Restriction on property title and inheritance - need help understanding

[peridito]

Married couple in their 70s.
Wife is only one named on title deed.

Wife is expected to predecease husband but husband dies first .

Restriction on title added a couple of months before husband dies.
No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate (except a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered unless authorised by an order of the court.

I can't quite get my head round this ,I understand (I think ) that it's a common restriction and protects a surviving partner by avoiding a situation where the deceased's interest in the marital home is willed to a third party.

I don't understand the "by order of court" - what would that involve ?

And I don't understand "No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate (except a trust corporation)" - does it mean that if the sole proprietor is a trust then the trust can sell the property ?

Can you just change the ownership from one person to a trust ?

.

Not sure but is it to ensure that his half goes to those who he's left it to in his will? To stop the surviving partner giving it to a future partner perhaps?

Hopefully a legally trained person will understand about the trust bit

It’s normally put on if 2 or more parties own the property in specific shares.

When the property is transferred, in order to have a valid transfer a second trustee is appointed by adding specific wording in the transfer document.

Husband may have put it on as he is not on the deeds but would have a spousal right. Eg if his will left all his estate to his children they might try to claim on the marital home in some way although they would have to show that he had an entitlement (not just a right on divorce). Eg he might have paid for repairs to it. Best to speak to a solicitor however about it. Presumably his heirs might have a 1975 Act claim too??

@MinnieMountain thank you ,though I'm still floundering

When the property is transferred if the wife /only name on deeds survives her husband ,why would the property need to be transferred ?

, in order to have a valid transfer a second trustee is appointed by adding specific wording in the transfer document so a third party is introduced .And what is their role ?

Xenia thank you .I won't be asking a solicitor ,I'm just trying to understand .The deceased husband is a relative of mine and while he and his wife have no children I was told that the intention is to leave nieces and nephews some of the estate .My thinking is that would be in the future when my in law is no longer with us

It some point it will be- presumably when the wife dies. Then whoever the husband left his share to gets it.

The second trustee’s role is to say they have checked who the person not on the deeds left their share to and they confirm the transfer accords with that e.g. the property has been sold and they know the law firm instructed on the sale has been told the correct person to send husband’s “share” of the sale proceeds to.

Does that make more sense?

Ah yes ,I think light is beginning to dawn ..

Thank you taking the time to explain .

I tell women on MN all the time who are not on the deeds of the marital home to register exactly that. It is what just about anyone wise does who is married but not on the register at the land registry so it is not anything particularly unusual. It means your spouse cannot sell the house from under you. Anyone who is married and not on the family home property title in England should fill in that form today in fact!

The interesting bit here is the death part. On death the husband is not necessarily entitled to anything from his wife and does not yet own in law and probably in equity his wife's nor any part of it ( assuming he did not pay to build on to it nor pay the mortgage etc). So it is not as simple as his nieces saying ah he was married to her so when the husband dies his heirs can claim from assets belonging to the wife - it is much more probably his heirs don't get a penny of it.

@Xenia -I tell women who are not on the deeds of the marital home to register exactly that.It means your spouse cannot sell the house from under you.
I had no idea and assumed that if married both parties had an equal claim on the property as an asset .

The interesting bit here is the death part Is it ?
The restriction is dated 3 weeks before the husband died .

Someone must have realised the implications for his beneficiaries and taken steps to ensure that the property would be included in the estate .

If the restriction was not in place would that have meant that the property would be part of the surviving partners estate and not a joint asset ?

Knowing the individuals concerned ,I wonder if there were concerns that the husbands relatives might try to claim part of the value of the property while the spouse remains and that the restriction clarifies the position for all concerned .

Always so much to learn !And hopefully understand .

@MinnieMountain I've just reread this and confused myself again .

The second trustee’s role is to say they have checked who the person not on the deeds left their share to and they confirm the transfer accords with that e.g. the property has been sold and they know the law firm instructed on the sale has been told the correct person to send husband’s “share” of the sale proceeds to.

