Gifted House

mikey_bach

there is a will Sibling B gets a set sum if A decides to sell, its at As discretion when and if they decide to put it on the market. With the lease in place before the father died, then did this mean that he had capital ie interest in a property, for benefit purposes would he have had to declare this ?
the father paid a token rent after A took it over

Mojisola

mikey_bach wrote: »

there is a will Sibling B gets a set sum if A decides to sell, its at As discretion when and if they decide to put it on the market. With the lease in place before the father died, then did this mean that he had capital ie interest in a property, for benefit purposes would he have had to declare this ?
the father paid a token rent after A took it over

If the property was given to A, it can't be part of the deceased's estate so what the will says is irrelevant.

CLAPTON

Mojisola wrote: »

If the property was given to A, it can't be part of the deceased's estate so what the will says is irrelevant.

as I read it the property wasn't given to A ; the freehold was but
the leasehold (which is the majority of the value) was retained by the father and so was part of his estate when he died.

Mojisola

CLAPTON wrote: »

as I read it the property wasn't given to A ; the freehold was but
the leasehold (which is the majority of the value) was retained by the father and so was part of his estate when he died.

What a messy way of dealing with things.:(

getmore4less

Go back to he solicitor that set this up and get them to tell you what it all means.

Not sure anyone here can help without knowing what this "lease" is.

mikey_bach

the 99 year lease was just a stipulation to make sure the parents could live in the house till they die, the father did so this year. The lease in effect then expired, this is the way it has been explained to me. Thanks everyone for the input. I think A will keep the property and therefore B will not get their share.

Mojisola

getmore4less wrote: »

Go back to he solicitor that set this up and get them to tell you what it all means.

This has got to be worth doing.

booksurr

mikey_bach wrote: »

I think A will keep the property and therefore B will not get their share.

Have you answered the question is there a will?
If there was no will then sibling B is entitled to half of the estate and so it is rather important to sort out if Clapton's view that the lease comprises part of the estate applies because if that is the case then sibling b could make a claim against sibling A for their share and since most the value could be locked up in the house then sibling A may have to sell to raise the money to pay B

there is nothing guaranteed to ruin families quicker than squabbling over inheritances so, as suggested, make sure you understand what the solicitor is saying !

mikey_bach wrote: »

the 99 year lease was just a stipulation to make sure the parents could live in the house till they die, the father did so this year. The lease in effect then expired, this is the way it has been explained to me.

- a lease with a 99 year life is a very different thing to a life interest, the latter would have served the purpose required by your father and patently would have expired on his death, but the language you use suggests the former which does indeed still have an existence of its own for many years yet and therefore is a thing of value owned by the estate

xylophone

The 99 year lease was just a stipulation to make sure the parents could live in the house till they die, the father did so this year.

A 99 year lease is just that? How can it expire unless it had run for 99 years?

I think that the son should take legal advice.

steeeb

Sibling B should seek legal advice. There are to many unknowns explained here to properly advice otherwise - and in any case, a case of Chinese whispers happens by the time it gets on to the forum based on the understanding of everyone involved down the line until it reaches here.

In any case, it seems like this was all a plan to get around inheritance tax, and sibling B is being shafted because of it, in which case he needs to take legal advice and get what he is entitled to.

As pointed out above, this will more than likely end up with sibling A and sibling B falling out whatever the outcome and it'll probably end up with inheritance tax being paid - so all the plan did was split up the children.