Property legal eagles...please come and get your teeth into this

[Dowser]

If you own a property ( mortgaged) and it has a bit of land and you build a small studio apartment for a close relative who pays exclusively for the building. What happens when they pass away?

Can it be willed to someone else.?
This studio is not attached to main building. It stand alone. It’s about the size of a large garage.
It’s about 15 feet or less from the main building.

Can the beneficiaries of the deceased lay claim to that property.
Thank you

Was there any documentation or agreement about the building?

Is it a removable building (like a prefab house that could be moved elsewhere)?

Did the mortgage company consent to the works?

Was it legally a fully separate residence - different postal address?

Is it registered land?

Does it have it's own utilities and council tax? I'm not an expert but it sounds part of the main house to me. What did the mortgage company say about the building?

It is bricks and mortar paid for by the close relative
I’m pretty sure it doesn’t have its own council tax and will be same postal address
All on same land literally in the garden of the original house
The building is only about 15 feet wide by 20 long
That’s pretty much all I know about it
The land it’s built on will be registered as part of the main building

Ok and presumably there was never any discussion or agreement about who owns the new building? Was it just assumed that the relative could live there as long as they wanted?

I can’t see any way the beneficiaries could claim to own the new building, or have any right to live there. Why is this an issue? Are they arguing that they own it?

It’s complicated and outing but basically close relative moves out as relationship with owner breaks down
Then passes away a short time later and may have cut owner out of will and left estate to siblings
Hence original question
Thank you for your help

Ah no problem.

The relative didn’t own the building or land, so can’t leave it to anybody.

All the best.

The land registry will show the land it sits on and who owns it. If the relative didn't own it, he can't include it in his will.

Did the deceased relative have no financial link to the main property? Because otherwise it seems that the owner (who was cut out of the will) will actually benefit from the building rather than the siblings that the deceased intended it to go to?

I'm no expert and it would be difficult to say without knowing if any agreements were made with the owner before building. Is there any planning permission for the building, have you looked online?

I think werewolf ,you are right ( hopefully)
Relative didn’t own main house or land...just the separate annexe ( not sure if I’m using right term here as it definitely is not attached to main building)

Without seeing the will and I probably won’t, I just wondered if anything that comes under the term ‘estate’ could be applied to this little building/ annexe

I just wonder if the beneficiaries have grounds for legal proceedings to try to wrestle the cost of the building from the owner of house and land.

If they do, then basically they can only lay claim to bricks, windows, roof etc . The owner of the land and main house ( hopefully) has the right to say, ok, I don’t want them, I don’t need them...come and get them but the land must be left in it’s pre building state which was garden.

Could it come to that...I’m just picking over the concept of ‘estate’ and would the deceased estate include the bricks, mortar etc of the building

Or am I overthinking this?

The short answer sassitude is I don’t know.

In general buildings belong to whoever owns the land on which they stand. However, by paying for building the studio apartment it is possible the deceased may have established a claim against the property, so may be entitled to a slice of the equity (i.e. the difference between the mortgage and the current value of the property). It is impossible to say from the information here whether such a claim would succeed. The owner needs to take proper legal advice if the beneficiaries try to make a claim.

Yes there’s a remote risk of an equitable claim but it’s vanishingly unlikely to succeed.

If beneficiaries make a claim it would be up to them to prove it, and frankly the legal costs will be pretty high. So unless this property is very valuable they’ll be advised to drop it.

Lovely advice werewolf
I’m breathing a sigh of relief for the person concerned.
Huge backstory to the bones of what I’ve written here which I just can’t go into but just praying that that part of the stress is now a closed book.

Prh47 thank you.
Hoping it won’t come to that.

