Urgent help requied after fathers death

DandelionPatrol

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Adopting an aggressive stance, not for the first time I might add, and trying to score points rather than trying to genuinely help achieves nothing. Assuming what the OP said is correct,and whatever was intended to happen, nearly thirty years ago for reasons unknown, it did not. None of us know why the joint tenancy was no severed but the fact remains is that it was not. Unless some actual evidence as opposed to speculation can be found, after 29 years it is not going to be easy to undo that. Since two solicitors, presumably with access to much more information, cant agree on what to do suggests that there is more to the story than we know exactly how can you be so sure that you have the answer? What I have said has been based just on that the OP said not on speculation of what might have happened. Since the OP has not responded or clarify things there seems little point in continuing to discuss the matter further particularly as you seem unable to discuss matters in a civilized manner.

Really, I do not know what you are on and points scored off you are not worth much. This was NEVER about severing a joint tenancy. It is about remedying a failure to transfer legal ownership. It is quite clear that beneficial ownership has been transferred according to the OP - the only issue is evidencing that. OK, the original letter has probably been lost, but it is quite plain that OP is in with at least a fighting chance, given that mother is quite clear that a letter was written which transferred beneficial ownership.

If you think that there is no answer to be found if 2 solicitors have had a go, then why you ever contributed to this discussion is beyond me. The whole point of the thread is to come up with answers where 2 solicitors have not. If you can't help there, it beats me why you seem intent on knocking down the prospects which OP does have to set this right.

Again, it is a bit rich that you accuse me of not being civilised when you are effectively telling me that I have not read the opening post and accusing me of not genuinely trying to help which is downright insulting. I am not matching that accusation because I believe that you are genuinely trying to help, but you either do not know enough or have not understood the situation or you have some fixation which is standing in the way of understanding what should have been done in the first place. This in turn means that you are incognisant of the real problem.

Mojisola

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

None of us know why the joint tenancy was no severed but the fact remains is that it was not.

Why do you still think that a joint tenancy ever needed to be severed?

getmore4less

From my reading both solicitors have valid methods to solve the problem end up with the same result.

As long as the legal and beneficial ownership ends up correct that's fine.
both options achieve that.

Undoing the past failure to do the transfer is the simple bit as all parties agree.

The outstanding issue may be convincing HMRC on the tax situation.

Which based on what the OP has said is they inherit at DOD value(No CGT on that value).

Yorkshireman99

Mojisola wrote: »

Why do you still think that a joint tenancy ever needed to be severed?

Maybe I have misunderstood what the OP said. AIUI the mother wrote a letter agreeing to give up any claim on the property which she was a JT of. The OP further stated that this was never done so that surely means that the JT continued until the death of the father when the mother became the sole owner by survivorship. Are you saying that is not the case?

BobQ

I can see that the OP having asked for advice must be bemused by the arguments on this thread.

If she is still around can we clarify, is there anyone else with an interest in the house or wishing to inherit it? If not do the mother and children agree what they would like to happen or are the children going to be taking legal action against the mother.

My point is that while there may be a good reason for finding an elegant legal solution that the solicitors can make more money out, is it necessary?

If there is agreement, the mother has the legal right to sell the property as the surviving JT. If she does and gifts the money to the children will everyone be happy. If so this would seem the sensible solution.

We do not have enough information to know if there are other considerations such as Deprivation of Assets. If this is likely to be an issue then the more expensive, elegant solution is worth pursuing. But if she is health is it worth the hassle?

(Dandelion - if you start shouting at me for having the temerity to express my opinion, I will ignore you.)

Mojisola

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Maybe I have misunderstood what the OP said. AIUI the mother wrote a letter agreeing to give up any claim on the property which she was a JT of. The OP further stated that this was never done so that surely means that the JT continued until the death of the father when the mother became the sole owner by survivorship. Are you saying that is not the case?

If she had just severed the tenancy, she would still have remained a part owner of the property.

As she intended to pass complete ownership over to the father, she would have no need to sever the joint tenancy. It doesn't matter that her name remained on the deeds as long as the paperwork is available to show that she gave up her rights to the property.

However, it does save potential problems like this if the deeds are changed at the time.

Yorkshireman99

Surely the only way a joint tenancy can be ended, other than by death, is for it to be severed? Please tell me if I am wrong! Having severed it then the two halves can be disposed of as the owners wish. From what the OP said the mother agreed to sever the JT but this was never done so it remained until the father died. Although it may be convenient, nearly thirty years after the mistake was made, for tax or other reasons, would the court support this? It seems to me that there really is no sound legal reason for the status quo to be overturned just because it would suit some parties to the fiasco.Maybe if we could see exactly what the letter said then matters might be different.

DandelionPatrol

BobQ wrote: »

My point is that while there may be a good reason for finding an elegant legal solution that the solicitors can make more money out, is it necessary?

If there is agreement, the mother has the legal right to sell the property as the surviving JT. If she does and gifts the money to the children will everyone be happy. If so this would seem the sensible solution.

We do not have enough information to know if there are other considerations such as Deprivation of Assets. If this is likely to be an issue then the more expensive, elegant solution is worth pursuing. But if she is health is it worth the hassle?

(Dandelion - if you start shouting at me for having the temerity to express my opinion, I will ignore you.)

Mother is of sound enough mind to know exactly what was intended to happen in 1986. So at this moment in time, we would not expect to have the least idea about whether Deprivation of Assets will come into play. The issue of the transfer of the property needs to be sorted out now, well in advance of Deprivation of Assets coming into play. The fact she is in good health now means

• She is currently well capable of doing a Statutory Declaration to resolve the question of legal ownership
• We have no idea of whether Deprivation of Assets comes into play
• If and when Deprivation of Assets comes into play, it will definitely be too late to sort out beneficial ownership

What is required here is not an 'elegant solution' but a future proof solution.


As for shouting at you, thanks for the opportunity to explain that Yorkshireman was being shouted out for telling me off for not reading the OP, and persisting in an irrelevance when in fact he was completely misconstruing the OP himself.

DandelionPatrol

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Surely the only way a joint tenancy can be ended, other than by death, is for it to be severed? Please tell me if I am wrong!

No. It can be ended by disposal.

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Having severed it then the two halves can be disposed of as the owners wish.

True, but irrelevant

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

From what the OP said the mother agreed to sever the JT but this was never done so it remained until the father died.

Mother never agreed to sever the JT. [Highlights withheld]. She agreed to dispose of her share to Father as part of the Divorce Settlement.

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Although it may be convenient, nearly thirty years after the mistake was made, for tax or other reasons, would the court support this? It seems to me that there really is no sound legal reason for the status quo to be overturned just because it would suit some parties to the fiasco.

The sound reason to overturn the status quo is that OP's mother may be subject to Deprivation of Assets if she disposes of the property in her own name and gives the proceeds to OP and siblings. And that is Deprivation of Assets on an asset which she acknowledges she does not own.

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Maybe if we could see exactly what the letter said then matters might be different.

OP says quite clearly enough

susanmills21 wrote: »

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.

POPPYOSCAR

Mojisola wrote: »

If she had just severed the tenancy, she would still have remained a part owner of the property.

As she intended to pass complete ownership over to the father, she would have no need to sever the joint tenancy. It doesn't matter that her name remained on the deeds as long as the paperwork is available to show that she gave up her rights to the property.

However, it does save potential problems like this if the deeds are changed at the time.

But it is not clear from the OP if the paperwork is available. They say the mother signed a letter, but do they have a copy?


Surely, legally, there would need to be proof?