House deeds problem

[OneGreyBiscuit]

Myself, brother and mother moved in 2000 and with that the deeds to the house were put in all our names. My brother passed in August and his executor wanted to look through the documents as my brother was on the deeds. It transpires that our dear old mother changed the deeds into her name only in 2009. I think because my brother got into financial difficulties, although neither myself or brother signed anything agreeing to this. I am now at a stage of cutting contact with her as I'm done but can anyone give me any advice on the house situation?

@OneGreyBiscuit so she is 81 or thereabouts?? just hang fire and dont argue with her. dont suppose she has let you see a copy of her current will?

No not really. I started another thread some time back on mn and got flayed alive for only working part time with 2 teens. I've not started this thread to debate sahm mums. You know nothing about my history with her and she did the bare minimum as a parent or around the house. She certainly has never been a delightful or appreciative mother or wife

It sounds odd but this is your mother's home. I'm assuming you no longer live there as you are cutting contact.

Normally the property would just be in her name and inherited according to her Will or tge rules of intestate when she dies.

Perhaps as you are about to cut contact she doesn't want you on the deeds and won't name you as her beneficiary. You obviously don't have a good relationship.

A child has no automatic right to their parents home. It is her home to do as she wishes with.

It sounds rather financially grabby to me. You just want the house not your mother.

She's 82 and she'll outlive me as well but I need to consider my children. The way property prices, col is at the moment, they will need every help possible.

Why was the property put in all 3 names initially? Did your Dad leave his half to his children, rather than his wife automatically inheriting it?

Also, who inherited from your brother?

No. Get your own solicitor. If you think your mother and her solicitor were complicit on this, why would you go to her solicitor?

Is the executor of your brother's estate taking legal advice on this?

This change happened in 2009 when I was still wanting to be in her life but she went ahead and done it. I have never been a grabby person so that comment is uncalled for. If you think that it would be ok to leave a house to people who did not a thing to help when my brother was dying of cancer then that's fine. I would quite gladly cut contact and forget it but my children could need financial help and probably will need it

Yes that's a good idea. My brother's executor will come with me when I go.

I don't really know, I think my brother pushed for it. My brother had savings that he left 75% to me (which I didn't want to take contrary to the "grabby" comment above) and 25% to her.

Where did the money come from to buy the house?

There is a forum for House buying renting and selling on the Money Saving Expert website and a representative from the Land Registry often helps people with their queries. It may be worth posting on that site.

It came from my dad paying rent for 20+ years on a council house in London and getting a right to buy and compensation money from losing the fingers on one hand in a work accident. I don't feel this question is something I need to answer though.

Regardless of whether it’s the mother’s home, it belongs legally to three people or now, 2 people. Fraud has been committed based on the information we have. OP needs to see a solicitor asap and contact the solicitor’s office who dealt with the original purchase. It’s outrageous and OP is not grabby to be pursuing it.

I think that, if she had solicitors acting for her on the transfer, they had a professional duty to ensure that you and your brother received separate legal advice. If you and the executor are going to see the solicitor, ask about this.

The solicitor may not be complicit at all (though as a pp has astutely noted, they should at least have advised that you and brother seek independent legal advice before the transfer in 2009 as you both would have been giving up a share in a valuable asset for nothing). The transfer form/ deed (TR1) is usually posted out by the solicitor for the client(s) to execute in front of witness(es) and return. It's not typical for clients and witnesses to attend the solicitors office to do this in person. It would be interesting to see who is named as "witness" to your and your brothers "signatures" and if they recall being asked, as these are likely forgeries too. If you can work out (from your Google diary, emails, social media posts etc) that you couldn't possibly have met with the witness on that date i.e. because you were on holiday abroad this will help make things abundantly clear.

You need to get hold of a copy of the TR1 from the solicitor although he/she will now be conflicted and may be very guarded about corresponding with you directly. Your own sol and/or brother's executor would be a good idea and/or the LR fraud team.

As I expect you realise, this is very likely to result in an allegation of fraud against your mother and that will be the end of your relationship.

From what you've said (sorry if I got this wrong) you may be terminally ill and don't expect to outlive your elderly mother, so please don't delay if you want to sort this out to provide for your children's future. I will add though that if the pre 2009 arrangement was a joint tenants the survivor would automatically inherit the whole property; the deceased would not have a share to leave to a third party. So not only do you need to have the transfer nullified, you also need to sever the joint tenancy to secure a 50% share.

Its relevant as if you and your brother had invested in the house you would have a clear claim on part ownership. As it is it sounds like your parents paid for the house so maybe it was logged as an error in the original ownership. Did you see the original deeds with all three names on? Either way, you need a solicitor to look at the details of each transaction.

Whatever your issues with your mother, SAHMs are not retired (unless they have a full time cook/housekeeper, nanny and cleaner?). Don't take your own relationship issues out on women who perform that role and provide a great deal of unpaid labour for famiies..

Yes she still has the original deeds with all our signatures on. As I said before I didn't start this thread to bash sahm and I had plenty of bashing from people who said I was a lazy freeloader for working part time with teens. Both myself and my brother were teens by 1987 and she still wouldn't go and look for work to help my dad out and as a consequence he worked himself into an early grave at 59 in 1998. I also do a lot for my family unpaid and a sight more for my children than what she ever did for me or my brother, so please don't come at me to suggest I'm bashing sahm. Don't get mn logic sometimes - work part time = lazy freeloader, not worked since 25 = amazing 🤦

Don't get mn logic sometimes - work part time = lazy freeloader, not worked since 25 = amazing

Feel free to point out where I have said any such thing. MN has quite a few million subscribers. It would be quite astonishing if it was a hivemind.

I suggest you focus on finding a solicitor to look into the transactions for you rather than criticising a category cohort of women based on your own strained relationship with your mother.

Please feel free to point out to me where I accused you personally of this? You were accusing me of bashing sahm. I don't care if someone is a sahm, part time or full time. I'm going on my experience with a lazy parent who did nothing to help my dad and a mother who I'm convinced only had children so she didn't have to work. You're not one of her bingo cronies by chance?

If you jointly own the whole house and you die before her, ownership would pass to her anyway. If you want separate shares that you can each pass on you have to set it up like that. From what you describe it sounds like all 3 of you jointly owned the house and what is more that it was her house after your father died and you and your brother got your names added? You didn’t jointly purchase it?

No my dad passed in 1998, moved in 2000, my brother wanted us all to be on the deeds to the new property and in 2009 she managed to change it into solely her name.

I understand that, but did you contribute financially to the new property or was it bought entirely from the proceeds of their previous home?

No neither of us did. As I said my brother wanted it in all our names, maybe because he didn't trust her to leave it to us.

He may well have had a valid concern, however he/you had no right to expect or demand to be added to the deeds as a joint owner of a property which she owned outright. That doesn’t mean that having agreed to it she can change it at will, but you’re going to need to take advice and it might not be cut and dried given it was hers to begin with.
Again, the terms of ownership are of importance too. If you were all joint owners, ownership passes smoothly to the survivors when one person dies. If she survives the longest, she owns the whole property. In order to avoid this you would have had to set it up as tenants in common with each of you owning a discrete share. Your brother would have been able to leave you his share in his will.

You can get a copy of the conveyance that would have been required to transfer the property from joint names to her sole name here: https://www.landregistrysearches.com/old-property-deeds. This is in addition to the current registered title. It show you how ownership was changed.

It is possible that you weren't actually on the orginal deeds themselves, but that the property was held in trust for you jointly. Only a historic search of the original deeds and conveyances will prove that either way.