Charity threatens to contest will

meritaten

Von - lmao - I am NOT doing this on purpose! but its funny isnt it? I have to laugh otherwise I would cry!

puddy

meritaten wrote: »

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.

so it sounds like the freehold was bought by your nan, not the leasehold, but how did you then manage to sell the property in 2 parts? is it because she was owner of the hosue and owner of the freehold separately?

meritaten

look - my nan intended as the houseowner (and eventually the owner of the land too) that the oldest daughter could live there until she died or married and moved out (unlikely). Then the house would be sold and the proceeds divided between the daughters. a charity never entered Nans mind............... the upshot is that NAN has had her way. As usual! Good one NAN!

meritaten

puddy wrote: »

so it sounds like the freehold was bought by your nan, not the leasehold, but how did you then manage to sell the property in 2 parts? is it because she was owner of the hosue and owner of the freehold separately?

Yes - they were never merged - either by accident or design!

kittiej

Is this happening in Wales by any chance? A lot of this leasehold type of thing applies around here lol.

Poor you meri is all I can say, I hope it all works out for your family and you've certainly opened my eyes to a thing about charities.

meritaten

Yes it is Wales - as I said before the land was owned by a mining company - they built the village but for some reason not all the houses were for rent - some were sold! leasehold! the posher houses - which my nans was one.

kittiej

Yes you've just reminded me of something. I used to own a house in a small place - Blaenllechau - and had all the deeds etc including the rent details etc from when the house was built. They were really interesting to read.

My ex DH's family had to buy the leasehold before they could sell their nans house, they also rented an allotment at the rear of the property for 20p a year and someone would come round once a year to collect it lol.

Good luck with this one eh.

Savvy_Sue

Even in London I remember my parents paying Ground Rent, I think to the Duke of Gloucester or some such. Dad wanted to buy the freehold, and said as much to the agent on one occasion, just as legislation was being proposed to allow people to do this whether the 'owner' wanted to sell or not. "Oh, the Duke won't want to do that", was the response, but my dad pointed out that before long he wouldn't have a choice!

daska

meritaten wrote: »

someone said about the intent of the deed of gift to my aunt. ok, I think I know why she was only given the leasehold house. my nan was very confused and muddled and at the time SS were turfing people out of their homes to pay for the homeowners care. Youngest aunt knew that oldest (the deceased aunt whose will has caused all this malarkey) was going to see a solicitor to see if the property could be protected from this. she was told it was sorted - but NOT that the property had been gifted to aunt (my mum and her other sister knew nothing of this). youngest aunt and the solicitor think that this was done and the lease was withheld for the very reason that we are discussing it today. to protect the sisters interest in the property under my NANS will.
the charity have stated that as it was my nans intent to GIVE her daughter the house then she must have meant to include the leasehold - therefore they were entitled to a quarter share. WRONG! nan didnt intend that at all - it was done to prevent my aunt being made homeless and for the remaining sisters to still benefit after my aunts death.
Nan would NEVER have intended any part of the home to go to charity - Aunt was under the wrong impression about the house being hers freehold - but thats her problem!

I think that was me who suggested the Charity might believe that it was logical to gift the freehold along with the lease , it did seem a logical thought process that they might pursue. In some ways I'm glad it is as it sounds as if the solicitors that were involved can evidence that this was not the intention.

Everything makes a lot more sense now LOL, thank you for the update, I hope the Charity back down now and leave you all in peace.

daska

meritaten wrote: »

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

Ditto my nan in 1905 or thereabouts - but we don't even know her adoptive parents' name! Sometimes I find myself staring at the census records wondering exactly which 'next door neighbour' it was that stole her from her mum (was supposed to be temporary but they refused to return her LOL) If you get involved in researching your family tree it's amazing how often you find kids unofficially adopted by neighbours, one of my GGGetc uncles stumped me because I couldn't find his birth certificate, the previous census had a child with the same first name but different surname and it was only when I was looking through their next door neighbours on the census return before that and noticed the family had the matching surname name that I got the clue I needed, sure enough I then found his birth certificate and his mother's death certificate all fitted in.