living in house inherited by several memebers of family

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

Indeed. But back in the real world, this could very well end up in a massive family dispute. This is why such schemes are so pernicious: they're often about either the protection of the current rent-free accommodation for a purportedly vulnerable sibling, or the preservation of a shrine to the deceased parents, led by a dominant sibling and forced on the others. YM is absolutely right: under intestacy, one sibling can force the sale as they are entitled to their quarter share in cash. Unfortunately, that has a strong chance of resulting in family trouble, which is how dominant siblings get away with it.

The whole scheme WILL result in family trouble at some time, now, or in the future.

getmore4less

securityguy wrote: »

There was a crazy thread last year sometime about leaving shares in a holiday home to all the grandchildren, so that each would have a tenth (or whatever) share, the place would stay "in the family" (why does everyone suddenly want to be an 18th century land owner?) and everyone would have happy holidays as a family forever.

But in reality, who wants a tenth share in a holiday home? It has no financial value, most people don't want to go to the same place every year, it costs money to maintain and there will be a huge fight over August, And it's an unsaleable asset: it's like the forced gift of a crap timeshare.

Fractions of houses are a millstone.

Totally different situation where there is a life tenant( a very common situation)


There is no shared ownership, the property is effectively owned by one person for the duration of their life(with no obligation on any of the remaindermen).

this(the OP proposal) would be just the same as a spouse leaving their share of a property to anyone with a life interest to the spouse.

Sea_Shell

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

The whole scheme WILL result in family trouble at some time, now, or in the future.

So basically, does it comes down to 3 options....

a) force a sale under intestacy, take your money, and fall out now with your family.
b) go along with their 'scheme', for now. Possibly (definitely) fall out with family later over who pays what.
c) DoV, Disclaim or gift your share and walk away.

chesky

There is a further possible option... the OP manages to convince the other members of the family that unless they take action, they are only storing trouble up for later.

Yorkshireman99

Sea_Shell wrote: »

So basically, does it comes down to 3 options....

a) force a sale under intestacy, take your money, and fall out now with your family.
b) go along with their 'scheme', for now. Possibly (definitely) fall out with family later over who pays what.
c) DoV, Disclaim or gift your share and walk away.

I suspect that option (c) would also cause a family rift now or in future.

securityguy

getmore4less wrote: »

Totally different situation where there is a life tenant( a very common situation)


There is no shared ownership, the property is effectively owned by one person for the duration of their life(with no obligation on any of the remaindermen).

Right. So let's see how that plays out, eh? The OP has (as is their right) not given the financial details, but this is clearly a house the OP's sister cannot afford to buy even three quarters of (as in that case it would be a buyout) and, I am guessing, is the sister who stayed at home and looked after her father, and therefore probably doesn't work or works for minimum wage. The house, not one bedroomed flat, house, is presumably the family house in which four siblings were raised, so presumably has three or more bedrooms.

What are the chances that the OP's sister has the financial and other means to ensure that "with no obligation on any of the remaindermen" the house is in a saleable, or indeed even habitable, condition in thirty years' time? Approximately zero, I would bet, as otherwise the discussion wouldn't be being had. So yes, the siblings could just remain as sleeping partners in the house, putting in no money; but when the music stops, the house will be an unsaleable ruin, so they might as well have given their share up at the outset and had done with it.

securityguy

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

I suspect that option (c) would also cause a family rift now or in future.

Indeed. And that's the proof of the problem, really.

If a house is being split four ways, with one party having a life tenancy, and one of the four says "no, I don't want this, either split it three ways amongst yourselves or let the life tenant have two shares" then that's an act of pure generosity, yes? The donor is giving up the golden opportunity to own a quarter share in a house, and one or all of the others is getting more than their original quarter. Everyone should admire their generosity, no?

But you're right, there will probably be a massive family dispute. And that's because, as you and I are saying, but the naive appear not to realise, this is not a conversation about shares in a house, it's a conversation about the three siblings subsidising the fourth's housing on an indefinite basis, at the very least taking no rental on their asset but more probably splitting maintenance and other bills four (or more likely three) ways on the never-never promise of the house being sold in the far future.

If the OP giving their share away sparks an argument, that's proof of the argument that was brewing anyway.

Yorkshireman99

I would go so far as to say that it has already broken out. Whilst I admire the motives behind what the three want to do they already disagree as to the best course of action. If and when they consult a solicitor hopefully (s)he will be able to convince them of their folly and offer them a better solution.

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

Right. So let's see how that plays out, eh? The OP has (as is their right) not given the financial details, but this is clearly a house the OP's sister cannot afford to buy even three quarters of (as in that case it would be a buyout) and, I am guessing, is the sister who stayed at home and looked after her father, and therefore probably doesn't work or works for minimum wage. The house, not one bedroomed flat, house, is presumably the family house in which four siblings were raised, so presumably has three or more bedrooms.

What are the chances that the OP's sister has the financial and other means to ensure that "with no obligation on any of the remaindermen" the house is in a saleable, or indeed even habitable, condition in thirty years' time? Approximately zero, I would bet, as otherwise the discussion wouldn't be being had. So yes, the siblings could just remain as sleeping partners in the house, putting in no money; but when the music stops, the house will be an unsaleable ruin, so they might as well have given their share up at the outset and had done with it.

It also illustrates the difficulties that many life tenancies may cause unless the LT has the resources to maintain the property. My great grandmother was widowed at 25 and fortunately had the funds to maintain the large house until she died aged 80. In practice the house was far too large and and for much of the time her two son's families lived there as well.

Sea_Shell

We should also spare a thought for the children (albeit adult ones), whose parent has died already, of whose 1/4 they'll inherit between them (if that's how intestacy rules work).

That's quite a burden to put on them, in what might be their early adult life (I don't think we have their ages). They could be the biggest losers in all this.