Tenants in common

margaretclare

home_alone wrote: »

Yes I want my (our) house to go to the kids why not, you have taken a worst case scenario, I would like to believe that my kids can come to some agreement when we have gone. I have advised them to sell and half the proceeds. We have always made sure that each of our two get more or less the same gifts etc, its a much easier life that way.

Our wills are written with wording like 'my executors...will have full powers to sell call in convert into money' ...and then it will all get shared out. After all, none of the beneficiaries under our wills would actually want to live here, all 3 of the next generation have their own homes, and the 5 beneficiaries (the third generation) would much prefer to have a money windfall rather than have the hassle of selling and splitting the proceeds.

Yes, I have taken a 'worst case scenario'. A solicitor whom I greatly respected once said to me 'You only have to sit in this chair for a while to see the very worst in human nature'. I've never forgotten her words, and I've seen a lot of 'worst case scenarios'. You may believe your 'kids' can come to some arrangement when you've gone, but you won't be around to see it, will you?

Margaret

margaretclare

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We only have one son (27); he is single, has no children and may never have; he is not in a position to have his own home. Who is going to inherit our house if he doesn't? We would like him to have it! What's wrong with that? And what is wrong with trying to protect it for him as much as we can?

It is perhaps more understandable that you should want your son to inherit your house. He's likely to want to live in it. That makes sense, that I can see.

I agree that what suits one family will not suit another.

One thing I do know, if my husband died I would keep the house in my name even if I remarried, or possibly mine and my son's, - I would not want someone else's family to benefit from what my husband and I built up and what by right should go to our son or his family. I know Margaret Clare has made a different decision, that is entirely her right, but I don't think we should make blanket decisions on this - what is right for one family is definitely not right for all.

Yes, it's true I made a different decision. It was based on what we said to each other on our wedding day 'all that I am I give you, all that I have I share with you'. I could not say that and then, in the next breath, say 'oh but I'm not going to put your name on the deeds. Although I said all that I have I share with you, that doesn't extend to the roof over your head. And all the work that you've done to improve this place counts for nothing'.

It's an either/or! I could not say, in front of God as we believe, 'all that I have I share with you' and then not do it.

The way we have left our wills is, we believe, the only fair way to deal with all 5 of our biological descendents, his and mine. I can't say 'what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine too'. Just could not do it!

The way our savings and investments are growing, we may yet be able to afford that platinum level nursing home to end our days in!

Margaret

Willman_Rodders

Hi Elliebean,

You asked earlier ...
Can you explain why you see Nil Rate Band Discretionary Trusts as being ineffective at protecting property from LTC fees please?

If you read my post I state ...
These [NRB DT] trusts however are not so effective at protecting the property from being sold to fund Long Term Care.

A subtle difference but important; I don't state the NRB DT will not work.


I know of three reasons why I perceive an IIP trust to be better suited than a NRB DT to protecting a property from being forcibly sold to fund long-term-care costs. I do not intend to publish them on this website - for the same reason I guess that other will writers do not publish the information on their sites. As a willwriter yourself you'll understand.

seven-day-weekend

margaretclare wrote: »

It is perhaps more understandable that you should want your son to inherit your house. He's likely to want to live in it. That makes sense, that I can see.

I agree that what suits one family will not suit another.



Yes, it's true I made a different decision. It was based on what we said to each other on our wedding day 'all that I am I give you, all that I have I share with you'. I could not say that and then, in the next breath, say 'oh but I'm not going to put your name on the deeds. Although I said all that I have I share with you, that doesn't extend to the roof over your head. And all the work that you've done to improve this place counts for nothing'.

It's an either/or! I could not say, in front of God as we believe, 'all that I have I share with you' and then not do it.

The way we have left our wills is, we believe, the only fair way to deal with all 5 of our biological descendents, his and mine. I can't say 'what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine too'. Just could not do it!

The way our savings and investments are growing, we may yet be able to afford that platinum level nursing home to end our days in!

Margaret

Actually Margaret I agree with you that I could not make those promises to someone and then not allow him a share of my house.

