Urgent help requied after fathers death

susanmills21

My father passed away in June 2015 it turns out that after my parents divorced in 1986, they settled all finances and mum signed a letter to say that she had a full and final settlement and her name would be removed from the title deeds to the house. We have now found out that this never happened and her name remains as a joint tenant. Mum is adamant that the house does not belong to her but we are having trouble getting the house put into dads estate. This has cost a couple of thousand pounds to a solicitor up till now and we are no further along. The house is minimal value around 80k can this be rectified and the property put into my dads estate ? does anyone know ? any help much appreciated.

Yorkshireman99

susanmills21 wrote: »

My father passed away in June 2015 it turns out that after my parents divorced in 1986, they settled all finances and mum signed a letter to say that she had a full and final settlement and her name would be removed from the title deeds to the house. We have now found out that this never happened and her name remains as a joint tenant. Mum is adamant that the house does not belong to her but we are having trouble getting the house put into dads estate. This has cost a couple of thousand pounds to a solicitor up till now and we are no further along. The house is minimal value around 80k can this be rectified and the property put into my dads estate ? does anyone know ? any help much appreciated.

If your mother was joint tenant then the house now belongs to her. What has the solicitor said and what has he done for his £2K?

susanmills21

Hi the solicitor has drawn up a title change form to transfer the house into my brother and sister and myself s name.He also told us that capital gains tax would be payable if we sell the property. Another lawyer has said that the house should have gone through probate and been ascended to us ?by means of my mother transferring it to us ? or that some rectification should be done now as the house is clearly not my mums and that this could be proved? I We are completely lost as to what to do next?

Yorkshireman99

susanmills21 wrote: »

Hi the solicitor has drawn up a title change form to transfer the house into my brother and sister and myself s name.He also told us that capital gains tax would be payable if we sell the property. Another lawyer has said that the house should have gone through probate and been ascended to us ?by means of my mother transferring it to us ? or that some rectification should be done now as the house is clearly not my mums and that this could be proved? I We are completely lost as to what to do next?

Sorry to say this does not make sense. If, as you say, your mother was a joint tenant then she now owns the house outright. Assuming that is correct then what your mother needs to do, if she wishe sis gift the house to you and your brother. Capital cains tax would only be payable on the gain between the value at the date of transfer and the sale price less the capital gains tax allowance. If the solicitors can't tell you then the is little chance of getting an answer here. It is not cealr why two lawyers are involved. I suggest you go back to them and ask for clarificaton on what is going on.

DandelionPatrol

What I think is required is a statutory declaration from mother as to what should have happened and did not - ie that the house should have been transferred to father as part of the divorce. That should put the property into father's estate where it can be dealt with.

The discussion about the house being Joint Tenants should be entirely moot, because plainly, by the time of father's death, this should have been sorted out and mother should have been out of the picture.

Yorkshireman99

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

What I think is required is a statutory declaration from mother as to what should have happened and did not - ie that the house should have been transferred to father as part of the divorce. That should put the property into father's estate where it can be dealt with.

The discussion about the house being Joint Tenants should be entirely moot, because plainly, by the time of father's death, this should have been sorted out and mother should have been out of the picture.

This is not an unusual problem with joint tenancies. If one tenant fails to sever the JT then this sort of situation regularly occurs. It certainly is not moot. Unless there are any potential IHT issues then what you suggest would be pointless. The mother can just gift the house without any need to do anything more complex that would be a waste of time effort and money.

DandelionPatrol

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

This is not an unusual problem with joint tenancies. If one tenant fails to sever the JT then this sort of situation regularly occurs. It certainly is not moot. Unless there are any potential IHT issues then what you suggest would be pointless. The mother can just gift the house without any need to do anything more complex that would be a waste of time effort and money.

Far from pointless. What you suggest makes this a gift from mother with IHT implications and also a risk of Deprivation of Assets.

What is required is to get this property seen to be part of father's estate and dealt with accordingly. The whole idea is to make the issue of Joint Tenancy moot.

nb, this is nothing to do with severance of Joint Tenancy. It is about mother renouncing her title in favour of father

Yorkshireman99

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

Far from pointless. What you suggest makes this a gift from mother with IHT implications and also a risk of Deprivation of Assets.

What is required is to get this property seen to be part of father's estate and dealt with accordingly. The whole idea is to make the issue of Joint Tenancy moot.

nb, this is nothing to do with severance of Joint Tenancy. It is about mother renouncing her title in favour of father

Sorry to say that you are competely wrong based on the information given by the OP. If the property was held as JT then it is crystal clear that it now belongs to the mother. If, and only if, it was held as tenants in common would it form part of the father's estate. Why do you think the courts would seek to alter the routine course of events? The mistake, if mistake it was, that the father made was not to sever the JT. As I said before this sort of situation commonly occurs but that is no reason attempt to overrule the normal legal process. It unfortunate for those involved but that does not alter the underlying rules.

DandelionPatrol

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Sorry to say that you are competely wrong based on the information given by the OP. If the property was held as JT then it is crystal clear that it now belongs to the mother. If, and only if, it was held as tenants in common would it form part of the father's estate. Why do you think the courts would seek to alter the routine course of events? The mistake, if mistake it was, that the father made was not to sever the JT. As I said before this sort of situation commonly occurs but that is no reason attempt to overrule the normal legal process. It unfortunate for those involved but that does not alter the underlying rules.

On the contrary, it is you who are wrong based on the information in the OP.

Mother is adamant that the house does not belong to her, she signed it away and it appears that she is still entirely consistent with her renunciation of the title and willing to testify that she has no interest in the house.

Severing the Joint Tenancy is entirely missing the point. If the Joint Tenancy were severed, that would have left Mother as a 50% owner at this point, when really she should be a 0% owner. So the problem would still persist.

What is required is to attempt to unravel the omission of all those years ago.

Yorkshireman, do you or do you not agree that if things were done correctly all those years ago, Mother would now own 0%?

Tigsteroonie

I can see why the OP is confused - not only are two solicitors involved in the estate in disagreement as to how to proceed, but so are experienced posters on MSE.

Yorkshireman99

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

On the contrary, it is you who are wrong based on the information in the OP.

Mother is adamant that the house does not belong to her, she signed it away and it appears that she is still entirely consistent with her renunciation of the title and willing to testify that she has no interest in the house.

Severing the Joint Tenancy is entirely missing the point. If the Joint Tenancy were severed, that would have left Mother as a 50% owner at this point, when really she should be a 0% owner. So the problem would still persist.

What is required is to attempt to unravel the omission of all those years ago.

Yorkshireman, do you or do you not agree that if things were done correctly all those years ago, Mother would now own 0%?

No I don't. What might have happened, or someone considers should have happened, or what the mother believes happened, is not relevant. The OP states that according to the deeds/LR entry her mother is the surviving JT, and assuming she is correct, that is definitive proof of ownership. Her mother may believe otherwise but that does not alter the legal position. It may well be that her mother does not fully understand the concept of JT and the consequences when one JT dies without severing it. It may also be the case that the father did not understand the need to sever the JT. I cannot see the courts intervening to change matters.