Brother Wants To Purchase Mum's Council House..........

candytwinkle

McKneff wrote: »

He wont necessarily inherit.; the house belonged to your mother,. If she made a will, check it out. If she did not make a will, the estate including the house will be shared between her children. You need to check if she made a will. And then see a lawyer, most will give you half an hour free consultation.

Thanks for reply. She definitely made a will, my brother went with mum to the solicitor when dad died. He's probably got it all sorted in his favour but I will wait and see.

duchy

UnderPressure wrote: »

My goal is to make sure my Mum will be OK no matter what happens, she is 70 this year but is not like you old fashioned 70 year old, she is as strong as an ox apart from hating retirement she is very well, she is more like 50 than 70, I know this could change at any time but there is nothing we know of on the horizon to think she is "frail" in any way.

You could be me talking about my Mum - right up to the day she was taken ill. There are NO guarentees with health as we get older -and certainly not enough to base lifelong housing upon.

Lord_Baltimore

Running_Horse wrote: »

Indignant responses and flak. Bit sensitive aren't we? This is a message board. You suggested people buy council houses to preserve memories, and you got an opposing point of view that social housing should be there to provide homes for the next generation. I don't know what you are real like in real life, but I like to hear both sides of a story. It seems clear this particular elderly lady has nothing much to gain and an awful lot to lose by this scheme.

I'm not sensitive at all! I suggested that the family might choose to purchase a home that has been part of their lives for decades on the assumption that the family would continue to use it as a home. Neither I, nor you, know all the circumstances here.

The provision of homes for the next generation is another issue.

As a taxpayer, I may not necessarily agree with working tax credit, child benefit, housing benefit or any one of a whole raft of subsidies but it doesn't colour my opinion on every issue.

If the family can buy the house and it is legal for them to do so (though morally wrong in your opinion) why shouldn't they do so?

duchy wrote: »

Indeed and if the occupants choose to buy the house to live in -that's fine but that isn't the scenario here. It isn't the tenants buying it's a man who wishes to treat social housing as his own personal overseas investment to the detriment of his mother's best interests if her housing needs change over time. I suspect if her son was *that* emotionally attached to the house he'd not have chosen to live at least 3000 miles away from it (and his mother and siblings).

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what the man's intentions are; you're making suppositions imo.

duchy

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

I'm not sensitive at all! I suggested that the family might choose to purchase a home that has been part of their lives for decades on the assumption that the family would continue to use it as a home. Neither I, nor you, know all the circumstances here.

The provision of homes for the next generation is another issue.

As a taxpayer, I may not necessarily agree with working tax credit, child benefit, housing benefit or any one of a whole raft of subsidies but it doesn't colour my opinion on every issue.

If the family can buy the house and it is legal for them to do so (though morally wrong in your opinion) why shouldn't they do so?



Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what the man's intentions are; you're making suppositions imo.

See my post above .....to claim that there is an emotional connection when the actual (if not legal) purchaser lives three thousand plus miles away from the family he is supposedly emotional attached to -and hasn't spoken to one of his siblings for years until very recently and has only once bought his Mum air tickets to visit somewhat weakens your argument in this situation however.

Playing Devil's Advocate is all very well....but it helps if you base it on reality rather than some imagined emotional attachment that is really just a long term off shore investment than may compromise his mother's physical and mental health if her needs change as she ages.

Plenty of children think as you do - without putting their parent's needs first as they are dazzled by the thought of a better inheritance. Doesn't make it right though.

Lord_Baltimore

duchy wrote: »

See my post above .....to claim that there is an emotional connection when the actual (if not legal) purchaser lives three thousand plus miles away from the family he is supposedly emotional attached to -and hasn't spoken to one of his siblings for years until very recently and has only once bought his Mum air tickets to visit somewhat weakens your argument in this situation however.

Playing Devil's Advocate is all very well....but it helps if you base it on reality rather than some imagined emotional attachment that is really just a long term off shore investment than may compromise his mother's physical and mental health if her needs change as she ages.

Again, you make supposition.

Perhaps this man moved away to better himself and is now in a position to secure a home for members of his family. Perhaps he will allow them to live in it free of charge as he lives abroad. Perhaps he wants to come home and to his home.

All possibilities like your suppositions but who knows eh? Hopefully food for thought for the OP.

duchy wrote: »

Plenty of children think as you do - without putting their parent's needs first as they are dazzled by the thought of a better inheritance. Doesn't make it right though.

You added a bit. Are we here to provide moral guidance then?

duchy

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not entirely sure what the man's intentions are; you're making suppositions imo.

Drawing logical conclusions from a raft of evidence presented that he doesn't have a physical or emotional presence of any substance in his family's life is not making suppositions.

Lord_Baltimore

duchy wrote: »

Drawing logical conclusions from a raft of evidence presented that he doesn't have a physical or emotional presence of any substance in his family's life is not making suppositions.

Well, Columbo, I don't think we have all the evidence which is why it is possible to draw other conclusions.

duchy

Lord_Baltimore wrote: »

Again, you make supposition.

Perhaps this man moved away to better himself and is now in a position to secure a home for members of his family. Perhaps he will allow them to live in it free of charge as he lives abroad. Perhaps he wants to come home and to his home.

All possibilities like your suppositions but who knows eh? Hopefully food for thought for the OP.



You added a bit. Are we here to provide moral guidance then?

Excuse me?
You are suggesting he charges his mother rent on her own home ??? Have you read the thread? The Mother will be the homeowner and he expects her to bequeath the property to him. Why on earth would she pay him ???? His intention once she dies is to sell the house or (according to the OP) maybe live in it if he ever decides to leave the US .

You're either nuts or trolling -conversation over. I've drawn my own conclusions about you !

Lord_Baltimore

duchy wrote: »

Excuse me?
You are suggesting he charges his mother rent on her own home ??? Have you read the thread? The Mother will be the homeowner and he expects her to bequeath the property to him. Why on earth would she pay him ???? His intention once she dies is to sell the house or (according to the OP) maybe live in it if he ever decides to leave the US .

You're either nuts or trolling -conversation over. I've drawn my own conclusions about you !

Try to remain rational. Many children act the way you do, stamping their feet when they cannot impose their will.

My reference was to his family not his mother.

I am neither nuts nor trolling; can you continue an adult discussion without tantrums please?

duchy

Nice try- doesn't work with me though-I cut my internet teeth on newsgroups.

What part of "Conversation over " did you not comprehend ?