Therefore, I suppose if I was widowed, I would not make those promises to anyone else. As far as I'm concerned, my home is mine and my husband's. We worked and paid for it (and in his case had severe mental health problems whilst doing so). I just COULDN''T give it to anyone else's family, it would not be right, it should be for our son. As you say it would be hypocritical to make those promises and then not share my home (my son's home really). So I just wouldn't get married again, or I'd sign the house over to my son before doing so. (Then it wouldn't be mine to make any promises about).

However, I realise that these decisions are very personal, and we must each act according to our conscience.

oap

I agree with you seven day, there is no way someone elses family will get our house, like you we slaved away paying the mortgage, nothing is owed on it, and we have promised each other after one passes on the other will not remarry unless the house is sorted for our son. We know of two cases of friends, one was widowed and met a nice lady whom he married, twelve months later she upped and went and he had to pay her off or share the house, the other was also widowed and the same thing happened, and they learned the hard way, the laws are so different now about divorce.

Lots of folk of our age who have been widowed both ladies and gentlemen, in fact quite a few gentlemen, keep their own house, live in their own house, but go on holiday together, spend time together in each others houses,go on trips etc, but that is where it stops, a good idea.

Regards to all oap

ps it still has got us no nearer what to do to make sure our son gets our house or at least some of it, so still reading and thinking.

Can anybody tell us which way is the best, ie to go to a financial adviser, or a solicitor? Thanks

Errata

Snap OAP, what you described happened to someone I know. It was kinda worse because his first wife's cash paid for 3/4 of the house.
It seems to me that a solicitor would be best for tying things up so they're legally watertight. And very easily sued if they get it wrong, I guess.
A solicitor will also be aware of the ins and outs of what a council could claw back if it funded care, and also things like the mental capacity act, which a FA might not be. To be honest very few people need residential or nursing care, and there is increasingly far more support in the community to ensure people can be independent and continue to live in their homes.

A solicitor will also be able to ensure your wills are in order and draw up new ones if necessary and give you information on Power of Attorney, which is something you might want to have done.

seven-day-weekend

oap wrote: »

we have promised each other after one passes on the other will not remarry unless the house is sorted for our son.

We have done this too.

I would also expect anyone I might consider marrying to do the same for his family (although actually I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to marry anyone else).

EdInvestor

oap wrote: »

ps it still has got us no nearer what to do to make sure our son gets our house or at least some of it, so still reading and thinking.

IMHo there's not really any need to do anything, other than make simple wills leaving everything to spouse and then son. The house and savings are under the inheritance tax level, so you can ignore that.

If you hold the property as joint tenants, and one dies, the other gets it automatically. If care is required (and usually it is not), I would suggest using equity release to get money out of the property to buy an immediate needs annuity to fund any shortfall.The council is not then involved.The remaining value of the property would go to the son on the second death.

margaretclare

I agree with you seven day, there is no way someone elses family will get our house, like you we slaved away paying the mortgage, nothing is owed on it, and we have promised each other after one passes on the other will not remarry unless the house is sorted for our son. We know of two cases of friends, one was widowed and met a nice lady whom he married, twelve months later she upped and went and he had to pay her off or share the house, the other was also widowed and the same thing happened, and they learned the hard way, the laws are so different now about divorce.

Oh good heavens. What a crowd of nay-sayers. And all for the sake of a pile of bricks-and-mortar. I'm reminded of all the elderly widows I used to know at the church I used to go to at the time I got together with DH. 'He's left 2 women, he'll leave you' - not knowing, understanding or caring just WHY he had left them! And 'I wouldn't want another man in my home, in my bed, why can't you be content to be a widow and live on your memories?'

Why? Because life is for living, because looking forward is better than looking back, that the best may yet be still to come. And in fact, so it has proved.

Lots of folk of our age who have been widowed both ladies and gentlemen, in fact quite a few gentlemen, keep their own house, live in their own house, but go on holiday together, spend time together in each others houses,go on trips etc, but that is where it stops, a good idea.

