Help

Keep_pedalling

I would definitely lodge a caveat. Try and speak to the daughter and resolve the issue mutually, but if she will not do that, take legal advice on your next steps.

macman

If the will has been legally signed and witnessed, then you should be aware that challenging it on the grounds of mental incapacity can be a very expensive and protracted business: and even more so should you lose and have to pay the other part's costs as well as yours.
The fact that he said it would be left to the kids is irrelevant: people can and do change their minds.
As above, take professional advice first.

Savvy_Sue

Yes, but ... if the house wasn't entirely his to leave, isn't a claim more straightforward? If his will was written by a solicitor, they should have made better enquiries.

Keep_pedalling

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Yes, but ... if the house wasn't entirely his to leave, isn't a claim more straightforward? If his will was written by a solicitor, they should have made better enquiries.

That is exactly the point, he was entitled to please his share of the property to whoever he liked, but it looks like he only owns a portion of the house. This sounds like a real mess to sort out.

I don’t think the solicitors can be blamed, they rely entirely on what the testator tells them.

Usinnit_2

We've tried to contact the daughter but she isn't replying (by messenger). We have explained the restriction. I've got a copy of the title deed and have an appointment with a solicitor next week to discuss how to move forward. If the property wasn't allowed to be in the will she might be making things worse for herself. She has a brother also which has been cut out of the will. So if it turns out he didn't have the right to put the property in his will then there's chances her brother might be entitled to something. So in her own best interest I would say she should get in touch and deal with this quietly. Don't think we will be trying to say he wasn't in the right frame of mind to the solicitor as I believe we would need proof that this was the case when the will was signed and unfortunately we don't have non. We just think this was the case as it's a massive change of character for him.

Ms_Chocaholic

Good luck. Keep us updated please.

Usinnit_2

I'm hoping she's holding off to speak to a solicitor and find out where she stands and if she gets told the restriction is right she might just want to sort it quickly. Don't fancy the whole dragging to court and massive legal fees. There will be nothing left to claim and a whole lot of angry people

getmore4less

The key here is the way legal and beneficial interests work.

This is what can happen with a TIC.

One person dies the other can just remove them leaving a sole proprietor

The restriction is to stop that person selling up and walking off with the cash as the other person appointed is supposed to check the beneficial interests and make sure the funds are apportioned properly.

The flaw with this is the person left can appoint anyone they like to act as the second person and they can still walk off with the cash.

When the sole proprietor dies the estate administrator take over and needs a grant to proceed and will need a second person to act(if there is a restriction).


As has been said the starting point is to establish the beneficial interest at the time of the first death, that then that drives the process going forward.

The daughter may not be aware that there is a possibility the place is not all hers as the beneficial interests need to be established.

There would be no need to put anything in the will of the second owner they can only gift what they own.


There is an added complication, 15 years have passed the tax situation won't be straightforward if it is established that there is a beneficial interest for someone that has not lived there.

Could be this partner has landed those with a beneficial interest a CGT bill that could have been avoided.

Keep_pedalling

Usinnit wrote: »

I'm hoping she's holding off to speak to a solicitor and find out where she stands and if she gets told the restriction is right she might just want to sort it quickly. Don't fancy the whole dragging to court and massive legal fees. There will be nothing left to claim and a whole lot of angry people

If you do not have wills in place yourself, do not make the same mistake your mother did get them done now, really this whole mess is the result lack of wills being in place, and unfortunately over half the current adult population are in the same position.

Ask about wills when you have your appointment with the solisitor.

AnotherJoe

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Yes, but ... if the house wasn't entirely his to leave, isn't a claim more straightforward? If his will was written by a solicitor, they should have made better enquiries.

Not at all. His will could for example have said (and this is the way it should be done) "I leave any property i own.." rather than "i leave 43 Acacia Avenue.." and so there's no way a solicitor can check that (nor any need to).

Indeed the will is valid in that it leaves his interest in the house to whomever, whats invalid is that he apparently didn't own all of it so this dispute will not come down to the will but the details of who owned what % of the house.