Charity threatens to contest will

meritaten

my Nan purchased the lease in the seventies the house was bought for her by her parents in 1953. but it wasnt mentioned specifically in the deed of gift (deliberately, we think). she purchased it in the seventies and I actually have the receipt! it wasnt merged as I dont think my nan would have realised that this could be done. or she may have thought that holding the deeds and this document was enough. after all she couldnt have foreseen that she would suffer from alzhiemers or that this situation would happen.

FatVonD

DVardysShadow wrote: »

But it is still confusing. You seem to be using the term leasehold and freehold interchangeably.

I agree, and just when I thought I understood it all!

DVardysShadow

meritaten wrote: »

my Nan purchased the lease in the seventies the house was bought for her by her parents in 1953. but it wasnt mentioned specifically in the deed of gift (deliberately, we think). she purchased it in the seventies and I actually have the receipt! it wasnt merged as I dont think my nan would have realised that this could be done. or she may have thought that holding the deeds and this document was enough. after all she couldnt have foreseen that she would suffer from alzhiemers or that this situation would happen.

When you say she purchased the lease, you do mean freehold surely? The lease would have been bought in 1953 for her to live there.

In the event, it seems that by not extinguishing the lease and giving the lease to the aunt, but withholding the freehold, she has saved the day.

Your explanation about the solicitor being the aunt's executor clarifies why the house was initially sold only as leasehold. The impression I had was that the freehold had only been gained recently.

To see the charity off, you need to be sure that they cannot argue that the freehold was passed to the aunt under the deed of gift. I hope that works out for you.

FatVonD

meritaten wrote: »

my Nan purchased the lease in the seventies the house was bought for her by her parents in 1953. but it wasnt mentioned specifically in the deed of gift (deliberately, we think). she purchased it in the seventies and I actually have the receipt! it wasnt merged as I dont think my nan would have realised that this could be done. or she may have thought that holding the deeds and this document was enough. after all she couldnt have foreseen that she would suffer from alzhiemers or that this situation would happen.

Do you mean your nan purchased the freehold? Her parents had presumably already bought the lease by buying a leasehold house?

meritaten

I am sorry about the confusion about the leasehold and freehold. they are two separate entities and I have to say that the more I research them the more confused I get!
as far as I understand it the house was purchased by nans parents (and get this - they werent really her parents - just unofficially adopted her) in 1953. Nan decides that she is fed up paying ground rent so contacts the landowners. they sell her the ground and in the receipt I am pretty sure its called the leasehold. It looks like a grocery receipt! one very small peice of paper and it just says something like - leasehold for 3 ******N ********* . Nan had the deeds to the house in her dressing table drawer of all places! until she is diagnosed with alzhiemers - for safetys sake the deeds were put in daughters safety deposit box in bank. but the reciept for the land were with nans precious pics etc and was only found when the solicitors dealing with aunts will asked who was the leaseholder? jeez - the last couple of years have been a nightmare. Aunt also had Alzhiemers and the house was empty for 18 months. it doesnt help that two of the sisters are very fragile and their memories are NOT reliable.

Savvy_Sue

FatVonD wrote: »

Are you yourself entitled to Legal Aid, could you fight this in the role of executor without the costs being taken from your aunts inheritance?

I could be wrong, and it's not immediately clear from the http://www.communitylegaladvice.org.uk/ link given earlier, but I didn't think you could get legal aid for this kind of thing.

FatVonD wrote: »

If they didn't accept this I'd have no hesitation in going to the press about it, a Charity seeking to deprive three old ladies of money when they have already received more than each of the ladies, they'd love it. If the nationals didn't take it then the likes of 'Take a Break' etc would.

I'm not so sure. As I said before, the trustees of a charity HAVE to pursue legacies. Whether they always do so wisely, whether the legal battles are cost effective, whether they are 'entitled' to do so in this case, I shall leave to wiser heads (because mine is in a spin from all this!)

But if they are made aware of a legacy, they would be negligent to do nothing about it.

My advice, if you find yourself executing a will with a bequest to charity, is to send the cheque when you are good and ready and the estate is settled. I don't believe you HAVE to tell the charity straight away. We received a legacy at work not long ago which we had absolutely no idea was coming: the person died about 5 years ago! I dare say we should consider asking to see the will to check that we have received what was intended: that seems a bit rude, but it might be what the trustees 'should' do!

puddy

but if she bought the lease, she would still pay ground rent, thats what you pay if for. do you mean she bought the freehold, then she would own the 'land'??

DVardysShadow

meritaten wrote: »

I am sorry about the confusion about the leasehold and freehold. they are two separate entities and I have to say that the more I research them the more confused I get!
as far as I understand it the house was purchased by nans parents (and get this - they werent really her parents - just unofficially adopted her) in 1953. Nan decides that she is fed up paying ground rent so contacts the landowners. they sell her the ground and in the receipt I am pretty sure its called the leasehold. It looks like a grocery receipt! one very small peice of paper and it just says something like - leasehold for 3 ******N ********* .

Ah, I can see how the confusion arises. Nan not so much concerned to buy the freehold but to pay off the ground rent, once and for all. So she has the lease and asks if she can 'buy out the lease'. Hence the wording on the receipt. And this is actually implemented by transferring the freehold [which includes the right to collect ground rent].

FatVonD

meritaten wrote: »

as far as I understand it the house was purchased by nans parents

So, if they bought it and she was having to pay ground rent they purchased the house leasehold

meritaten wrote: »

Nan decides that she is fed up paying ground rent so contacts the landowners. they sell her the ground and in the receipt I am pretty sure its called the leasehold.

If she was paying them ground rent then they were the freeholders so it was the freehold she bought off of them.

meritaten wrote: »

It looks like a grocery receipt! one very small peice of paper and it just says something like - leasehold for 3 ******N ********* .

Do check it as it shouldn't do (not if it's from that date in the '70s)

meritaten wrote: »

(and get this - they werent really her parents - just unofficially adopted her) in 1953.

Now you're doing it on purpose

meritaten

puddy - I can only tell you what I know. she didnt pay ground rent after she bought the 'ground'. I was only a little girl at the time. my mother paid no mind to any of this so its no use asking her, and the other daughters didnt live there. even oldest aunt didnt live there! she lived with grandparents until her thirties and then came to live with Nan.
This is what I remember my nan telling me. and I was a child at the time! and it was over 40 years ago! so my memories may be faulty.