Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 ··· 6 7 8 9 10 11

Original poster

Inheritance AIBU

257 replies

WayfaringStranger · 16/02/2017 21:26

I am neither the mother nor the adult children but this situation is causing a shitstorm in our family. I've changed a few details to make this less identifiable. Mother has sadly been diagnosed with a terminal illness. She's in the process of sorting out her affairs. She has a few grand in savings but a property worth around £200k. She split from the children's father when they were little and they've seen neither hide nor hair of him.

There are two adult children in their late 20s. DD is married with a baby. They struggle financially, not unusual for a young couple with a child. DS is disabled (physical and mental health problems), cannot work and has never moved out of the family home.

Mother told the children of her intention to split everything down the middle. DD and her husband will be able to use her half as a deposit and get a mortgage. DS is not going to be able to afford to buy in the area. He feels he cannot move out the area because he'll lose the support from the extended family. He is terrified about moving out of the home he has lived in all his life. He worries it might make his mental health problems worse. Mother then proposed giving him lifetime tenancy. DD feels this is unfair as it ties up her inheritance. Neither sibling are particularly close but both see each other's point of view.

My gut feeling is that DS needs financial advice to ensure financial security for him. I think the house should be sold after their mother has gone. I think DD needs to agree to give her brother some time to adjust.

OP posts:

ThisIsStartingToBoreMe · 17/02/2017 11:24

Shared ownership is the way to go. He takes his half of the inheritance and buys a shared ownership home. Housing benefit pay the rent side. He lives on his esa or pip or whatever and his lump sum is protected

YetAnotherSpartacus · 17/02/2017 11:32

If he gets a lifetime tenancy but its owned between him and his sister, what might happen is that she ends up with all of the responsibility and none of the benefit, which makes it all even less fair.

Yes - she might be put in a position where she is required either to relinquish her share or be up to pay for repairs if the flat reaches a level of disrepair and is deemed unlivable or its condition is affecting neighbours' properties.

Legally, does the DS require someone to act for him in certain matters? All these needs to be sorted and it would be a shame if the DD was guilted into anything.

omnishamblesssssssssssssss · 17/02/2017 11:35

Another alternative is to leave the property to the DD, with a life time lease to DS. That way the council can't chip away at the cash.

She can then withdraw some equity from the property if necessary

NewBallsPlease00 · 17/02/2017 11:36

Flora you mis understand me- we are all fully involved- the finances however are seperate,

omnishamblesssssssssssssss · 17/02/2017 11:36

DD could also choose to downsize so that her DB has a nicer one bed flat then a worn out two bed

olderthanyouthink · 17/02/2017 11:47

The problem with the DB owner occupying is that he doesn't have enough income to deal with repairs (normal stuff like boilers and leaks), right? So DD is supposed to come to the rescue?

And if he lives in a property they both own she would be paying for repairs on that too?

Those solutions don't seem good if she's struggling and may have her own home to pay to upkeep on in the future.

JoanofNark17 · 17/02/2017 11:49

Yes, its one thing to improve his life and leave hers as is (which is one valid option) but its another thing to improve his life at the expense of hers, making her finances and responsibilities even harder.

BoredOnMatLeave · 17/02/2017 11:57

I've thought about this as if it were my little brother and I would probably:

Sell house and buy small flat for DB and I get anything left over. E.g sell house for £200k, buy flat for £150k. I get £50k. I would assume that's a reasonable deposit for them.

If it was my family in particularly I would probably own mums house and buy a small place for DB but that doesn't seem suitable in this situation.

emmyrose2000 · 17/02/2017 11:58

DD could also choose to downsize so that her DB has a nicer one bed flat then a worn out two bed

Why on earth should the DD do that? I'm shocked at how many posts here advocate for the DD having to sacrifice her time/money/inheritance/life for her brother. More than likely she's already done that in her earlier years. It's as though she's being 'punished' for not having any disabilities - right now. Who knows what'll happen to her in the future, and is the brother going to sacrifice his things for her? I doubt it.

The mother has two children. The inheritance needs to be split equally two ways.

I know several families with a disabled child, or with extra needs. In all cases bar one, the parents have taken steps to ensure the disabled child is taken care of in ways that does not impact their siblings. In the other family, the parents are expecting their NT children to take care of the extra needs sibling, and it is tearing the family apart. They love their sibling, but their childhoods were virtually sacrificed for the extra needs sibling, and they're quite understandably not willing to do so in adulthood as well (especially when it will negatively impact their spouses and own children).

BlondeBecky1983 · 17/02/2017 11:58

If he is going to have to live alone anyway, surely a smaller property would be more manageable. The family home may become a source of great sorrow after the poor mother has gone so may be best all round. I would contact social services and see what the options are in terms of shared ownership etc.

