Beneficial interest in house. What counts as evidence?

[anamazingfind]

My BIL is contesting his late wife's will and needs evidence of beneficial interest in the family home.

Solicitor has asked for evidence of financial contribution to the fabric of the building, and he has around £90K he can show from his savings, plus 10 years worth of DIY, at which he is pretty good. Plastering, kitchen fitting etc.

His DW had everything in her name and would take money from the joint account, into which she paid very little, to pay credit cards etc. Over 10 years he alone paid into the joint account, from which all household bills were paid and which DW drew money from on a regular basis. She paid builders with this money cash for the building of a large extension. So essentially he paid for most things as she only worked part time on a low wage.

Would these payments of all the bills be relevant in this claim or just the fabric of the building payments?

Yes they would.

Household bills such as utilities? No. Payments to the builders, yes; to some extent at least.

If you / your BIL are intent on pursuing this claim, a forensic accountant will be able to establish movement of finances, surprised your solicitor hasn’t advised already.

@ComtesseDeSpair We have an accountant, but bank statement, credit card statements, invoices etc are being withheld from us, so she is getting these numbers together as best she can. The point with the utilities is, because he was paying all of them, that freed up money for the DW to spend on the house itself, although she did take money from this joint account as well.

Yes, utilities are relevant as payments referable to purchase price.

Establishing beneficial interest will look at whether there was a “common intention” to share ownership. There’s case precedent that the necessary common intention may not automatically be inferred from a partner’s natural concern with the well being of the household (Burns v Burns), which is where payment of utility bills falls and wouldn’t in itself demonstrate the belief that a greater interest in land was being acquired (Morris v Morris). However, precedent is also that a wide view should be taken of what amounts to a contribution to the acquisition of a property (Stack v Dowden) and the parties’ whole course of conduct in relation to the property must be taken into account (Abbott v Abbott) - which is where a broader definition of household expenses would be considered and whether they demonstrate that both parties intended for there to be a beneficial interest to the party who hadn’t contributed to the purchase of the property.

From memory, yours is quite a complex case where the deceased party already owned her house outright prior to meeting your BIL, and where the argument could therefore be made that his contributing towards utility bills once he moved in was purely a household concern not an intention to share ownership. It will be the tens / hundreds of thousands of pounds of his savings that he claims to have put into the joint account which only he paid into, which were then spent extending and renovating the property to suit them both as a marital home which would confer there was an intention for ownership of the property to be shared, and that’s the angle your accountant and solicitor need to be taking.

@ComtesseDeSpair No. The house was bought together but before the marriage. Paid outright by DW on the agreement he would pay for upgrading and extending with his money, and a promise he would then be put on the deeds. Nothing in writing though.

He believed this was the common intention of both of them as he would never have paid into the house had he not believed this. He was given the impression it was her common intent, but whether this was the case is now unsure. In 10 years he paid enough into the house to have bought his own property as a single person. Only a fool would have paid that amount into someone else's property with the knowledge they would get nothing back. I think he accepts that the cap does fit though.

I'll check out the case laws though to see where he fits

The solicitor didn't mention it as such, but I believe she was referring to proprietary estoppel for his claim.

I am unsure why you have started another thread about this. Surely his solicitor is advising him?

Yes, his paying the better part of £100k in extension and renovation costs because they had an agreement that he would then be a co-owner would be the basis of the claim for proprietary estoppel. A reasonable assumption can be made that no person would invest in a property like this if there was never any understanding they would see a return. I’m sure your own solicitor who knows the fine detail of the case is in a much better position to advise whether it’s worth the bother of hunting down evidence he also paid utility bills - my instinct (and hope) would be that this would not be their focus.

@ComtesseDeSpair I'm sure the main building work is their focus but these are just the things that cropped up via the accountant, who queried why DW never paid into the joint account and why he paid all the bills from it. Over 10 years it's a considerable sum. We will just give all the numbers to the solicitors and let them work it out.

In 10 years he paid enough into the house to have bought his own property as a single person
If they bought the house together, why wasn't he in the deeds at that point?

And if for whatever reason he wasn't then but promise to be, why didn't it happen during these 10 years he significantly paid towards renovations?

@dontdisturbmenow
And this answers my question how?

Well that wasn’t very nice OP. You raise multiple threads and complain when someone makes a convincing comment about something. It’s a good point.

@Elieza
And this answers my question ^^ how?

Yawn.....And you are still not being very nice to people!

You’ll be lucky if anyone else bothers their arse with trying to help you, as you appear to be ungrateful.

Why can’t you just be nice. If you’re having a bad day take it out elsewhere.

Your BiL has a solicitor. Let them tell him what evidence counts. I've no idea why you're creating multiple threads on the same issue, especially when a solicitor is on board.

You've been very rude across all of your threads too.

@Elieza @NoWordForFluffy
I'm not aware that starting a thread/s obliges me to divulge information that is (a) irrelevant to my question and (b) no one elses business.

If I'm rude its in response to the intensely rude and hostile responses my other threads were met with.

As I said, if you can't answer the question, as it is posted, I'm not interested in your opinions

Ask. Your. Solicitor.

Or maybe you can't, as it's none of your business and your BiL is their client.

Your rudeness has fostered rudeness in others, not vice versa.

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

Oh go and bait people somewhere else Fluffy.

@MrsBertBibbym

She's had multiple threads where she's been bloody rude to people. There is also a solicitor on board, who has access to ALL of the evidence available. THAT is the person to give advice / ask questions of.

@NoWordForFluffy

She's had multiple threads where she's been bloody rude to people. There is also a solicitor on board, who has access to ALL of the evidence available. THAT is the person to give advice / ask questions of.

Clearly not you then?

I'd hate to be your solicitor! So no, not me.

That is the person to seek advice from though.