Property ownership after death

TW1234

This is not a DIY situation and will not be resolved on a forum.
Professional help is going to be needed, and until it is obtained, mum should say nothing and sit tight.
Citizens Advice Bureau may be able to suggest a solicitor who would offer a free 30 mins initial session or a law centre, but given the complexity and the importance, proper help is needed.

Malthusian

Xxxtubsxxx wrote: »

Because he didn't do it properly at the time of separation so we are questioning it's legality like anyone would...
She's not a gold digger clutching at every straw, just a woman that could have a chance at keeping her family home.

Whether she is a gold digger or not doesn't change the fact that she wants to have her cake (her interest in the house) and eat it (the 20 grand). (Assuming that 20 grand was a fair price, but the OP hasn't given any indication that she was coerced into signing.)

She needs professional advice from a solicitor (assuming she is not going to simply give up and move out immediately). We don't have anywhere near enough information to say what her legal position is, so people are going to resort to telling her what the moral position is.

If she manages to retain the cake then her late ex partner has only himself to blame for not doing the job properly. But there is little point debating the morality of doing so if the legality prevents her.

You said she signed a letter stating "she would give up all her rights and make no financial claim in the event of a SALE". This sounds like a very vaguely worded letter, plus we are being told what it says fourth-hand (letter -> family -> you -> this thread). But if she has given up "all her rights" then presumably that includes the right to occupy the place.

There is an argument that the wording is vague because it can be interpreted as either "she would give up all her rights, and make no financial claim in the event of a sale" (note the comma) or "in the event of a sale, she would give up all her rights and make no financial claim". This is why you pay solicitors, to put commas in the right places. However, it is pretty obvious that the first interpretation is what was intended and an argument that the second interpretation should apply may be pseudolegal.

The fact that he didn't update the Land Registry does not necessarily mean that she still has an interest. If Person A helps pay towards the mortgage on a property owned by Person B, they may acquire a beneficial interest and be entitled to a share on its sale even if the Land Registry is never informed and says it is solely owned by Person B. Same applies in reverse.

On what grounds did the solicitor say she could move in? I fail to see how anyone could establish anything "briefly". Did she have an introductory meeting with a solicitor, or meet one in the pub? A solicitor is not a judge, and if she cannot contact him and doesn't have letters / reports from the solicitor setting out on what basis she can prove she still has an interest in the property, their opinion is of very little use to her.

The only reason I am raising these points is to illustrate that she needs professional advice to establish she still has an interest despite accepting £20,000 for it. Or just give up and move out immediately.

Land_Registry

I agree with Malthusian here as you suggest 'the solicitor did not do it properly' at the time which I assume you mean they did not register a form A restriction on the registered title.

The register deals with the legal ownership so is not the definitive source as to how they held the property. This scenario and the one Malthusian cites are examples of where an agreement/arrangement around the beneficial interest is reached and which might, in effect, sever the joint tenancy or at least impact on a joint owner's beneficial share in the value of the property.

Just because it is not used to register a form A restriction would not invalidate the legal position on it's own.

From a registration perspective if they were registered as joint owners and with no form A then on his death the legal ownership has passed to the surviving owner. That means they can sell the property for example but anyone's proven interest in the deceased's beneficial share clicks in and focuses on the sale monies.

Reading your posts suggests the 'family' have set out differing options around what needs to happen re selling/settling financially so they seem to have a grasp of the situation and the options involved. Your Mother needs to do the same re legal advice

Xxxtubsxxx

She should have gotten proper advice by the end of the week. I just wanted to know where she realistically stands. Shes never felt easy about the situation.

The original solicitor gave advice but there was very little in his opinion he could do as he said the paper meant nothing and she had the right to move back in. Then he quit the firm a short while later and became unreachable.

She actually was forced to sign the letter (she couldnt afford a solicitor which he knew) and made her to believe it was the only way - he was a nasty emotional bully if truth be told. He wasn't giving up the house and demanded if she stayed there instead of him, he'd still run his business from there and turn up whenever he pleased and she'd have to pay every last bill on top. She also had debt on top of that that she had taken out for him (some of which she has proof). Her wages were minimal so this seemed a ridiculous scenario. The relationship was starting to get a bit violent as well and she was close to a breakdown.

He had been paying the mortgage 4 years between separation and death.

She was held responsible for the mortgage upon death - already 3 months in arrears after not being informed if his death. When he died she had no choice but to move in and start paying from what she was told.
She only pursued this as she was told it was hers after all because she originally believed the letter held up.

She's hardly having her cake if you know how she worked for his company for free for 10 years, and the 20000 was to pay off his loans so she could afford to live financially by herself. So she actually gained nothing financially from the split or that money and lost her home. All to get away from the bully.

I know it's very complicated which is why my main question was whether the letter is important after all. She's obviously been given bad advice previously which as started this mess.

silvercar

She was held responsible for the mortgage upon death - already 3 months in arrears after not being informed if his death. When he died she had no choice but to move in and start paying from what she was told.

Who told her this?

It seems to suggest that whoever told her this thinks she has rights to the property if they told her to move in.

getmore4less

The other key part of the agreement will be could the ex have forced a sale anyway as that would need agreement of both legal owners and the lender.

As the person is now clearly the legal owner and responsible for the mortgage because it seems the agreement did not cover that either can the estate force a sale.