Urgent help requied after fathers death

Mojisola

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

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?

If the original paperwork has been lost, the mother could sign a Statutory Declaration.

As the couple divorced in 1986 and the mother has had no interest in the property since then, there's no reason for a declaration not to be accepted.

getmore4less

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?

You are only considering the legal ownership,

What matters is the beneficial ownership.

Yorkshireman99

getmore4less wrote: »

You are only considering the legal ownership,

What matters is the beneficial ownership.

Wrong. Without the full facts, such as the exact details of what the mother agreed to, and what the divorce settlement was , it is not possible to say. That is why I have been saying that speculation on what might be the case, without the facts, is unhelpful.

DandelionPatrol

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Wrong. Without the full facts, such as the exact details of what the mother agreed to, and what the divorce settlement was , it is not possible to say. That is why I have been saying that speculation on what might be the case, without the facts, is unhelpful.

here you go, the facts from the OP

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. 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

Once Mother signed that letter, an implied trust was created with Mother as trustee and Father as beneficiary. Which means that, as GM4L is saying, Father became beneficial owner of the property, although the property remained legally owned by Mother and Father as JT's.

The only fact for you to dispute are whether the OP is truthful [which we take as read] and whether Mother signed the letter. OP is quite clear on this and Mother is too. So, dispute as much as you like, if that letter turns up, the legal ownership can be rectified, and if it does not, a Statutory Declaration from Mother should do the trick.

getmore4less

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Wrong. Without the full facts, such as the exact details of what the mother agreed to, and what the divorce settlement was , it is not possible to say. That is why I have been saying that speculation on what might be the case, without the facts, is unhelpful.

You might as well stop posting on any thread if you won't taking anything any poster says at face value, even extracts from wills are just speculation in your word without the full will.


In all cases the beneficial interest is what determines who really owns a house, to ignore that is what is being unhelpful.

Yorkshireman99

getmore4less wrote: »

You might as well stop posting on any thread if you won't taking anything any poster says at face value, even extracts from wills are just speculation in your word without the full will.


In all cases the beneficial interest is what determines who really owns a house, to ignore that is what is being unhelpful.

I have never said that extracts from wills are speculation. The problem with extracts, as I suspect you well know, is that taken out of context they can give a completely wrong impression. I don't take what a poster says at face value when it is clearly incorrect. For example in one sentence in another thread to say that intermeddling would be wrong and then proceeding to advise the OP do just that, tells me that the poster's advice is very suspect indeed. To accept advice such as that at face value would be stupid and shows that the poster's advice is best ignored. When the same poster gives advice in the instant case I regard it as very suspect. The problem is also that certain posters can't disagree and discuss the matter in a civilized manner.

BobQ

DandelionPatrol wrote: »

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 I said

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?

I agree we have no idea what the mother's position is from the OP. All I was saying is that DoA or indeed another reason may require the events of 1986 to be resolved. But if there are no concerns of this kind and nobody is in dispute is it really necessary. There are already two solicitors involved with different opinions but unless anyone involved is disputing her right to sell (as the surviving JT) why try to sort out what happened in 1986.

Without the paperwork, there is always some doubt. Does the mother remember accurately what she signed? Memory is fallible over 30 years. For all we know the father may have chosen not to change the JT and the document may not have been couched in those terms.

Either way the OP seems to have given up so unless there is new information there is little point in debating the issue.

DandelionPatrol

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

The problem is also that certain posters can't disagree and discuss the matter in a civilized manner.

That's what brought the Romans down. Use of large fonts and colours for letters.

DandelionPatrol

BobQ wrote: »

There are already two solicitors involved with different opinions but unless anyone involved is disputing her right to sell (as the surviving JT) why try to sort out what happened in 1986.

Groan. Here we go again. The reason to sort out the issues from 1986 is because they are very relevant now to the question of legal and beneficial ownership. And the reason the get the beneficial ownership taken into account is to ensure that what Mother does with the money does not get taken into account under Deprivation of Assets should she need care.

This is not simply a question of being able to sell the house - that bit is easy. It is about OP and siblings inheriting from Father clearly and without question according to beneficial ownership rather than taking gifts from Mother which are hostage to future events, IHT and Deprivation of Assets.

Although beneficial ownership might possibly be sorted out after sale, for absolute peace of mind, if I were OP, I would want the legal ownership transferred to Father's estate and the sale done from there. This is to avoid the money going through mother and then trying to explain the distinction between legal and beneficial ownership to council officials to resolve Deprivation of Assets if Mother goes into care. You can see how difficult it is to deal with this issue from this thread.

susanmills21

I have just returned to read through the replies and would sincerely like to thank everyone that as contributed. Two solicitors have been involved as I wasn't happy with the advise of the first who also fixated on the whole joint tenancy situation. \my mind was telling me that there must be a simple solution to this as it was my dads house and everyone was in agreement to this so i assumed that there must be a way of rectifying the situation so that the house then formed part of his estate. The first solicitor turned out to be a divorce one so wasn't very knowledgeable regarding probate issues that was why I then went to another one for advise and this just confused me further.I have an appointment next Friday where I will hopefully receive an answer, and I will have all this advise to work with. i will let everyone here know of the way forward that we have taken and again thanks for all your help.