care Home fees, can I retain the family bungalow
Options
Comments
-
Keep_pedalling wrote: »He has two choices, either to sell, or buy his mother out of her half. If he refuses then his mother will effectively get deeper and deeper in debt as the charges build up and the LA will be forced to go to court to force the sale, and he will end up with a big legal cost to meet.
These trusts are designed to protect the half of the house owned by the first to die not the whole house. If it was that easy everyone would be doing it.
But if the recipient has to sell up or buy out the other half, then it doesn't protect it, does it?(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
DairyQueen wrote: »It's my view that it's high time that people gave-up this sense of entitlement to their parents' home. It's your mother's asset and if she needs it to ensure that she has the best possible quality of life in her last years then so be it. if you focus more on your mother's needs and less on your own then I believe that you will reconcile to the loss of your family home. That has been my experience and also the experience of many others on this site.
OUCH, bit harsh DairyQueen! Though essentially over the past few years I've come round more to that way of thinking, it does have to be said that I watched my parents work hard all their lives, scrimping & scraping, staying out of debt, no far flung all inclusive holidays for them, their choice was to be able to afford to purchase their own home instead.
Others have chosen a different route, spend, spend, spend all their lives & now they get to have their care home fees paid, contributed to by the taxes my parents paid, whilst my mother (widowed & living in her home of 62 years) would, if necessary, be expected to liquidise her only asset to pay for her care.
Though I see the old family home as her security for her old age not 'my inheritance', & if every penny of its worth had to go one day to provide her with a marginally better choice of care home, that's fine with me. At the same time I can see & sympathise as to why others feel aggrieved that this happens, those who contribute nothing get it all for nothing, while those that contribute fully, watching their pounds, shillings & pence all their lives have to pay.
There's no simple answer & it's easy to be judgmental, but perhaps it would be more fairly aimed at those who chose to take & SPEND all their lives, not those who've worked hard, &/or gone without (perhaps like OP's mother) because they WANT to leave a legacy to their loved ones, NOT because their loved ones expect it. I think OP has made it clear that her mother's needs will come first, but she's right to feel fed up about it.Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it.0 -
seven-day-weekend wrote: »But if the recipient has to sell up or buy out the other half, then it doesn't protect it, does it?
OK to be precise it protects half of proceeds of any sale of the property. It does not protect the sentimentality of hanging on to it. If the owner was only in care a short time before dying them, a sale would be needed to pay of the dept owed to the estate unless there were other funds available.
How many grand children would actually want their GPs bungalow anyway, the vast majority would want to sell and buy something else.0 -
Keep_pedalling wrote: »OK to be precise it protects half of proceeds of any sale of the property. It does not protect the sentimentality of hanging on to it. If the owner was only in care a short time before dying them, a sale would be needed to pay of the dept owed to the estate unless there were other funds available.
How many grand children would actually want their GPs bungalow anyway, the vast majority would want to sell and buy something else.
Whilst I have no objection to people paying their way, it seems wrong to the deceased spouse (who wanted to leave their property to a specific person), to go against THEIR wishes, by countermanding the trust, especially if they didn't owe any care home fees. Seems like legalised theft to me.(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
SevenOfNine wrote: »OUCH, bit harsh DairyQueen! Though essentially over the past few years I've come round more to that way of thinking, it does have to be said that I watched my parents work hard all their lives, scrimping & scraping, staying out of debt, no far flung all inclusive holidays for them, their choice was to be able to afford to purchase their own home instead.
Others have chosen a different route, spend, spend, spend all their lives & now they get to have their care home fees paid, contributed to by the taxes my parents paid, whilst my mother (widowed & living in her home of 62 years) would, if necessary, be expected to liquidise her only asset to pay for her care.
Though I see the old family home as her security for her old age not 'my inheritance', & if every penny of its worth had to go one day to provide her with a marginally better choice of care home, that's fine with me. At the same time I can see & sympathise as to why others feel aggrieved that this happens, those who contribute nothing get it all for nothing, while those that contribute fully, watching their pounds, shillings & pence all their lives have to pay.
There's no simple answer & it's easy to be judgmental, but perhaps it would be more fairly aimed at those who chose to take & SPEND all their lives, not those who've worked hard, &/or gone without (perhaps like OP's mother) because they WANT to leave a legacy to their loved ones, NOT because their loved ones expect it. I think OP has made it clear that her mother's needs will come first, but she's right to feel fed up about it.
