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

Yes there is a risk but honestly it’s small enough that the owner shouldn’t worry.

In the worst case scenario it would be the value of the annex though, they couldn’t just tell the relatives to take the bricks away.

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.

No, it wouldn't work like that. They'd have to sell up or buy them out.

@WerewolfNumber1 On what basis do you reckon the risk is so small? Looking at Stack v Dowden and Kernott v Jones it is clear that the court will have to find the objective common intention. The fact the deceased actually lived in the property he built will, in my view, be very strong evidence of an intention that he would have an interest in the property.

As if the owner would be able to say come and take the bricks It would be money, not bricks that they would be due.

Why would it be the value? Surely the value would normally include the landlord it sits on, therefore if they think it is their property it would only be the bricks and mortar etc, which the land owner seems willing to handover ?

I'm not a legal expert

I'm not a legal expert

That is obvious from your comment.

The relative has enhanced the owner's property by adding a studio apartment at their own cost. They have, presumably, paid for the construction, not just the materials. The studio apartment is now part of the owner's property, which now consists of the original building, the studio apartment and the land they stand on. The apartment does not belong to the relative. However, because the relative paid for it they may have a claim to some of the property. Demolishing the studio apartment and giving the bricks and mortar (or what was left of them) to the relative would not be a way of satisfying their claim.

The beneficiaries to the estate could take legal advice and try to establish a constructive or resulting trust. This would be on the basis that the deceased had made a contribution to the property (ie property as a whole, land, house + annexe). It's not an easy legal argument so they would need to consult a solicitor.

using an mn classic, did you mean to be so rude? @prh47bridge

If you come and spend some money on my house, what if you put wallpaper up, can you claim against the value that it has created? or is it the material amount

What if i don't have any money to pay for it, do i then lose my home ? or do i say, well if you can get to it, you can use it, but i don't give you permission to cross my land to get there?

I suppose it comes down to if the building "owner" owned a freehold? If not, then it's owned but the owner of the land on which it stands.

prh is a legal expert, Tahani!

My apologies. I wasn't intending to be rude.

The law that applies here is the same one that comes into play when a cohabiting couple split up. If the house is in one person's name the assumption is that it belongs to them. However, if the other partner provided some of the deposit, paid off some of the mortgage or paid for improvements to the property they may have a claim. Simply wallpapering the house is unlikely to establish a claim.

The claim is for some of the equity in the property, i.e. some of its value after the mortgage has been deducted. If someone made a claim against you and it succeeded you would have to pay them, either immediately or when the house was sold. Saying, "if you can get to it you can use it but you can't cross my land" is irrelevant. It isn't about ownership of the studio apartment. It is about entitlement to some of the value of the property.

@SassitudeandSparkle prh is a legal expert, Tahani! - doesnt mean they have to be so short

but a big thank you @prh47bridge, i hear what you are saying - i've never been in this situation, but i have considered maybe at one time allowing my DM/F to pop in a granny annex, but never really thought about the 'ownership' of it, i thought it would be 'absorbed' into my house when they pass

It's the reason if you cohabit without marriage and you don't want your partner getting their hands on any share under turst law you try to fob them off with paying for the food bills and childcare but never the mortgage or an extension nor let them get on with painting the walls. So yes prh is right. I think there should be more publicity about these things so people know in advance including for cohabitants many of whom want to move their lover in but no way want them to have any kind of share in the property.