Tricky situation

puppypants

There is a chance that you poor Dad fully understands what is happening, but is unable to verbalise it due to the stroke.

RAS

Poppops wrote: »

Hi. I've now checked land registry and it doesn't state specifically whether the house is owned jointly or as tenants in common. Both my dad and his partner are listed as owners.

There is also no recorded restriction.

Can I assume from that that they jointly own the house?

Try ringing the Land Registry and askin them to explain the deed to you. If the house is a joint tenancy, then partner gets it all and one has to assume your dad understood this would happen.

Have you spoken to the Publc Guardians Office and tried to get a decent lawyer.

What we have seen in other cases is that the attorney uses a joint account (in their name and that of the donor) into which they transfer assets solely owned by the donor. So they sell some shares and put the proceeds into the joint account instead of the account in the donor's sale name. They get payments of pensions made into the joint account rather than the one in a sole name etc.

That means when the donor dies, the contents of the joint account go entirely to the survivor. One even transferred most of the money from the joint account into one in her own name. All in full sight of the bank.

So there was a will and there was something for the children and grandchildren to inherit but massively less than there would have been had the attorney not stripped the accounts by transferring them via the joint account.

Poppops

puppypants wrote: »

There is a chance that you poor Dad fully understands what is happening, but is unable to verbalise it due to the stroke.

I know, but I try not to think about that.

Poppops

RAS wrote: »

Try ringing the Land Registry and askin them to explain the deed to you. If the house is a joint tenancy, then partner gets it all and one has to assume your dad understood this would happen.

Have you spoken to the Publc Guardians Office and tried to get a decent lawyer.

What we have seen in other cases is that the attorney uses a joint account (in their name and that of the donor) into which they transfer assets solely owned by the donor. So they sell some shares and put the proceeds into the joint account instead of the account in the donor's sale name. They get payments of pensions made into the joint account rather than the one in a sole name etc.


That means when the donor dies, the contents of the joint account go entirely to the survivor. One even transferred most of the money from the joint account into one in her own name. All in full sight of the bank.

So there was a will and there was something for the children and grandchildren to inherit but massively less than there would have been had the attorney not stripped the accounts by transferring them via the joint account.

That's quite shocking isn't it? I mean when you get the paperwork from the court, it kind of makes you feel protected.

Whilst I know what should be done, from your great advice, the fact is that when I suggested once that we take joint attorney, she threatened to cut all ties with him and that's a risk I can't and won't take and she knows that. He has to live out his days in peace.

It is a real shame though.

Thanks again for all the advice and kind words which are much appreciated

RAS

Poppops wrote: »

Whilst I know what should be done, from your great advice, the fact is that when I suggested once that we take joint attorney, she threatened to cut all ties with him and that's a risk I can't and won't take and she knows that. He has to live out his days in peace.

That alone tell you what her intentions are, does it not?