Rights re: sale on death?

nebari

I own a half share in a property with my Uncle who lives in the property with his partner.

I have asked to buy out my Uncle and let him and his partner live there rent free until his death (he is in his early 80's at present - his partner is in her 50's). Both my Uncle and partner have agreed to this in principle (need to agree costs etc.).

However (I will be checking with a solicitor too), I want to know if I could be prevented from selling the flat (which I will own 100%) on his death - i.e. would his partner be able to prevent me from doing so?

Background info: His partner has not always got on with my family therefore I am not 100% sure I can trust her word. The only reason I am asking to buy the house is to de-risk her going back on her word to sell her half (when my Uncle leaves it to her) on his death.

I wouldn't be to worried about it, however I have to take out a large mortgage extension to pay for a lot of work on my house for improvements for my disabled daughter, therefore want to negate that as soon as possible. I don't want to get into any long legal wranglings with my Uncle's partner, which may cost me many more costly mortgage payments. =(

TheCyclingProgrammer

Even if the rent is free, you would be wise to have a formal tenancy agreement in place. I can't see how she could stop you selling the property but you would have to go through the correct legal procedures to evict her like any other tenant (S21 notice) and be prepared for it to take anywhere from 2-6 months to evict her depending on how co-operative she is.

nebari

Ok, thanks for the advice.

That is preferable to the alternative, which is not to buy out my Uncle, and let his half pass to her. She has agreed to sell it on his death, however I don't trust her. In this instance, there is no guarantee I could force her to sell.

McKneff

Surely if they have been together for some while, is partner could have some interest in the half property.
How long have they been together, if I may ask.


So she just is told to move out when your Uncle dies.....

theoretica

I think the idea is she is just told to move out - but inherits the cash from half the current value of the house.

An issue which has not been mentioned is if your uncle needs care. I believe the situation is that if the wife continued to live in the property and it was still half owned by your uncle it would not be expected to be sold to pay for care. However if they had money in the bank it would be expected to go towards care.

I wonder if it would be possible for your uncle to write a watertight will not leaving half the house to his wife, but directing it be sold and his share of the money go to her?

nebari

theoretica - Correct, she would receive the cash from the sale of his half of the house.

She is not his wife if that makes any difference?

When I saw a solicitor a while back, he seemed to think that if he needed care then the place could still be sold with her there or not.

Yorkie1

Will you need a mortgage to buy your uncle out of his half? I think some lenders might have a problem with him remaining resident afterwards? Hopefully an expert will be along to clarify this.

Bear in mind that if you do buy your uncle out of his half, your uncle will have no security of tenure in reality; if you had financial difficulties, or split up with your wife/partner, then it would be an asset of yours to be taken into consideration.

Cheeky_Monkey

If the OP's purchase of the house has already gone through before his uncle dies, she would not inherit anything as the uncle no longer owns it.

By the way, they are not married

nebari

I will need a mortgage to buy out my uncle. I went to HSBC today and was told it was problem that he is family, but not direct (i.e. spouse, child). There may be a way around this, due to it being a premium account - they will get back to me on Monday (fingers crossed). Can't quite get my head around the fact I can afford the mortgage easy enough, I will let my uncle stay there for free (he will need no financial help), and I will sell straight away on his death so that the bank get their money back asap, and have made a profit from my mortgage payments (would do it interest only) - also means the government do not need to help me out as much with adaptations required for my daughters needs - seems everybody wins. Stupid rules! :-(

I'm going to get it in writing that I can not sell the property until his death - in terms of my financial stability and may family situation, there are no problems there, and being realistic, I don't believe my uncle will be around for many years.

franklee

TheCyclingProgrammer wrote: »

Even if the rent is free, you would be wise to have a formal tenancy agreement in place. I can't see how she could stop you selling the property but you would have to go through the correct legal procedures to evict her like any other tenant (S21 notice) and be prepared for it to take anywhere from 2-6 months to evict her depending on how co-operative she is.

No the living there rent free wouldn't be an AST so no section 21. If the OP is thinking of a normal BTL mortgage I suspect he would need to collect market rent or the bank will not be happy to lend him the money. At least I'd bet they only lend if it was an AST.
I think the OP would be better off keeping the ownership as is and asking a solicitor if/how he can force a sale when the time comes.

Annisele

nebari wrote: »

Can't quite get my head around the fact I can afford the mortgage easy enough, I will let my uncle stay there for free (he will need no financial help), and I will sell straight away on his death so that the bank get their money back asap, and have made a profit from my mortgage payments (would do it interest only) - also means the government do not need to help me out as much with adaptations required for my daughters needs - seems everybody wins. Stupid rules! :-(

The problem for the bank is if you don't pay. Generally, if the borrower doesn't pay then the lender will (eventually) repossess the house. However, in this case your uncle would have the right to live in the house rent free for the rest of his life. So, does the bank's right to take possession trump your uncle's right to live in the house? That would be for a court to decide, but it's not a situation most banks want to get themselves in.

I suspect there will be a solution to this, but I don't think it will be as simple as "get residential mortgage in own single name and buy out uncle".