Can I evict my Mum?

Emmzi

Ian-K wrote: »

Selling house with one of three children at school would likely mean moving school and SS would not have that I'm afraid, otherwise yes.

So you've done an exhaustive search of houses on the immediate area and they *all* fall short?

Simply not buying it.

silvercar

Sort out a 6 month rental for your Mum, find a decent place and suggest she go there in order to have a "cooling off" period.

Adopting 3 young children must lead to a difficult time of adjustment, however much loved and loving they are. You did this with your eyes open and presumeably it was what you had wished and planned for over a long time. For your mother, getting on in age, to adjust to living with you and then have the home dynamics totally changed by the addition of three little ones may just be too much to cope with.

ceridwen

True - that one doesnt ask for an inheritance to be paid back. But then - on the other hand - it would be necessary for the person leaving the inheritance concerned to go via a "medium" to state that they wanted the inheritance they had left a person to be paid back normally
- ie they were dead.

An "inheritance" that has been handed over whilst still alive is a bit of a different "kettle of fish" and, if it is an inheritance, this has presumably been done to avoid inheritance tax (ie it was handed over now in the hopes that Mum would live long enough that it would count as a gift made in her lifetime - think thats 7 years?????).

It would have been easy enough for Mum to make a will stating that the total inheritance was deemed to be £x and was to be left 50/50 between O.P. and Sister (but that Sister had already had £y of this money whilst Mum was still alive - hence an "apparently" smaller amount of cash when Mum died).

It does look a bit like Mum was persuaded to hand over this inheritance early - in order to avoid O.P. having to pay this inheritance tax on it - but circumstances have changed ("best laid plans of mice and men gang aft aglee" or whatever the phrase is) and she needs her money legally back in her "ownership" now - and its best for O.P. to "do the decent thing" and hand the money back before he upsets Mum any more and he finds she has decided not to leave him the money when she dies either (and the question of inheritance tax would then not arise:cool:).

I DO understand that it must be EXTREMELY upsetting to face the prospect of having to give back money that one believed one owned - but that is always a risk in the circumstances of buying a house jointly with someone else unfortunately. Mum was after all only gifting the money early on the understanding that she would be living there too - so, if that understanding is broken, and she is forced to live elsewhere - then its far from a "done deal" to assume the law would be on OP's side (as Mum could/would state that she hadnt got what she paid for and the "deal" hadnt been honoured by O.P.)

..not forgetting what "mincemeat" a sympathetic journalist would make of this story if it got into the newspapers. Mum may not put it there herself - but Sister might....or an outraged friend of Mum's.

babyblooz

I thought if you adopted then social services handed over legal authority to you. If this is so, then surely its up to you to decide whats best for the children. Or are they being fostered? If so, you should be receiving a fostering allowance for them. Could this not be used to help pay mum back?

poet123

I also thought that adoption gives you the same rights as other parents. So I don't think SS could intervene. Also it could be argued moving house and removing the pressure of your motherliving with you is in the best interests of all concerned.

There is only one equitable solution, sell up, move house and pay your mother back her rightful share to use as she sees fit.

Short term Silvercar makes a very good suggestion.

Oldernotwiser

What will the mother have to live on if she moves out? She won't be eligible for any means tested benefits if she's given her capital away. Could she actually afford to pay rent?

trumpton

The social services do not remove children because you have to move to a smaller house. In fact, I would see it as you all buying a house as a family - ie. a home they have helped to choose, not just the house that you happened to live in. Your mother clearly had an expectation when she gave you the money - that has broken down and you need to pay her most of it back so you can all move on.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

The 174k was gifted with the mother staying in the property.

If the son kicks her out then I am sure any court would state the "contract" was void and the money repayable

As for the 64k living costs. Unless there was some agreement about these costss you paid them and have no right to deduct them from what you owe.

You owe your mother 174k basically and if you cant afford to repay her then you cant evict her without making big problems.

1echidna

I very much doubt that any assault charges will stick. The OP mentions that his wife was trying to restrain his mother. Legal right to that? Right to retaliate? Independent witnesses? Evidence of injury? Prompt and timely prosecution? Have the police stated that no further action is to be taken?

queenieplum

Get your mother a broomstick and ask her to fly off to the sisters and get that distance you need. You must put your wife and children first, it must have been a very stressful period of adjustment for you all, but your mother has crossed boundaries and acted violently - not a very good role model for your children.