else. You care more about the money than your own father.

www.payingforcare.org/care-home-fees

and they pay carers minimum wage look what they charge you for a home

After the diagnosis my brother in law said he thought it would be a good idea to get his dad's bank balance down as he has nearly £90,000 in the bank. He and my husband withdrew £3,000 each a few months ago with my father in law's approval

Not sure it is stealing Nancy - highly doddgy certainly - but I think it would depend on the FIL ablity to be able to give consent - which would depend on how bad his condition was I think.

yabu
if he has the funds he should pay for his own care. if then a bit is left for inheritance, great.

the system is on it's knees, care, even inAdequate care is very expence.

just be happy you live where close relatives are not liable to pay care home fees and that debt cannot be inherited (very real in other countries).

(When threads go like this, I often wonder what the OP is thinking as she reads).

The fact that the money has been disbursed after your father-in-law's diagnosis means that it will almost certainly be viewed as deprivation of capital, so I would advise that neither you nor BiL spend that money.

If you are really so anti your FiL paying for the care he receives then I suggest you care for him yourself.

So what you're saying is that you want the taxpayer (i.e. me and my hardworking family) to pay for your father-in-law's housing and care so that he can give best part of £90K to your kids.

And you want to coerce encourage an elderly man with dementia to give up his money to buy your kids a home so they don't have to do what, presumably, he did, I do and my family does, which is to get off our arses and work hard to support ourselves.

No. Just no.

If you don't want your elderly, dementia suffering FIL to go into a care home how about you nurse him yourself, in yours? At least that way you, if not your kids, may have earned any money he leaves you.

Your suggestion is beyond distasteful. It's potential financial abuse. It's grabby. it's selfish, it's lazy and it's horrible.

YABFU (You Are Being F*ing Unreasonable).

Well said SmallPress!