AIBU - inheritance sad story

[whattodo1113]

I’m going to break this down as easily as possible.

my grandad who is now 86 had 5 children. (The eldest is my mum)
he split up with my grandma when the children were young.
all the children are now obviously grown up in their 60s.
all of them have wife’s / husbands and their own children. They ALL live good lives and have done well for themselves are by NO means hard up.

my grandad has worked hard all his life and paid his house off etc and was alone for a long long time with not much quality of life. He then met someone and married her and had a daughter later on in life when he was late 50s. This child is grown up now too. He is still with his wife now and has been for 25 years ish. Sorry my numbers aren’t the best and it’s not really relevant.

the whole family welcomed wife and the new child and I must say she’s always been lovely she’s a lovely woman. The daughter they had I loved and still do very much. My grandad has always been a good grandad to us. I have fond memories with him and I love him loads.

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.

3 years ago as he’s getting very old now he asked them to sign the house back to him as his wife has lived there with him 25 years now and it’s her HOME and their daughter lives there too. She works part time. He’s obviously planning not being here anymore
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.

there argument is he left when they were kids and this new child got more of him than they did growing up.
I personally think this is very revengeful of my mum and greedy and not morally right? My grandad is very depressed and cries and I just hate that this is how the end of his life looks. He said his wife has been there the most for him and loved and looked after him and she’s gonna be left in a mess when he goes and she’s doesn’t deserve it. Which I agree.

I’ve told my mum it’s his house. He paid for it. He worked for it. Give it him back. Am I being soft ?? What do you think?? I just personally feel disapointed in them.
may I add nobody visited him often or cared to see him much but they want his house and money?

they’ve all said wife will have his pension that’s enough. Which is about 500 a month I think.

I just can’t stop thinking about him and I’m the only one in the family who has said how he’s being treated is discusting. They think he’s cruel taking the house back but at the end of the day he bought the house and his life situations have changed now and all the kids are so well off with their own businesses etc they don’t NEED it. Xxx

The OPs post mentions charity.

Wondering if he did it as a way of hiding finances in his divorce. The fact that her mum is unsympathetic points to a lot of bad history there and if OP isn't careful she may end up learning more about her GD than she would like. The stepmother would have been totally aware of her situation so should have been making plans based on that knowledge. If she remains in the house for free longer than 2 years, who pays taxes, maintenance etc. If OP is concerned about fairness to her younger aunt she could give her some money when she inherites from her own mother. Who knows though. Maybe GD has provided for his new family in some other way.

Obviously it's now been explained why they do in fact have more right than the wife, but you don't know whether the children have contributed to the house or not. OP hasn't stated who's been responsible for maintenance and upkeep since the transfer of ownership. And how do you know they never helped him pay the mortgage?

Do you think that it's ok that the two siblings who own the property (likely because their dad was trying to avoid iht) should pay potentially thousands of pounds to transfer it back?

this is a mess entirely of the grandfather making and one he made before he met his current wife.

Apart from the fact he doesn't own it so has no rights to decide. It is infact up to his eldest kids who own it.

He can't leave his house to anyone as he doesn't own it any more. This isn't about changing a will that left the house to his children to allow his wife to live there until her death. He legally transferred ownership of his house to two of his children. It's up to him how he leaves all his other assets and he will probably leave them all to his wife rather than his children, but his two eldest children already own the house and will keep it.

@whattodo1113

What a mess indeed!! And how sad….

As others have already said, they all need legal and tax advice asap, and to plan for when he eventually passes.

(He couldn’t have added 5 children to the deeds, and I don’t believe the expectation to use your house to pay for care was really a thing back in his generation. Either way, what is done is done).

Unfortunately/fortunately it isn’t your mess to clean up, you can only offer kindness and understanding.

Good luck!

To also add if the new wife does not want to move out after two years, good luck forcing her. It is very hard to get rid of people who do not want to go.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.