Surely the person not on the deeds doesn't have a share ? Don't the deeds make it clear that only one person owns the property ? Wouldn't that be the point of only naming one person ?

Presumably spouses with only their name on the deeds make a will saying what happens to their asset - leaving it to their surviving spouse if they predecease them ? Or instead to someone else /some organisation .

So would the will of the person who is named obviate the need for a restriction ? Or is the restriction significant should people die intestate and the (often) main asset passing directly to a spouse ?

Could that put the remaining spouse in a precarious position if relatives of the deceased spouse wanted to challenge the passing on of an asset ?

"I had no idea and assumed that if married both parties had an equal claim on the property as an asset" .
In the above case that is true when a couple divorce (but not on death) although even with that legal right spouses sell the hose and disappear to Thaliand with all the proceeds all the time whereas if you register that spousal right over the marital home that stops that happening so I advise every wife on MN today to register that if they are not on the title of the marital home and are in England.

"The restriction is dated 3 weeks before the husband died .
Someone must have realised the implications for his beneficiaries and taken steps to ensure that the property would be included in the estate . the restriction was not in place would that have meant that the property would be part of the surviving partners estate and not a joint asset ?"

The notice on the land registry alerts everyone that the person not on the title deed is claiming some kind of interest in the house. It does mean that person does have an interest in it. So eg the children of the deceased might have noticed when he was dying in hospital that the home he had lived in for 30 years with the second wife was not in his name and just in case he had some kind of claim over it they put the restriction down. Eg if you die without making provision for those who depend on you (such as infant chidlren or a spouse) they can claim under the 1975 against your estate so I suppose could set into their late fdather's shoess to try to claim the wife's sole asset on the basis the dead father had some kind of equitable rights in the house due to paying the mortgage or building walls or whatever. However you do not get divorce type rights on death as far as I am aware so the fact during life you could claim against say £100k of savings the spouse has in sole name where you to divorce does not mean if you die your children have the same claim.

So there are three situations - married and not divorcing (rights to claim for a reasonable amount of support eg if your husband does not pay you a penny and you don't work; no. 2 - getting divorced - right to claim 50% or whatever - no matter whose name things are in and no. 3 - rights of heirs on death. All 3 have different rights.

"Presumably spouses with only their name on the deeds make a will saying what happens to their asset - leaving it to their surviving spouse if they predecease them ? Or instead to someone else /some organisation ." Yes,. my children's father's will apparently says if he dies his second wife only gets his pension not his house and savings as he wants our children to have those (and she similarly will pass the separate flat she owns to her own son). The risk if you leave your spouse with very little is they might make a 1975 act claim after.

"So would the will of the person who is named obviate the need for a restriction ? Or is the restriction significant should people die intestate and the (often) main asset passing directly to a spouse ?"

The restriction is to alert the world and put off buyers so in practice it has a freezing effect. The buyer's solicitor would be all over it and need it removed by agreement and everything sorted out and all claims dealt with or dismissed before buying. If the husband died intestate in England the first £270k goes to the spouse (in London a house may be £1m so often having a will is much better and wiser) and after that half of the balance only goes to the spouse. Whereas most couples married only one leave the whole estate to their spouse and only if the spouse has died to the children in a fairly standard family although even my father married for 50 years to our mother severed the joint tenancy on the house and left his half of the house to us not our mother [ not that that mattered as surprisingly to everyone she died first anyway]

"Could that put the remaining spouse in a precarious position if relatives of the deceased spouse wanted to challenge the passing on of an asset ?" " - Yes. Eg my children's father's second wife I suppose could put such a restriction on the house he wants to leave to our children and that would have to be dealt with after his death although his family lives to well over 90 so unlikely he will die first.

Than you @Xenia for troubling to go into all that detail . Very enlightening .

I think my key takeaway ( as they say these days ) is that a spouse's claim on a marital home is one thing if there is a divorce and quite another if a spouse dies .I can see the potential for a lot of distress if only one spouse is named and the other spouse suffers a sudden death .Especially if not a first marriage ,