Help

Usinnit_2

The way I have researched this is yes the MIL part will be split 7 ways. The other half if the will is invalid would be split between his 2 children. But because she has done what she's done and is a witness as well as a beneficiary she could stand to loose all. Which would mean her brother will inherit all and she is left with nothing. I suppose it all depends on how the solicitor would like to proceed. All our concern is getting what's entitled. It's a shame for her dad's memory as he was a good man.

Usinnit_2

Thought I'd give you all a update. So the clause on the title deed was actually only placed there because when my mother in law passed and her partner removed he name he never sent any documents to backup his case. So the land registry place the clause to protect any ones inheritance. At this point we were advised we had to prove it was tenant in common. If we can't then by law it will default to joint tenant and we end with nothing. So our solicitor applied for a copy of the transfer deed to find out what was signed when the transfer went a head. Today we found out that non of the boxes on the transfer deed where ticked at the time of the sale. If this happens then the land registry again have to say the house is tenant at common. We have also now got witness statements to support his true intentions and our solicitor is in the process of drafting a letter to the daughter solicitor to explain all. Fingers cross if she can't provide any proof it was any different she will be advised to settle.

Usinnit_2

Ok not posted for a bit. We've been waiting on a reply. Today our solicitors have been in touch by email recommending we contact to office for a appointment. They have received a letter from the other solicitor advising they no longer represent the other party involved. Got a feeling she didn't like what was said and sacked her solicitor. Anyway as I don't live so far away and do drive past her home I've noticed non of her cars have been there and I'm unsure whether she's living in her home. So my question is.. If she has moved out and moved in the property we are fighting for. What do we do?

Brynsam

Usinnit wrote: »

Ok not posted for a bit. We've been waiting on a reply. Today our solicitors have been in touch by email recommending we contact to office for a appointment. They have received a letter from the other solicitor advising they no longer represent the other party involved. Got a feeling she didn't like what was said and sacked her solicitor. Anyway as I don't live so far away and do drive past her home I've noticed non of her cars have been there and I'm unsure whether she's living in her home. So my question is.. If she has moved out and moved in the property we are fighting for. What do we do?

No point asking here. Ask your solicitor when you meet up with him/her. Much more likely to get a relevant and accurate reply from someone to whom you have explained all the circumstances and who has all the paperwork.

Margot123

The Land Registry staff are very helpful over on the house buying forum, if you need to ask them anything: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16

Land_Registry

It reads as if you have got all the details from us re what happened and when re the registered title. And getmore4less has covered things in post #19
The only bit I would comment on from that post is the 'walking away with the cash' part as it's important to note that the registered details are not the defining information here but suspect you are already aware of that.

The term tenants in common is not referred to on the register but a form A restriction can be and it impacts in the way posted. Whilst someone could walk away with the cash that is where the law comes in to protect you as if you have a legal interest in a share/all of that cash, namely the beneficial ownership, then you would catch up with it using the force of the law and not the registered details. Your interest is not proven by what is registered but it can help

As far as your later post is concerned the form A restriction would have been there from before he applied to update the register re the joint owner's death. I imagine you mean that he tried to have the restriction removed but was unable to provide the required evidence

We don't 'place the clause [restriction] to protect any ones inheritance' - Joint owners may indicate that they wish to hold the property as tenants in common when they are registered or may decide to sever their joint tenancy at some stage.

When this happens, and where the land is registered, we can register a Form A restriction on the registered title, namely
'No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate (except a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered unless authorised by an order of the court'

The Form A restriction does not itself change the ownership from beneficial joint tenancy to tenancy in common. The restriction only reflects the request or change made.

Hence the register is not definitive as to whether the property is held as TIC or JTs so that would tie in with the fact that you 'were advised we had to prove it was tenant in common'

Your solicitor has checked what details were provided when the Transfer to their joint names was registered. 'None of the boxes on the transfer deed where ticked at the time of the sale' and if so that means we will enter a form A restriction by default. It does not mean that 'the house is tenant at common' as the register is not definitive as mentioned.

In fact the default example is a crucial one in explaining why the register is not definitive. As on the one hand you can have a restriction by default but no split of the beneficial ownership whilst on the other you can have such a split but nobody applied for a form A restriction to be registered.

So your chosen next steps re evidence to support the claim that they were TIC appears to be the right advice/next steps. But it is important to understand it is the actions of the joint owners that decide whether they are TIC or JTs. The register is not the defining detail as may have been suggested

nom_de_plume

Usinnit wrote: »

They have received a letter from the other solicitor advising they no longer represent the other party involved. Got a feeling she didn't like what was said and sacked her solicitor.

I'd hope for a more positive reason such as the solicitor smelt a rat and terminated their relationship.

Usinnit_2

Thank you for your comment. I have had the impression nothing is a definite on the way the owner ship was for the house. We only have these documents that all seem to sway in our favour and statements from the deceased family member supporting our case the the deceased intentions where only for his part to be left to his daughter as he believed in himself he didn't own the full property. We think in this case it will end up in court for them to decide as the deceased daughter isn't being reasonable. I just wondered where we stand if she has moved into the home. Surely this shouldn't be done until the probate is sorted.

Land_Registry

Usinnit wrote: »

Thank you for your comment. I have had the impression nothing is a definite on the way the owner ship was for the house. We only have these documents that all seem to sway in our favour and statements from the deceased family member supporting our case the the deceased intentions where only for his part to be left to his daughter as he believed in himself he didn't own the full property. We think in this case it will end up in court for them to decide as the deceased daughter isn't being reasonable. I just wondered where we stand if she has moved into the home. Surely this shouldn't be done until the probate is sorted.

Who can do what and when in these circumstances can be very complex but very much a legal matter re rights to live in the property for example.
Probate is the means of obtaining legal authority to deal with a deceased's estate. Crucial for selling or transferring a property but possibly less important re 'living' arrangements.
I say possibly for two reasons but there may be others.
The first is an example where a husband owns the property, dies and his widow carries on living in the home. No probate applied for as widow inherited and carried in living in the home. Fairly common scenario historically and if course nobody says the widiw can't live there without probate. Probate is needed to transfer the ownership. It's not needed to show you can live somewhere.

The second is that probate can take a while to secure in complex situations. You could wait months in extreme examples but that does not stop you living in the property whilst you wait.

So the key here seems to be that the legal ownership passed to him, probate is needed to deal with his estate as the sole surviving owner. His estate includes the property. You need to prove that they held the property as TIC as you have a claim as to MIL's share in the beneficial ownership.

If that is proven then his estate/executor could pay you for your share in the value as appropriate. Nothing unusual when dealing with estates/wills/beneficiaries and same scenario as if one property and two beneficiaries and how do we split the value/estate.

The difference between the legal and beneficial ownerships is clear cut hence how important it is to be definitive re the beneficial ownership where joint legal ownership exists. Wills will often cover such scenarios hence their importance but there are other ways as you are discovering of course

getmore4less

This one is a little more complex(assuming not joint tenants) as the beneficial interest of the mothers share needs to be established at the time she died.

As there was a mortgage this may not be 50:50.

It also needs established who the beneficiary of the life cover should have been.

With 15 years passed there is the potential for a CGT bill as there was no will setting up any life interest.

Not sure if it was mentioned previously but did the partner get a grant to admin that estate or just deal with the it anyway what happened to her other assets?