Contesting probate

[AmIthedrama]

Hopefully I can explain this enough that someone could give some advice. We are seeking legal advice too but it would be good to get perspective on it from a few people who don't know me and won't just take "our side" on it.

My mother in law passed away last May and it turned out she did not have a will.
The house she owns is in her name only. My husband has 2 brothers so it was assumed that her whole estate would just automatically go to them equally.

Her partner of 18 years lived with her (part time for the first 10 years or so then fully in more recent years) but also owned his own property nearby which he still owns.
The day my MIL died her partner told my husband the house was in her name because he bought it for her and wanted her to have security.

Her partner is now making a claim for her property, telling us he bought the house with the intention to live there together and believes the property should fully be given to him. From information we have found we know that the property was bought in 2003 under the "right to buy" scheme so because it was my mother in laws house they had to put the property in her name only. Her discount was 38% of the price of the property. They have never changed the deeds to include him and she made no indication to us that she was going to do that.
Before he put his claim in my husband had a conversation with him and his brothers where he suggested they include her partner to all get an equal share but this was rejected by him.

There is a lot more to this than I have included such as family politics and mental health illnesses but I wanted to keep to the facts as ultimately that is what the law will decide on.

It would be nice to get some perspective from other people or anyone who has experienced something similar so we have some idea of what to expect to happen next.

Thank you for reading.

@drdetriment
I'm not sure what you mean by compensate? Do you mean you think morally he is entitled to it all or just a percentage? We did suggest a sharing the estate equally with him.
This is what I'm trying to work out to be honest. I haven't said he should get nothing. I'm just not sure who is entitled to what by what the law says.
Morally there is a lot more to this than the few facts I gave for the advice I was looking for about the legality of it.

I'm not sure we can talk about what's morally right when we're talking about a man who bought a house in someone else's name because she had right to buy the house from the council with a huge discount and he didn't.

From a moral point of view, regardless of how much money he put in, your late DMIL financially contributed 38% of the value of the property because the discount is based on how long she lived at the house in recognition of the rent that she had paid.

I think lots of people who were eligible for right to buy had other family members help fund it. As long as the house was for the person eligible for the 'right to buy' then I can't see why that would be illegal or immoral.
The OPs MIL would have benefitted by owning her own home.

The OP hasnt mentioned what money her MIL would have had in her own right. Did she work or have savings? It sounds like her partner provided for her.
Morally I think if the partner paid for the house and supported the MIL throughout the time He knew her then morally I can see why he thinks he should have it.
If the partner was never in the picture then there would be no house to leave to the OPs brothers and siblings.

The mother should have put the partner on the deeds if she wanted but then she should also have written a will.
Tricky situation OP. Good luck.

@chesirecat99

From a moral point of view, regardless of how much money he put in, your late DMIL financially contributed 38% of the value of the property because the discount is based on how long she lived at the house in recognition of the rent that she had paid.

The problem with that argument is that the MIL could only utilise the discount because the partner paid for the house. Without him the discount was worthless to her (we are assuming he paid?? ). She then got to live in the house rent free for the next 19 years.

They used to go on lots of expensive holidays before the pandemic. He owns another house, I'm not sure if that one is mortgaged but the one owned by my MIL isn't from what I believe.... Just realised I have no idea how to find that out... I don't think it is but I think we only know that from what he had told us.

you can unbelievably look on land registry and pay a small fee (not more than £10, if its more than that its a middle man website) you down load the documents and it will tell you whom the mortgage was with but not the amounts

@WouldIwasShookspeared

I'm not sure we can talk about what's morally right when we're talking about a man who bought a house in someone else's name because she had right to buy the house from the council with a huge discount and he didn't.

I am not a lawyer, but what I'm seeing here is this.

A lives in a council house for a long time. A doesn't have the money to exercise the right to buy.

B and A begin a relationship. B has enough cash to give or lend A the money she needs to buy her house, and they agree he will do that. We don't know the terms because OP and her family don't have the paperwork, if there was any.

A buys her house, using the money from B. A can't put B's name on the deeds, even if she wants to, at this point, because she would lose her discount. Where the money comes from is surely irrelevant to whether she gets the discount. Most people would have to borrow it from a bank or building society.

After three years, A could transfer the property into joint names without having to pay the discount back, but she doesn't do that. We don't know why.

She could also have married B, in which case if she didn't make a will he'd have got the first £270k of her estate and all personal items. But she didn't.

She could have made a will leaving him the house or a specific sum of money, but she didn't.

She (and he) may very well not have understood that he would get nothing at all without a will or a marriage. Lots of people assume that if they live with another person they will be treated as if they were married.

