Can I evict my Mum?

Geenie

From what we are being told, the mother has behaved very badly. But I also think to expect her to walk away having invested £174k is also bad on the son's part. Sorry OP, but your mother enabled you to live where you are now, and your sums don't add up as to what she owes you! 174k doesn't grow on trees .......

It is a very large sum of money for someone elderly to just leave behind and put down to a bad choice.You should repay and enable her to buy elsewhere, as she gave up her home to move in with you.

Her behaviour has been bad by your account, but I also find yours just as accountable by expecting her to just move out and on, leaving her £174k investment to you.

bluejake

People fall out all the time. Whose fault it is may depend on whose viewpoint you take or sometimes one party is clearly at fault. It is all irrelevant whose fault it is.

What matters is you now need to separate and your Mother is owed £174k. Never mind the interest she would have earned. However I think I am not the only one disturbed by the OPs flimsy attempts to justify to himself fleecing his own Mother.

She is a vulnerable old lady. The OP states she waived all her rights and agreed to give away all her money which is clearly against her own interests. But how could the OP possibly agree to this? My Mother would do what I advised her because she would trust me to protect her interests and I would. And I would consider things like what happened if I divorced or dropped dead. And I would consider what would happen if living together didn't work out and she wanted her money back to buy her own place again.

You should sell up and move to a property that you can afford and give your Mother her money back. Saying now is not a convenient time for you to sell misses the point - you Mother needs her money back now.

I would certainly not be as sure as the OP seems to be that she is legally not entitled to her money back. The courts take a dim view of those who rip off the elderly and the vulnerable and would look closely at why an elderly person would enter into agreements so one sided and so against their interests. Remember the courts are about justice despite what you might read in the papers.

whitewing

I know of a very, very nice lady that I used to work with who did a very similar thing. Her mother sold up, her, the lady that I knew and her DH moved in to a bigger place with an annexe for mum and it all worked out for the best for everyone. So, the agreement at the time it was implemented was probably not that one-sided. It is a shame for all that things have not worked out.

ceridwen

So - I guess the collective conclusion we have basically come to O.P. is that:
- yes, your mother may well have behaved badly
- yes, the two households do need to split up
- but NO - most of us believe that you are trying to use the way you hope the law will work in order to keep her share of the joint house (and justifying this to yourself on the grounds that you "have to put your wife and children first" - with a couple of the posters egging you on to do that)
- many of us think the law might not come down in your favour if it all goes to Court

It seems to me that what you basically came on asking was "Can I get away with hanging onto my mothers money...on the following excuses...and bearing in mind that on paper it looks like its my money now?"

You've had your answer - quite possibly you cant legally...and, even if the law did rule in your favour, the "Court of Public Opinion" wouldnt.

Oldernotwiser

I've been through the adoption process so I know how attached you can get to children placed with your family. However, I find the people on here who suggest that you put the needs of children who have lived with you for 3 months over the woman who has been your mother for 30 odd years seriously disturbing.

Are people so involved with the generation below them that they feel that the generation who raised them are dispensable? In this particular case, the fact that you've managed to relieve your mother of £174,000 in the process is absolutely shameful.

pinkshoes

The contract would appear to be that she gave you £174k of your inheritance (which she invested in the house) on the basis that she then lived with you for the rest of her life.

This contract is now to be broken, so it's only fair she gets her money back.

House prices may have dropped say 15%, so that would be £26k of her money gone. You can't charge her rent given the chunk of equity she put forward, but you could charge her 1/3 of the bills (£3k for a year perhaps), and half the buying and selling costs.

At the end of the day, it's just money, so sell up, give her what she's owed, then either buy somewhere else, or rent a nice property in the same area. It's the children's happiness that is important, so who cares about money?

barnaby-bear

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

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.

The interest that would be paid in a year on mortgage of £174k would cover her living costs - so a figure nearer £174k would be far fairer. dubious in the extreme that the OP seems to think £110k would be in any way fair.

lesley1960

YorkiePud wrote: »

The thing is to remember though, that from what the OP says, the money his Mother put into him buying a larger house that would be big enough for HER and CHILDREN was the OP's inheritance ...

You don't ask for an inheritance to be paid back!!

If it was a loan, then yes, of course he would be obliged to pay it back under whatever terms he and his Mother agreed from the start, but from everything he says, this money was his inheritance.

It doesn't matter how old his Mother is .. an act of violence is an act of violence no matter whether it has been caused through illness or just sheer nasty temperedness .. and when you have children in the house, whether it be your own by birth or children you have welcomed into your home to become part of your family, you cannot have the risk of her going off at them and hurting them.

I think everyone will have their own opinion here, but the only thing that IS right is to put yourself, your wife and your children first Ian-K ... your first responsibility is to them and providing a safe environment for them ... and to my mind, that means without your Mother, whether you find a smaller house or whether she leaves!

Don't feel bad about wanting her out ... she has said she wants to go, anyway ... if the money she put into the house was a loan, then get some legal advice and a payment plan put into place so she knows you are willing to pay it back.

If, as I thought by your posts, this was your inheritance, then obviously you have no obligation whatsoever other than to help her find someplace that is decent for her to settle in.

People can carry on about what's right morally and what isn't ... at the end of the day it is your decision but from how I read it, she has said she wants to go ... sort out the money bit IF anything needs sorting out (ie loan or inheritance) then wish her well and get back to a settled and happy family life.

Inheritance is something that is willed to you after death , it isnt a right . The OP's mother could have sold up and spent every penny on herself ( which tbh she shuld have done )

silvercar

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I've been through the adoption process so I know how attached you can get to children placed with your family. However, I find the people on here who suggest that you put the needs of children who have lived with you for 3 months over the woman who has been your mother for 30 odd years seriously disturbing.

A very disturbing attitude. The whole point of adoption is to make the children your own. 3 months down the line you cannot say that something has come up, so the life long commitment made is now to be washed away. I thought the whole point of adopting children is to make them "your own".

Oldernotwiser wrote:

Are people so involved with the generation below them that they feel that the generation who raised them are dispensable? In this particular case, the fact that you've managed to relieve your mother of £174,000 in the process is absolutely shameful.

The obligations work both ways. You have obligations to the generation below you and above you. As they do to you.

MrsAnnie

So the OP has a presumably very nice house, in a good area, with good school for the children - all because of the generosity of the mum 'gifting' him £174K to go towards the house.

Mum needs to go because of fall out -I totally agree with this because of the alleged violent behaviour.

However without giving her most of HER money back (not just £110K either) he has effectively morally stolen HER money to maintain his lifestyle.

Would be very interested to know the courts/law view on this?