T friends on whether it is a fixture or a fitting. If it is a fixture it is part and parcel of the land and bongs to landowner. If it is a fitting then it belongs to beneficiaries but only the building, not the land 8t is on. Usually built dwellings aren't fittings but in rare instances they are (think of those prefab houses that can be moved around for example. The test is essentially twofold. How is it fixed to the land? (just plonked on top vs screwed down) and is it intended as a permenant improvement to the land? (ordinary garden bench vs a set of elaborately arrange benches intended to firm overall part of architectural design and add character) If it is bricks and mortar with a foundation, mains gas etc connection and so on I would say it was likely a fixture. In your position I would assume it was yours unless they produce evidence to contradict this.

I wouldn't say their chances of success are vanishingly small. There are certainly the makings of a claim for a constructive or resulting trust. This area of the law is complicated so I would echo prh47Bridge that you'd need proper legal advice.

Definitely a foundation...not sure about mains gas...fairly rural location ...but definitely electric
Not sure if it’s main sewerage...or septic tank

It’s complicated...I just hope it doesn’t get more so

There’s no way it’s a fitting, that’s why I asked whether it’s a prefab house. It’s a fixture so ownership runs with the land.

If the beneficiaries want to bring a claim they’ll need to prove that your friend was holding all or some part of the building “on trust” for the deceased - ie that your friend was the “paper owner” but that the deceased was the real owner.

If they can prove that (which is very unclear) they then need to prove the value of the building, ie how much it increases the market value of the whole property.

If it doesn’t have planning permission as a separate residence it’s likely it doesn’t add much.

Absolute worst case scenario is they claim all that value. But it will cost tens of thousands for them to get that far and unless they have really clear evidence that there was a trust they won’t win.

So unless the property is very valuable and the annex significantly adds to market value, it’s just not going to be worth them claiming anything.

Best approach is to gather any evidence about the agreement when the relative was arranging the building and moving in. Eg if there were any emails/texts etc where your friend and the relative talked about the arrangements.

unless they have really clear evidence that there was a trust they won’t win.

The problem for OP is that there is no presumption of advancement. this means that there is an ever so slight presumption in favour of the proposition that no one will build a building on someone else's land unless they would thereby acquire some sort of interest in the land.

Even though it's only a slight presumption, OP has been silent as to the intention of the property owner, and referred to the deceased as the "owner".

@collaborate surely op could argue that the builder gained a life time interest in the land which they exercised when they lived in it?

@OP I assume that the original arrangement was that when they died the building would be yours to do with as you pleased? Did you have any written agreement? What did you do with the building once they left? If you used it/rented it out and they didn't complain that would support your position. How much value has the building added to your property?

@Racecardriver

1. OP is not the property owner.
2. What is important is what people said at the time, not what they thought long after the event.
3. OP has not mentioned any original arrangement. Trying to imagine one now is unhelpful. A court would put weight on documentary evidence.

Where is all this going on? The advice is getting quite technical, and all based on English law. We wouldn’t use the concept of a trust in Scotland to analyse this.

Oh, I thought the land belonged to OP.

@Collaborate if there is no written agreement and opposing side don't agree on what the oral agreement was then subsequent actions will often be used as evidence to corroborate an oral agreement. So if the title owner argues that the relative was granted a licence to build and then live for as long as they wished in the property in return for the value it added to the property and they then started using the construction once the relative left that would support the arrangement they claimed to exist. In some instances action can remove the need for any written or oral agreement altogether in law. Oral agreements count for very little without anything to evidence them.

Gosh , it is getting technical and I am getting a bit lost.
Asking for a friend and it is in England and just hoping siblings will not try to force any financial remuneration from the owner of the main house and land that the building sits on.

I suppose if they did at the end of the day the owner says, I don’t want it, I don’t need it...come and remove it and make the land good again.

I agree with the above. There is a chance as someone funded it they get some of it - assuming English law - a bit like if you live with your boyfriend but the property is in his name and you pay half the mortgage for 10 years or fund building works to the house you might well get some kind of share. That is the risk here. It may be hard to prove as the person is dead.

if instead the dead person had simply left their static caravan or motor bike on the land that would simply be the property to be towed away and given to the heirs.