Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

He now owns the house. Is there anything we can do?

89 replies

Toomuchgrief23 · 20/05/2023 23:54

MIL sadly passed away 6weeks ago.
She and my FIL separated over 30yrs ago, started divorce proceedings but recently realised they didn't have the decree absolute. FIL wanted to remarry and so was eager for the divorce to be finalised quickly so suggested 'sorting' the house at a later stage, and whilst there was lots of talk about this in recent years and solicitors appointed and paid, nothing seems to have been done.
We are now in the situation where he owns 100% of my MIL's home and is suggesting that it is split 3 ways between him, DH and SIL, however is very clear that final say will be his and this is not something he has to do. DH and SIL were happy enough with this arrangement
SIL wants to buy the house, but tonight FIL has said that it will be put on the market as he has an idea of a minimum amount he wants from the sale (more than 1/3 of valued price) and doesn't seem to care that the family want it to remain within the family due to sentimental reasons.

Is there anything that can be done in this scenario as legally FIL is the owner? If DH and SIL were to fight it in court is it likely to go anywhere?

Any advice would be much appreciated, we are all still grieving and this is the last thing we want to be dealing with at the moment.

OP posts:
Greentree1 · 21/05/2023 12:21

Toomuchgrief23 · 21/05/2023 11:43

Yes he was a joint owner and this was never resolved in the original or more recent divorce proceedings.
It is documented in the recent proceedings that he has said that there was no financial assets to be sorted out, which is not true.

Show quote history

If during the divorce he said there were no other financial assets to be sorted out, he seems to have acknowledged that the house was now his ex-wife's property, due to the length of time she had been solely responsible for it, paying the mortgage and all repairs. Seems very high handed to suddenly appear and say it belongs to him, having previously denied any legal interest.

Unicorn2022 · 21/05/2023 12:42

It doesn't matter what the will says, or if he told someone there were no financial assets to sort, or if he hadn't paid a penny towards the house for over 30 years - if he owned the house as joint tenant, or likely joint tenant with rights of survivorship, then the house is now his. It definitely doesn't mean it's morally right but it's the way it works legally. You don't have to be married to be joint tenants.

It's lucky he has agreed to split the property at all really, and a real shame that your MIL and her children didn't sort this out years ago.

SeasonFinale · 21/05/2023 12:50

Presumably though MIL also signed to say there were no assets to be dealt with so it could therefore just as easily be assumed that they were therefore both happy with it being held jointly in legal terms with her living there and him not. It doesn't follow that it meant he didn't have a claim. (Playing devil's advocate). She must have known that it was still in joint names and that she had never bought him out.

Zonder · 21/05/2023 13:21

Geppili · 21/05/2023 00:34

He is her husband. Clear cut.

Ex husband. They divorced.

Partytastic · 21/05/2023 13:24

Did she have a will?

knittingaddict · 21/05/2023 13:33

Unicorn2022 · 21/05/2023 12:42

It doesn't matter what the will says, or if he told someone there were no financial assets to sort, or if he hadn't paid a penny towards the house for over 30 years - if he owned the house as joint tenant, or likely joint tenant with rights of survivorship, then the house is now his. It definitely doesn't mean it's morally right but it's the way it works legally. You don't have to be married to be joint tenants.

It's lucky he has agreed to split the property at all really, and a real shame that your MIL and her children didn't sort this out years ago.

This is really the only relevant answer. Asking about possible wills will change nothing. What matters is how the house was held when mil died.

RandomMess · 21/05/2023 13:47

You need to speak to an experienced divorce solicitor.

You CAN get divorced without signing of financials.

Were the finances signed off before or after the divorce or not at all, or so you not know?

Unicorn2022 · 21/05/2023 13:55

It probably suited MIL not to pursue the financial order at the time of the split or divorce, as she would have had to pay her ex for his share of the house (50% unless her lawyer managed to negotiate) and probably didn't have the means to do this. If she had borrowed money to buy him out she might not even still have the house anymore and could have been forced to downsize. At least she lived out her years in the house and her kids will inherit a third each, as long as the father keeps his promise.

If they had held the house as tenants in common at the time of her death and there was a will leaving MIL's share to her kids then the OP's DH and sister would only be entitled to 25% of the house anyway and they will hopefully get slightly more than this.

2bazookas · 21/05/2023 14:09

I think my question was more around him owning 100% despite not contributing to the mortgage, upkeep, etc for over 30yrs.

Those are not conditions for ownership. Plenty of SAHM mums never contributed to the mortgage, or money to the upkeep, but they can still be joint owners of the marital home. So can spouses who ran off decades ago.

It sounds as if MIL had never updated an old Will made when they were still joint occupiers of the marital home, in which each partner left their share to the other. If that's the case, and they were still legally married, then that Will stands.

If MIL thought she was divorced she should have made a new Will leaving her share of the property to her chosen beneficiaries.

LightlySearedontheRealityGrill · 21/05/2023 14:14

How is the house owned on the title with the registry office? That will have an impact. As they are officially divorced, and most importantly he is remarried, he does not have an right to her assets, unless he is named on the title deed (then he may own 50% if joint tenants) or is in her will. The remarriage is key, as that nullifies any claim he might of had with no financial settlement. Speak to a family lawyer.

Premiumbondbaby · 21/05/2023 14:58

@LightlySearedontheRealityGrill that isn’t how joint tenants works. Both Parties own 100% of the property when 1 dies the other party still owns 100%. No will, divorce etc. can override the fact FIL owns the property 100%.

Its too late now, but severing the joint tenancy so it becomes tenants in common would have meant MILs 50% would have gone to her beneficiaries.

@Toomuchgrief23 I am sorry for the situation your family are experiencing whilst they are grieving.

In the circumstances FIL has been reasonably fair splitting it by 1/3rds, but he has a legal right to get the most £ for the property. Testing the market is therefore not unreasonable.

I do think your DH and his sister need to be careful not to piss FziL off as he could change his mind and not gift them anything.

Scottishlanza · 21/05/2023 15:04

@Premiumbondbaby I don’t know why posters are still going on and on about divorce and wills when they are of absolutely no relevance what so ever. As you said and as I said up thread if the legal ownership at the land registry is ‘joint tenants’ (nothing to do with renting) then FIL will legally now own 100%. You are right in what you say in that the family should be careful not to upset FIL as he could take his bat and ball home and then they’d get nothing

ClarasZoo · 21/05/2023 15:04

You need to see a solicitor and potentially an accountant as there may be capital gains tax to pay (depends how property was held).

Premiumbondbaby · 21/05/2023 15:16

@Scottishlanza sadly there are a lot of people who only learn the importance of legal matters too late e.g. joint tenants vs tenants in common, wills, deed of trust, loans, financial settlements, marriage, divorce etc.

Unicorn2022 · 21/05/2023 15:24

In this case if the MIL and ex had changed the house to tenants in common then the OP's DH and his sister would only be set to inherit 25% each whereas as long as FIL keeps his word they are due to receive a third of the house instead.

poetryandwine · 21/05/2023 16:03

@Scottishlanza there eas some question in the initial post as to whether FIL had married without a decree absolute. I think that is the only relevance

Pickledmeg · 21/05/2023 16:09

It's worth seeking legal advice, but if its as you say then yes it's likely he does indeed now own 100% of the house and can decide what he does with it. The morally correct thing (which is debatable anyway) and the legal reality are separate things.

Blomonje · 21/05/2023 16:23

As pp said, if they were tenants in common then FIL would get 50% and DH+SIL would get 25% each. If this is the case and FIL has somehow claimed 100% ownership then it could be challenged (which seems pointless anyway as they’d be worse off).

But if they were joint tenants then he owns the house. No matter what her will says. No matter whether he’s lived in it and paid towards the upkeep or not. No matter what verbal comments he did or didn’t make.

Assuming it’s the latter then FIL is being very generous in offering to split the house three ways, because he doesn’t have to. If you continue whinging then perhaps he will decide to get the amount of money he wants by giving them less, or perhaps nothing.

burnoutbabe · 21/05/2023 16:25

Is there an argument the joint tendency was severed so they each own a separate 50%.

I remember that from my land law studies. Arises in certain specific situations.

Maybe worth a discussion. Though then as another posted says they'd get 25% each and dad 50%, here it is 33% each?

WallaceinAnderland · 21/05/2023 16:29

What did the will say?

burnoutbabe · 21/05/2023 16:31

www.lawteacher.net/lectures/land-law/co-ownership/severance/#:~:text=The%20first%20way%20is%20where,joint%20tenancy%20by%20'mutual%20agreement.

Mutual conduct where each assumed to be owning their own share seems relevant. Ie she left "her share" in a will.

But may not leave anyone better off than current 1/3 offer

Blomonje · 21/05/2023 16:31

Is there an argument the joint tendency was severed so they each own a separate 50%
Divorce does not automatically sever a joint tenancy. It’s something that would have to be purposely done. If it wasn’t done as part of the divorce, and wasn’t done afterwards, then the tenancy probably hasn’t been severed.

Blomonje · 21/05/2023 16:33

WallaceinAnderland · 21/05/2023 16:29

What did the will say?

That’s irrelevant if it was a joint tenancy. You can’t will your property to someone if you own it as a joint tenancy. Even if you write in your will that you want to leave it to someone, the joint tenancy takes priority and the property still goes to the other tenant.

finallygotospeaktoSky · 21/05/2023 17:04

I would go for the sure fire method to answer your questions and speak to a solicitor.

Viviennemary · 21/05/2023 17:08

Did they have wills. Maybe she didnt contibute to the mortgage but neither did you and you seem anxious to get your cut.