April King

Yorkshireman99

AnotherJoe wrote: »

YM99 IANAL but seems to me that since the couple own the house 50/50 then the LA cannot coherently argue that the 50 that doesn't belong to the party who needs to pay for care, can be confiscated in order to do so. Each party has free reign to leave to whoever (or whatever) they want.
To argue otherwise would in essence be arbitrary confiscation of assets. They may not even be married or in a partnership. And Why stop at the house? Why not take the other partner's investments or their car or whatever ? This is not a joint asset. If the government doesn't want people to hold assets separately they will need to legislate and I can't see that flying.

Thanks for that. I tend to agree with you. However some councils are very pushy in these matters so I would not be surprised to hear of a case.

getmore4less

If they can go after the house, does it matter who owns the other 1/2?

Those they can go after what else can they go after?

A joint owner can sever the tenancy the day one of the other owners goes into care(or even while they are in care) and protect their share.

Yorkshireman99

getmore4less wrote: »

If they can go after the house, does it matter who owns the other 1/2?

Those they can go after what else can they go after?

A joint owner can sever the tenancy the day one of the other owners goes into care(or even while they are in care) and protect their share.

Nevertheless based on personal experience they can be quite ruthless.

SeniorSam

getmore4less .... I believe that such action could be construed as deprivation of assets and would certainly be challenged if more care costs were needed, because they were fully aware of care needs.

However, someone making there Wills now, with nothing to suggest that they would ever need to meet care costs would never be challenged.

Tom99

SeniorSam wrote: »

getmore4less .... I believe that such action could be construed as deprivation of assets and would certainly be challenged if more care costs were needed, because they were fully aware of care needs.
However, someone making there Wills now, with nothing to suggest that they would ever need to meet care costs would never be challenged.

In order to claim deprivation of assets the person needing care needs to have owned the asset in the 1st place otherwise how could they have deprived themselves of it?
You can't be accused of depriving yourself of an asset just because a deceased spouse or partner chose not to leave their share of the house to you in their will.

AnotherJoe

SeniorSam wrote: »

getmore4less .... I believe that such action could be construed as deprivation of assets and would certainly be challenged if more care costs were needed, because they were fully aware of care needs.

However, someone making there Wills now, with nothing to suggest that they would ever need to meet care costs would never be challenged.

No, that not going to fly. DoA is all about the assets of the person going into care, not someone elses assets.


You are arguing its compulsory that if person A and Person B (and why stop there, why not C, D, E up to Z as well?) own anything together (no reason it should only be a property, nothing special about that) that no one can do what they want with their share, either in a will or even before death, but must allocate it to care for the other?

I own some Apple shares. Must they also be used to pay for my wife's care? They are just as much mine, as my 50% the share of our TiC owned house.

Yorkshireman99

AnotherJoe wrote: »

No, that not going to fly. DoA is all about the assets of the person going into care, not someone elses assets.


You are arguing its compulsory that if person A and Person B (and why stop there, why not C, D, E up to Z as well?) own anything together (no reason it should only be a property, nothing special about that) that no one can do what they want with their share, either in a will or even before death, but must allocate it to care for the other?

I own some Apple shares. Must they also be used to pay for my wife's care? They are just as much mine, as my 50% the share of our TiC owned house.

You are talking nonsense and distorting what I said. To be candid I see little point in discussing it with YOU personally.As far as you are concerned end of story.

AnotherJoe

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

You are talking nonsense and distorting what I said. To be candid I see little point in discussing it with YOU personally.As far as you are concerned end of story.

Eh? I was replying to SeniorSam????????

Yorkshireman99

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Eh? I was replying to SeniorSam????????

Which was replying to comments I made earlier. The point remains the same. I have

getmore4less

SeniorSam wrote: »

getmore4less .... I believe that such action could be construed as deprivation of assets and would certainly be challenged if more care costs were needed, because they were fully aware of care needs.

However, someone making there Wills now, with nothing to suggest that they would ever need to meet care costs would never be challenged.

Can't be,

The person needing care has no control over the actions of another so cannot deprive themselves of the asset they don't own.