DH could not have 'kept his own house'. He walked out on it, walked out on 'all he had worked for and built up', the bricks-and-mortar, the furniture, the home improvements he'd paid for. And why? To get away from an abusive relationship in which he was not respected, with a woman he could not trust. 'Trust and Respect' are his watchwords, and he had neither. Knowing what he was going through I invited him to move in with me, and he did - arrived on my doorstep like a refugee with all his worldly goods packed into his rusty old car. All the worldly goods that he could carry away with him amounted to not much more than a few bags of clothes and his precious tool-box. Seeing him standing on my doorstep that wet November night, and what he said to me, is an abiding memory. What he did have was an ability and a willingness to work, and in fact he did work, for another 4 years. Whatever he had he put into our home here, and our relationship, just as much as anything that had gone before. In fact, we're better off now than we've ever been, together or apart, and that's why we're still able to save.

So, going on trips etc would not 'cut it'. He could have stayed where he was for the sake of bricks-and-mortar and furniture (and in fact I know another man in an abusive marriage who is doing just that). But, he's convinced, either he would have lost control and killed her, in which case he'd be in jail, or she would have killed him.

Going on trips together can't compare with the loving companionship, the closeness, the fact that there's someone there if one of us wakes in the night, the joy of waking up together and seeing another new day to enjoy in each other's company.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We have done this too.

I would also expect anyone I might consider marrying to do the same for his family (although actually I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to marry anyone else).

I said the same 10+ years ago, 7DW. It was a trillions-to-one chance that brought DH and I together. If anyone had said to me 'you'll fall in love all over again aged 62' I would have said 'you're off your trolley'.

In the last weeks of my first husband's life, when I was told I was being made redundant and wondering what to do, what jobs to apply for, he said 'The time has gone when you need to take me into consideration in the choices and decisions you make'. So, he made no conditions at all about my not marrying again.

One thing DH and I are pretty certain about. Tying up this property in trusts would be irrelevant for us because neither of us would want to stay here if/when one of us is left on his/her own. The memories would be just too painful. DH says he doesn't need very much - a bedsit somewhere will do. I have considered selling up and moving into rented sheltered accommodation somewhere. Hanging on to bricks-and-mortar just for the sake of who to leave it to is not in our thinking.

DH is the most un-materialistic of men, and that's really surprising, given that the ethnic group he comes from is a byword for love of money and possessions (and I don't mean the Scots!) It wasn't his idea to have the title put into joint names - it was mine. He has always said that he wanted nothing out of my 'estate', that wasn't why he's here. He's not in favour of leaving inheritances behind - as he says, no one ever left us a penny-piece. Whatever we have now, and whatever we save, will be used primarily for our comfort, and if that means the platinum-grade nursing home that Kittie mentioned, then so be it.

I wonder how many men would have the courage and resolution he showed, at age 62, walk away from the known - the abusive marriage as well as the bricks-and-mortar - into the unknown? He brought with him little except his skills, his intelligence and his willingness to work. He gave up his share of the equity in the Nottingham bungalow in return for keeping his Scottish Widows annuity. The bungalow has probably gained £100K in value, his annuity is worth £260 a month net of tax. The annuity goes on for his lifetime and he reckons he had the best of the bargain.

One thing is for sure - both of us would be the poorer in all senses if we'd been alone for the last 10 years and not together. We have certainly had the 'in sickness and in health' bit over the last 10 years and it still goes on.

I looked at him sitting beside me in church this morning and, as I often do, I thanked God. I thought 'I love this man so much - where would I have been if I'd never heard of him?' I put my hand on his, and he turned and smiled at me. It's worth all the bricks-and-mortar in the world.

Margaret

seven-day-weekend

Margaret, I agree absolutely that a happy marriage with the man you love is worth far, far more than any bricks and mortar. There is nothing else that can compare. I'm glad that you have found love again, and are happy in your marriage.

Which is WHY, if my husband died, I wouldn't want the house to go to someone else's family. It's BECAUSE I love him and we have a happy marriage. It would seem like a betrayal of all we'd done together. It should imo be for HIS son, not someone else's - that's what we worked together for.

Also, I would like to add that neither of us have made 'conditions' about the other one marrying again should the worst happen. It's just that we both feel the same about things we've worked for together.

Just as an example, I don't see why Heather Mills should have half of P McC's fortune when he built most of it up with Linda. It should be for Linda's children/grandchildren imho.

But I appreciate that people have very different views (and very different circumstances, Margaret Claire), so it is good that we have a choice in these matters.

I'm glad you were able to make what was for you obviously the right decision. I've just tried to explain another point of view.

I wish you well.