Who does rent belong to when one Tenant in Common Dies

Gluesticks

Hello all

I have surfed the internet for answers on this but unable to find what I am looking for so hoping some one here may know.

Tenants in common. 1 owns 40% the other owns 60%

Owner of 60% dies and leaves their 60% share of property to beneficiaries (direct relatives). Will states that the 40% owner can remain in property until they die, decide to move, or remarry.

On the property is a 1 bed annexe which generates a rental income - does this rental income need to be split 60/40? Between living existing owner and the estate?

Also, do both parties need to give notice to current tenants of annexe or can one do this unilaterally?

Many thanks. Tried to keep as brief as possible so not too long winded

Brie

Interesting situation. 

Is the annex mentioned anywhere in the will or listed as a separate property in any sense anywhere?  (I'm guessing no)

How dependent on the annex income is the 40% survivor and how well do they get on with the beneficiaries?  

I would suspect that from a tax point of view the 60% income belongs to the benes and not the survivor but there might be a nice polite way to gift to the survivor if they need the income to maintain their lifestyle and the benes don't object. 

But families can get pretty funny about money so it may be one for a specialist solicitor or tax accountant.  Or maybe cross post to the forum that deals with rentals?

p00hsticks

Gluesticks said:

On the property is a 1 bed annexe which generates a rental income - does this rental income need to be split 60/40? Between living existing owner and the estate?

how was the rental income divided between the two TIC's when both were alive ?

Gluesticks

Thank you both. The will is not mentioned on will as a separate property or anywhere else. The 40% owner is not dependant on the income and has just given the tenant notice to vacate without agreement of the 60% benes. Property is due to go on to market but will likely take some type to sell so the tenant leaving has cut the income generated from it from the 60% pot. Due to 40% owner behaviour since 60% owner died, benes do not wish to gift the income from rental to 40% owner and 40% owner has cost them more in legal fees by refusing to cooperate.

Rental income went into a joint account. 40% owner removed 60% owner from joint account 1 week after death of 60% owner. They used this to pay any bills.

km1500

the default position in the absence of any agreement or declaration of trust or whatever is that if a property is owned 60-40 than the rent (or rather the profits of the rent) is split that way

poppystar

Gluesticks said:

Thank you both. The will is not mentioned on will as a separate property or anywhere else. The 40% owner is not dependant on the income and has just given the tenant notice to vacate without agreement of the 60% benes. Property is due to go on to market but will likely take some type to sell so the tenant leaving has cut the income generated from it from the 60% pot. Due to 40% owner behaviour since 60% owner died, benes do not wish to gift the income from rental to 40% owner and 40% owner has cost them more in legal fees by refusing to cooperate.

Rental income went into a joint account. 40% owner removed 60% owner from joint account 1 week after death of 60% owner. They used this to pay any bills.

Yes, income has been cut but the possibility of a sale has been made more likely opening it up to people who might have been put off by the tenant being in situ. 

On the other hand if this is done to sell you (I’m assuming related to the 60%) will get your share of the property a lot sooner than if 40% was deciding to live there until death. If 40% is going to sell it would be more profitable to make it easy for that to happen rather than risk any disagreements which would lead to a delay, consequential or deliberate. 

As far as joint account is concerned the removal of the deceased would have been standard practice for the bank once they were informed of the death. 

Keep_pedalling

It seems the surviving owner is the beneficiary of an immediate post death interests trust making them the beneficial owner of the whole property. If that is the case the I believe they will be entitled to all of the rental income. 

msb1234

Keep_pedalling said:

It seems the surviving owner is the beneficiary of an immediate post death interests trust making them the beneficial owner of the whole property. If that is the case the I believe they will be entitled to all of the rental income. 

I agree with this.  When my mum died, her husband was allowed to stay in the house as it was owned as TIC, and he had the right to stay in the property til death or remarriage as per her will. He had to go into care. My solicitor told me that if we rented out the house until such point as it was sold, all the income would be his despite owning only 20%.

Selling the property doesn’t automatically mean that the beneficiaries can take their share. The remaining TIC can use all of the proceeds to purchase another property should they so wish unless the terms of the will say different. 

RAS

Gluesticks said:

Owner of 60% dies and leaves their 60% share of property to beneficiaries (direct relatives). Will states that the 40% owner can remain in property until they die, decide to move, or remarry.

On the property is a 1 bed annexe which generates a rental income - does this rental income need to be split 60/40? Between living existing owner and the estate?

Also, do both parties need to give notice to current tenants of annexe or can one do this unilaterally?

You seems to have got hold of the wrong ends of the sticks.

Joint accounts become the property of the sole survivor on the first death of either account owner.

The will sets up an IDPI trust, which gives the 40% owner the right to live to live in the house until they die or move/remarry. 

The other beneficiaries are not entitled to benefit from the property until one of those criteria are met unless that is specified in the will.

It appears that the remaining (40%) owner has decided that they don't want to benefit from the right to live in the house until their death for some reason, but if they choose to remain, the other beneficiaries might not get anything for decades. If the remaining owner chooses to remain, they need to register the trust with the HMRC within 2 years.

If you go and read on the housing and letting forum, you'll discover that buyers are recommended not to bid for houses in which there is a tenant, even if the tenant has been given notice. If the tenant doesn't move out it can take months to remove them and a lot of sales and chains fall through meantime. So you're selling a probate property with a tenant, you'll get a much lower price as the market is much smaller.

The 40% tenant appears to be doing everything to maximise and speed up the other beneficiaries' access to their inheritance and to reduce the benefit they personally gain from the IDPI trust. 

Any idea what the 40% beneficiary's motive might be?