property held in trust due to a will

Bossyboots

I agree with jenniferpa on this issue of the lodger etc. The clause is simple (as it has been explained here) in that it is not stating the spouse cannot have someone to live with them, just not in that house. This would be called a trigger event and cause the property to have to be sold. It is quite a sensible clause because bringing in another cohabitee/spouse who could then acquire rights themselves over part of the property would mean that the property does not pass on in a timely fashion when the remaining spouse does.

As far as the sons are concerned, the situation of one coming back on the scene and them being comfortable is pretty much a recipe for a push at a parent in relation to "their inheritance". Be careful this is not another instance of you seeing the good in people and overlooking their involvement in the whole thing.

Dora_the_Explorer_5

Life gets complicated doesn't it. It's worth remembering that it's often easy to cheat family because they never expect it.

robnye

a little update.

this subject came up in conversation with my wife and MIL (not step MIL as mentioned above)
my wife says if step MIL wanted to sell up and pay off, then she wouldnt stop her. this seems to be the only real way out of the situation step MIL is in, also this doesnt go against the will, as the will states while she is living in the property.

and there was me thinking my wife would have a blue fit....... oh well

culpepper

The money which was inherited by your Wife and her brother has remained invested in the house surely.So the amount would be 50% of the value of the house,whenever it is sold,not of the value of the house on their fathers death. If the step Mother had sold the house at once and paid them their inheritance,they could have invested it for the 4 years (possibly in property)they have waited for it and it would have grown.

mountainofdebt

This case is so like the one I'm involved in its uncanny!

In my situation my relative's father's partner (stay with me!) is allowed to stay in what was the family home provided she doesn't co-habit, have lodgers etc and on the sale of the property, she is given a %age of the proceeds.

I assume that the conditions are legal - the deceased did go to a solicitor to get his will drawn up and I personally think they are fair. They don't condemn the surviving partner to a life time of loneliness .......they merely protected my relatives' inheritance - after all how many threads are on MSE about people losing part of their home to people who quite scruplelessly have moved in for only a few years etc?

If these conditions are unfair they are unfair on the relatives who are not in the house......I mean without camping outside the house, who is to know whether or not there are lodgers there or whether she has the male version of a harem living there????