Property Ownership

thriftylass

rapidtornado wrote: »

The issue is that there was never any backstop arrangment to 'repay' the equity to the granddaughters in the event of the property being sold or if the parents passed away. When I mention bad counsel, I think the Solicitor advising the mother at the time did not make it explicitly clear to the daughters that they were in effect signing over their share of the property with no means of securing it when the property is sold in the future. For sure a will can be put in place to ensure both daughters have their fair share when the parents pass away but it is more likely the property will be sold in the next couple of years... and as it stands they have no legal entitlement to any of the proceeds from the sale.

But if you give someone a gift do you not assume it's theirs? You don't assume you get a profit if they don't like it and sell it. Or at least you would ask. What did the mother say, just give me your quarters......she must've explained something?

Fire_Fox

rapidtornado wrote: »

Thanks all for your replies. To clarify, the property had been empty for years. The parents were in the process of renovating it. The grandmother owned the property 100% during the renovation. Pretty much after the renovation was complete the grandmother died leaving 50% to her daughter and 25% to each granddaughter. As the mother could not afford to buy out the 50% off each of the daughters, she decided to see a solicitor and draft a legal document for both daughters to sign ....

Just washed my hair ... and seeing things in a different light.

Apply for a copy of the grandmother's last will and testament. The exact wording is critical. Also who the executors were.

Wills can specify to liquidise assets/ sell house etc. and split the proceeds OR can divide property, assets, cash as they are.

If the latter the beneficiaries decide between themselves whether to sell up, or keep hold of the house as tenants-in-common.

Executors must do what a will says, unless illegal or impossible (insufficient funds). If the grandmother's will specified selling the house, but instead the daughters were persuaded to sign away their inheritance ....

Bad executors. Very naughty.

TBagpuss

OK, it sounds as though the daughters were adults (albeit young adults) and that they agreed to gift the house to their mother.

The solicitor was acting for mother, not daughters, so had no obligation to explain anything to them, beyond possibly suggesting that they should get their own advice.

The daughters can now ask their mother to sign a declaration of trust giving them each 25% of the property (or a leser amoutn, if appropriate, to take account of any value added by the work paretns did on the house)

Mother may have CGT to pay now if she tranfers shares to the daughters.

The socume they signed was presumably either a deed of variation or a deed of gift, either of which is perfectly acceptable.


Alternatively, if the hosue is now empty, then perhaps paretns will agree to it being sol, and they can then gift some of the money to their daughters.

However, it doesn't sound as though te daughters currently have any legal claim on the property, so it comes down to the goodwill of the paretns, and of mother in particular.

Why is it an issue now, if it has not been, for the last 20 years?

Savvy_Sue

Fire_Fox wrote: »

If the solicitor was only instructed by the mother, not clear how they could be held liable for not advising the daughters.

On the contrary, the solicitor who advised the mother surely could NOT also advise the daughters. The most they could do is advise that they should take independent legal advice.

badmemory

Actually I think that the very least they could have done was to advise a couple of very young women to consult a solicitor knowing that they were about to be scammed out of several thousand pounds each.

martinbuckley

How much have your wife and her sister contributed towards the upkeep of the property over the past 20 years?

Fire_Fox

badmemory wrote: »

Actually I think that the very least they could have done was to advise a couple of very young women to consult a solicitor knowing that they were about to be scammed out of several thousand pounds each.

We do not know that the mother's solicitor did not recommend this. The OP was not there, and the daughters have had twenty years to forget the details.

getmore4less

Check what was signed,

It should not have been an outright gift

A DOV that gave the parents a life interest in the property would have been better and that is what might have happened so check what was signed.

Life interests were and still are tax efficient protecting everyone interest better than a outright gift.

The problem is it can't be changed now without complications.

LilElvis

martinbuckley wrote: »

How much have your wife and her sister contributed towards the upkeep of the property over the past 20 years?

Probably about as much as the mother gave her daughters as rent for their 50% share.