Can’t sell house until stepdad passes

[Gulpalp]

Mum has allowed for stepdad to live in her house when she passes
The actual property has been gifted to the 2 children but they can’t release the value of it until stepdad passes and only then they can sell
Whilst he is alive and living there can they extract value from the house via equity release or otherwise and how does that work?

If the mum is still alive (which sounds like the case in the OP) she might be well advised to rethink the will if her children/grandchildren want to release money from it before either she or her husband/partner is even cold in the ground.

The OP hasn’t stated anything entitled at all. The way it is worded it’s just as likely this is the ‘Mum’ trying to workout how to make sure her children can benefit from her property whilst they are of an age when they may need it the most, and also make sure her husband isn’t homeless.

This. Would you rather be was homeless? Your mother clearly truly loves him and wants him to be ok.

The solicitor who drew up the will and the agreement will be able to explain what can and cannot be done with the property.

Do you mean she's gifted you the house now hoping to avoid inheritance tax when she finally passes away? If she passes away within the next 7 years you could still be liable for inheritance tax which you will have to pay regardless of who does or doesn't live there. This sounds like a mess. Get some legal advice.

Apologies. I see your mum has 'gifted' it to your children and she is still alive . How has she done this ? Is she married to your step dad ?

I'm presuming that she IS still alive and this is the provision that she's made in her will, for if/when she dies before her husband.

This is very normal indeed in cases where people remarry and/or have blended families. If he were her only husband, and the father of their joint children (with neither of them having any others), she would most probably just leave the whole thing to him, in anticipation that he would then leave it to their joint children upon his death.

She's done this to make sure that you don't lose your inheritance in the longer term - should he have separate children and/or marry again - but (apart from insurance etc.) I really think you need to essentially view it that her house has passed to her surviving spouse and that's that for as long as he is alive. If she had left it to your actual father, should he survive her (if they were still married), you wouldn't be trying to find ways to get your hands on the money now that only one of your parents was still alive, would you?

The short answer is no.

Yes, this is a very standard clause for families where a parent has remarried later in life and has existing children. My mum's will stipulated the same - her share of the money in the house will come to me eventually but my stepdad can live there till he either dies or wants to downsize, and too right, it's his home. I don't think anywhere will touch trying to equity release a property in this situation - best to think of the money as inaccessible until such a time as he dies or whatever else the terms are.

I disagree, that's exactly what they're trying to do.

The mums wishes are clear- he lives the rest of his life in the house (should he wish), and THEN it's yours to do what you want with.

They're trying to find a way to cheat this and access their inheritance before it's due, which is after he dies.

This is what I intend to do with the house and I'd be mortified if my DD was trying to get at the money before her SD died. It's not classy behaviour at all.

I'm just not seeing why people are judging the OP so harshly on this. The mum explicitly wants to safeguard a financial asset for her children so that step father can't sell it, leave it to a second wife, or use it for his care needs. The whole point is that the eventual value of the house is guaranteed to go to them - with the major caveat that step father can live in it until his death (or possibly until he moves into care depending on how the will is written).

I don't think it's unreasonable for someone who knows they've got a, say, hundred thousand pound asset, absolutely guaranteed, held against their name, to wonder whether there's a way of using the value of that asset to release equity/secure a loan or whatever. They might be eg stuck in a home that's too small for their family's needs, or wanting to do an MBA, or waiting a year in pain for a hip operation. I don't see how that's going against the mum's wishes at all.

Unfortunately financial institutions aren't keen on that kind of transaction, so they're fairly reasonable thoughts probably aren't going to work out.

Perhaps people who want to do an MBA or move into a bigger house could think of ways to pay for it themselves?

The house belongs to them, it's their possession. Using it to help them access things they need surely is "paying for it themselves".

Wow. A new "inheritance" low point has been reached on MN.

@CredibilityProblem but it doesn't belong to them til he dies though. Imagine being the poor SD and have his wife's kids just waiting for him to pass away. Such poor behaviour.

Tbh if the children could release some of the equity before their stepparent's death then they might have much sunnier feelings towards them and their life expectancy.

Fucking hell. You can't be for real.

I am a step-parent. My DH is a step-parent. None of our kids will inherit from us until we're BOTH gone. If I ever thought for one second that any one of them would behave like this, I'd leave the lot to Battersea Dog's Home.

Imagine being the poor SD and have his wife's kids just waiting for him to pass away.

That makes me think of these charities who try to get older people to bequeath them their house/part of their estate in their will. Then, they have employees who are paid to keep track of the market value of their 'pre-assets' and 'keep an eye' on when the person dies - regularly go through obituaries and check probate lists; maybe send a regular Christmas card to 'our valued supporter' in the hope that, one year, it will be returned as 'addressee deceased'.

Maybe the mum should just leave the house directly to her husband and let him know that she'd like it all to go to her kids after his death, but of course, if he survives her, it's then entirely up to him whether he honours that at all.

I know that most elderly people find comfort in knowing that they can help and bequeath to their loved ones after they've gone; but it can't be very pleasant knowing that they're sitting there tapping their watch, whilst you're still very much alive.

Same tho only One mini blondes

I guess I'm just taking a utilitarian approach - based on the fundamental starting point that if the children have a very valuable asset it could be efficient for them to be able to use that asset for their needs, as long as it in no way prejudices the need of the stepparent to be housed as their spouse wanted. If there's no downside whatsoever to the stepparent then I honestly can't see why everyone's getting so aerated.

No skin in the game myself.

as long as it in no way prejudices the need of the stepparent to be housed as their spouse wanted.

This is an old man's life, and his home; he's not a set of winter tyres to be put into storage.

Yes, the spouse wanted him to be able to stay in his home, that's what she legally specified and that's what the Will would achieve. Is there a problem with this?

This equity release malarky is going to be the next PPI I think , it's a con full stop .

Yes, the spouse wanted him to be able to stay in his home, that's what she legally specified and that's what the Will would achieve. Is there a problem with this?

The way you phrased it was just so cold, though. Like his final years are just one big inconvenience to somebody who is waiting for him to hurry up and die so that they can get their money.