My recently deceased mother had her care home funded by the LA, but it was nothing to do with being a spendthrift. Poorly educated, a widow before she hit 50 with little prospect of getting well paid work, she remained a council tenant until residential care was required. Talking to the other residence in her care home many of that generation had similar stories.
We on the other hand have a house worth 10 times what we paid for it, so there is no way we can claim that all equity we have in that asset is anything to do with hard work, or that are children have a right to inherit it.
We feel lucky to be in a position that if either of us ever did need residential care, we will not be limited to a very narrow choice of care home, nor will we have to wait to reach the the level of decrepitude that will get approval from the LA funding panel.0 -
There's little you can do now to protect your mum's half share as has been pointed out , you options are
1 self fund the care
2 sell your current property and purchase her half share (must be market value using several valuations)
3 she self funds from the sale proceeds
Asset protection needs to be planned when you are young , release cash by downsizing and use your cash gifts allowances to the max or take advantage of TUPE with the 7 year rule.
Deprivation of assets is a real risk if left too late , councils are getting very experienced in combing through finances and will go to court to challenge dubious financial actions to hide or deplete your estate. Selling property below market value or transfer of title whilst living rent free is a red flag these daysEx forum ambassador
Long term forum member0 -
SevenOfNine wrote: »OUCH, bit harsh DairyQueen! Though essentially over the past few years I've come round more to that way of thinking, it does have to be said that I watched my parents work hard all their lives, scrimping & scraping, staying out of debt, no far flung all inclusive holidays for them, their choice was to be able to afford to purchase their own home instead.
Others have chosen a different route, spend, spend, spend all their lives & now they get to have their care home fees paid, contributed to by the taxes my parents paid, whilst my mother (widowed & living in her home of 62 years) would, if necessary, be expected to liquidise her only asset to pay for her care.
Though I see the old family home as her security for her old age not 'my inheritance', & if every penny of its worth had to go one day to provide her with a marginally better choice of care home, that's fine with me. At the same time I can see & sympathise as to why others feel aggrieved that this happens, those who contribute nothing get it all for nothing, while those that contribute fully, watching their pounds, shillings & pence all their lives have to pay.
There's no simple answer & it's easy to be judgmental, but perhaps it would be more fairly aimed at those who chose to take & SPEND all their lives, not those who've worked hard, &/or gone without (perhaps like OP's mother) because they WANT to leave a legacy to their loved ones, NOT because their loved ones expect it. I think OP has made it clear that her mother's needs will come first, but she's right to feel fed up about it.seven-day-weekend wrote: »Whilst I have no objection to people paying their way, it seems wrong to the deceased spouse (who wanted to leave their property to a specific person), to go against THEIR wishes, by countermanding the trust, especially if they didn't owe any care home fees. Seems like legalised theft to me.
You can’t control your assets from the grave, you can leave what you like to whoever you want, but you can’t control what they do with it after you have gone. Everyone I know who has inherited property from their parents has sold it for one reason or another.
You can’t say just because it is a house it has to be treated differently than inherited shares, cash, or a vintage car.0 -
Keep_pedalling wrote: »You can’t control your assets from the grave, you can leave what you like to whoever you want, but you can’t control what they do with it after you have gone. Everyone I know who has inherited property from their parents has sold it for one reason or another.
You can’t say just because it is a house it has to be treated differently than inherited shares, cash, or a vintage car.
No, I agree, but I think it should be the recipient's choice what to do with it, not be forced to sell because someone else owes care home fees. Their half should not be taken into consideration..
If it WAS a vintage car, they would not be expected to sell it, why should they be expected to sell their share of the house?(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
Just wondering who is looking after the grandsons interests in this. It would probably be alright if he was old enough/ready to own his own home. But what if he is only 10. His half gets stuck in some account earning very little interest & when he wants to buy almost certainly won't pay for half.0
-
seven-day-weekend wrote: »No, I agree, but I think it should be the recipient's choice what to do with it, not be forced to sell because someone else owes care home fees. Their half should not be taken into consideration..
If it WAS a vintage car, they would not be expected to sell it, why should they be expected to sell their share of the house?
They would if the car was half owned by the person needing care. The other half of the house was put into trust simply as a means to protect that asset from being used for care costs, if the the other owner wants to keep the house (or car) then they have to find the funds to do so.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.8K Spending & Discounts
- 235.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards