Terminal illness, separation and protecting home?

[Chocbuttonsandredwine]

Posting for a friend of a friend so don’t know all details but thought I’d ask anyways

Couple A+B lived in B’s house for 20+ years, A not on mortgage (house paid off) but they are married. B has a son who is grown up but isn’t A’s.

Couple separated a couple of years ago due to domestic abuse … A moved out, and into a council property as is disabled .

B now diagnosed with terminal illness. And is wanting to protect home as much as possible for son… worried that upon death A will move back in and son will get nothing. House isn’t worth much but would help son a lot.

B had thought about equity release but isn’t sure how successful would be… even if son can get half of house would be bette than nothing

any thoughts would be appreciated

Did A contribute significantly to the house, for example while there was a mortgage or by doing other stuff, contributing to maintenance etc.

A bit, potentially, probably but a lot but at the thought of getting house would probably try and argue that.. not really sure on facial side, both low wage earners (a not worked for few years due to disability)

not sure how house or half house would affect benefits/housing situation… although couldn’t move back in as house not suitable

As they are married, the starting point is that she is entitled to 50% of the equity in the house. She needs to divorce him and get a financial settlement.

I sadly don’t think there’s time for that, and once he finds out then there’s every chance he would delay.

So they’re still married? A will likely be entitled to a share of the house, considering it was a long relationship. It would be 59% as a starting point. Depending on Bs will if the son gets anything.l or if it all goes to A.

If they are not divorced and don’t get divorced before B dies, then wouldn’t it all depend on what B puts in their will? - unless A can contest it as a dependant (although it doesn’t sound like they are a dependant)

She needs a will - leaving 50% to son and 50% to husband (as they are not divorced) is less likely to be contested than trying to disinherit her husband. As she owns the house outright, this should be accepted as fair.

I know B may not want to hear this but A may have a claim against Bs estate. That could see £££ spent on legal fees reducing the inheritance.

B needs to see a solicitor and get advice about a will that treats A fairly e.g. leaving the house 50:50 or 60:40.

Thanks all.

Kinda what I thought to be honest. Neither have any cash really, and I think any money would impact A’s benefits but unlikely to give up without a fight.

B was just getting nice back in track after separation and now this. 🥲

Sell the house to one of those companies who buy at an undervalue and rent it back. Gift £ to son.

Well yes, that had been suggested also…. Don’t know whether she’d need his permission…. Or declare terminal illness

Sorry - misread the op and thought the house belonged to the partner who moved out.

A does not own the house. They have a claim on it if they divorce, but that claim will die when B dies. B needs to make a will (if she hasn't already done so) leaving the house to her son. A could try to make a claim against the estate under the Inheritance Act, but he would at best get 50% of the property.

I didn’t know this… that’s interesting