Oliversmumsarmy · 17/02/2017 12:01

Gloria I wasn't trying to do any disabled person out of anything. I was asking you who thinks £100000 is a measly sum of money.

If you think £100000 is such a measly amount then why not give it all to the dd why should the ds get everything. After all £100000 is such a measly amount.

Why doesn't the ds want to live within his means.

StUmbrageinSkelt · 17/02/2017 12:07

The brother had a lifechanging accident if you read the thread so the DD hasn't had a deprived awful life of always taking a backseat to his disability.

We have chosen to leave our money so that our two sons with severe disability inherit and my DH's daughter doesn't. She lives in another country and she told my DH a few years back she wants no relationship with her brothers. She's financially comfortable, she will inherit things that are of emotional significance but she's not getting a single cent.

In the OP's case? I do think that the son with disability needs to be in safe secure housing and that is paramount. The daughter has options he doesn't have and her current needs are less. Of course, it is easy to imagine a bad future for her but he has a bad present so however it is done, he needs to be safeguarded. 50/50 isn't equitable.

Timeforteaplease · 17/02/2017 12:08

As tough as it is, if the DS can't provide home for himself due to his disabilities, I think he should be given a lifetime tenancy. It's hard to imagine how bad his life will become without the flat.

brasty · 17/02/2017 12:11

Any future plans cannot be based on the assumption that DD will look after her DB. Even if she is happy with this at the moment, things may change in the future. She may have to move away, or become disabled herself, or even sadly die young. Any support she offers should be seen as an added extra.

SuperFlyHigh · 17/02/2017 12:12

Timefortea I think it's very different if there are siblings who own their own property and therefore own their own homes.

In this case neither sibling owns their own home and both would benefit from the sale of the property.

It really is a scenario that should have been looked into earlier but obviously hasn't been.

GloriaGaynor · 17/02/2017 12:12

If you think £100000 is such a measly amount then why not give it all to the dd why should the ds get everything

Euuuch.

I said it was a measly amount to sell your soul for.

JoanofNark17 · 17/02/2017 12:12

I think he should be given a lifetime tenancy. It's hard to imagine how bad his life will become without the flat

Except a lifetime tenancy probably won't make his life easier. If he needs care, how does having a tenancy help him? When he can't afford repairs and bills and maintenance, how does having a tenancy help him? When he can't effectively run his own life and home, how does it help him?

It sounds good but its not any kind of answer to his problem.

brasty · 17/02/2017 12:13

But there is no point him being in a house or flat he cannot maintain. He needs security, and somewhere where he doesnt have to worry about maintenance issues.

Timeforteaplease · 17/02/2017 12:17

SuperFlyHigh - I don't think home ownership is the most important issue here. I think safeguarding the future of a vulnerable person is the main issue.
There is no doubt that a life time tenancy will affect his sister negatively, but that is the lesser of two evils in this case.
Hard to picture his sister enjoying her new home at the cost of him being made homeless and left to rely on the state.

Man10 · 17/02/2017 12:22

If he needs care, how does having a tenancy help him? When he can't afford repairs and bills and maintenance, how does having a tenancy help him?

We're talking about a life-tenancy in a flat. So he will be a long-term renter. It's the landlord's job to do the repairs and maintenance, paid for out of the rent, which might be paid by housing benefit.

Timeforteaplease · 17/02/2017 12:22

JoanofNark17 - if he can't live by himself, you are absolutely right. But if that is the case, the house would be have to be sold anyway and his sister would inherit at that point.

Timeforteaplease · 17/02/2017 12:24

Man10 - don't think you are right there. He would own the house jointly with his sister and have the right to stay there for as long as he wants. But at the point the house is sold, his sister would be given half of the proceeds. There would not be a landlord involved.

Man10 · 17/02/2017 12:24

Sorry, I might be a bit confused. I guess life-tenancy was originally meant to be rent-free in this case, but it doesn't have to be.

GloriaGaynor · 17/02/2017 12:24

There is no doubt that a life time tenancy will affect his sister negatively, but that is the lesser of two evils in this case.

Hard to picture his sister enjoying her new home at the cost of him being made homeless and left to rely on the state.

Agreed. Or his being stuffed into a small studio flat that is difficult to manoeuvre with a disability. And claustrophobic if he's not able to get out that much.

Timeforteaplease · 17/02/2017 12:26

Man10 - maybe his sister could charge him rent for her half? Not sure how that would work.

Flip

1 2 ··· 6 7 8 9 10 11

Swipe left for the next trending thread