However, as things stand, she has died intestate and unless B can produce documentation that makes it clear she owed him the money her estate (house + ??) will pass to her children. The fact that he is living in the house might be relevant. I think there's a law that says dependents ought to be provided for out of fairness. However, that's for a lawyer to explain, and I have no idea whether his particular circumstances would mean he qualified as a dependant.

OP, or rather her husband, really needs to see a lawyer.

www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry

you want the title register and its £3 then you download it - you'll see immediately who owns the house and whether a mortgage on the property

I'm wondering so many things that ultimately only she has the answers to and we will never know. Did she think that the house being in her name gave her security and she didn't put his name on it because she wanted to have the same independence she would have had if it was her council house? Because really if it's just about her having a house then she was already in a good position paying very low rent on a council house and with the money she has inherited over the years she could have paid for it herself I would have thought. So if he bought it and put it in his name as well would that have made her feel less secure. I really don't know.
I am literally just thinking out loud and hoping for all the different perspectives to help us get this right and how she would have wanted it. 😳

its interest that you say OP this manis controlling, I wonder if this is why the MIL didn't make a will as he would have wanted to control who she left what to in the will.

If there was a will he would have produced it by now

if he had a loan agreement for he money that was lent to MIL to buy the house, then he'd have produced it by now

this man was not placed on the deeds of the house, I reckon this was a a case of the MIL putting it off and conveniently forgetting about it

Now this man is left in a sticky wicket, as he can't get any legal entitlement to the property and he is not a dependant and added to that he has his own property

its for him to prove he has an entitlement to the house/home but he's not got anything?

@gasp0dethew0nderd0g
That is a much better way of explaining it than I did. Thank you.
My husband has an appointment with a lawyer tomorrow but his younger brother has said he won't pay a penny towards it.... But would be happy to get the money 🤔
His older brother said he wants to go with the "wait and see" approach.... Honestly no idea what he means by this! I think he also wants to avoid paying legal fees.

@ivykaty44 I didn't know the mortgage outstanding would be on the land registry. We got the deeds a while ago to check her name was on them. I can't see anywhere that it says there is money owed.
Next to the bit that says "lender" it says none. So I would presume he paid for it outright?
I'm not familiar with any of this as I am not a home owner myself.

Have you been to a solicitor re dealing with her estate? You will need to apply for letters of administration (not probate as she didn’t have a will).

You mention you MIL had inheritances - was it much? Did she work or was she being supported by her partner?

@luzina We have begun the process of letters of administration yes.

@funnygoingson
I only know what's left in her account from her inheritance, I don't know how much she recieved at the time but there is still just over £100000 in her various accounts.

I’m thinking, a gift is a gift, the house is in her sole name therefore is part of your MILs estate, if she died intestate, it’s those rules that will be followed.

He should have married her!, even a “death bed” marriage

Imagine she might have had a will that left everything to her children which was disappeared when she died!
If he’s claiming he paid for it or towards it he will have to prove it.

I don't suppose she made a will and he removed or destroyed it because it didn't mention him?

If he has no evidence he's bluffing

Won’t the costs of defending the estate from the partner’s claims come out of the estate? I don’t think your DH and his brothers would be risking costs out of their own pocket for possibly no return. It’s just that the value of the estate would be diminished by the legal costs. (I have no legal qualifications, though, so check with someone who does!)

This link shows you where to find on the title register if there was a mortgage, @AmIthedrama:

www.landregistry-titledeeds.co.uk/frequently-asked-questions/information/using-the-title-register.asp

Not a lawyer but I have bought my house using right to buy. I had gifts from parents to help abs they had to sign a declaration that was sent to the council that stated their money was a gift and they don't have a legal claim on the property, maybe speak to the local authority find out if they have paperwork from the purchase?

Another example of why Wills are so critical.

OP - if the partner can prove that he loaned/gifted the money to your MIL, would be be right to pay that amount back, and the balance of the property value be shared between her three DC? I'm sure it would amount of more that 38% of the house value, in view of inflation.

If not, I suppose you need to think about what the partner contributed to your MIL's life and wellbeing, and whether it would be right to treat him with consideration - or if he's just an opportunist.

But legal advice would be a brilliant start.

The legalities of this will be interesting. It seems as though it was bought outside of the terms of Right to Buy. But he's apparently financed it completely and been MIL's partner for nearly 2 decades. There's a moral argument that he should not be forced out of his home (it's irrelevant that he has another house).

I sympathise OP. It sounds very tricky. and a horrible mess to be unravelling while you're grieving. I hope the lawyer tomorrow gives some legal clarity.