Severance of joint tenancy (parents house)

pphillips

unforeseen said:

If one of them needed care, would it be seen as deprivation of assets as it would limit council claw back to 50% instead of the full bill when other owner dies?

At this point in their lives there is no benefit to either parent in severing the tenancy so I fail to see how somebody with POA could do it as it achieves nothing as far as I can see

This makes no sense, why would divorcees have to fund each others care?
Can't see how sorting out marital assets after a divorce could be seen as deprivation of capital.

Mojisola

noclaf said:

Based on documentation I've seen it seems that while a severance was requested by my mother and forms sent by her solicitor at the time asking for her signature on the notification, she did not complete/sign them and send back.So not sure if anything further can be done on that. I don't know why it was never completed, either didn't realise or personal circumstances at the time..possibly the latter. 

I wonder if you can use that as a reason for doing so now - combined with the clause in her will, it does show intention.

pphillips

Mojisola said:

noclaf said:

Based on documentation I've seen it seems that while a severance was requested by my mother and forms sent by her solicitor at the time asking for her signature on the notification, she did not complete/sign them and send back.So not sure if anything further can be done on that. I don't know why it was never completed, either didn't realise or personal circumstances at the time..possibly the latter. 

I wonder if you can use that as a reason for doing so now - combined with the clause in her will, it does show intention.

Either severance has already taken place by mutual agreement or it has not.
If it has not, the OP can effect severance by notice if that is in the donors best interests.
In any event, notifying Land Registry just a legal formality.

noclaf

pphillips said:

Mojisola said:

noclaf said:

Based on documentation I've seen it seems that while a severance was requested by my mother and forms sent by her solicitor at the time asking for her signature on the notification, she did not complete/sign them and send back.So not sure if anything further can be done on that. I don't know why it was never completed, either didn't realise or personal circumstances at the time..possibly the latter. 

I wonder if you can use that as a reason for doing so now - combined with the clause in her will, it does show intention.

Either severance has already taken place by mutual agreement or it has not.
If it has not, the OP can effect severance by notice if that is in the donors best interests.
In any event, notifying Land Registry just a legal formality.

So if the severance was done by my parent's based on mutual agreement at the time of divorce but did not inform the LR formally, from a legal perspective does the joint tenancy shown at LR supercede their agreement on severance?
Either way I will wait for my father's deputyship to be processed and will get the solicitors view on this. If I am advised this is not a good idea re severance then so be it.

pphillips

noclaf said:

pphillips said:

Mojisola said:

noclaf said:

Based on documentation I've seen it seems that while a severance was requested by my mother and forms sent by her solicitor at the time asking for her signature on the notification, she did not complete/sign them and send back.So not sure if anything further can be done on that. I don't know why it was never completed, either didn't realise or personal circumstances at the time..possibly the latter. 

I wonder if you can use that as a reason for doing so now - combined with the clause in her will, it does show intention.

Either severance has already taken place by mutual agreement or it has not.
If it has not, the OP can effect severance by notice if that is in the donors best interests.
In any event, notifying Land Registry just a legal formality.

So if the severance was done by my parent's based on mutual agreement at the time of divorce but did not inform the LR formally, from a legal perspective does the joint tenancy shown at LR supercede their agreement on severance?
Either way I will wait for my father's deputyship to be processed and will get the solicitors view on this. If I am advised this is not a good idea re severance then so be it.

No, LR cannot overide an agreement to sever the joint tenancy.

unforeseen

pphillips said:

unforeseen said:

If one of them needed care, would it be seen as deprivation of assets as it would limit council claw back to 50% instead of the full bill when other owner dies?

At this point in their lives there is no benefit to either parent in severing the tenancy so I fail to see how somebody with POA could do it as it achieves nothing as far as I can see

This makes no sense, why would divorcees have to fund each others care?
Can't see how sorting out marital assets after a divorce could be seen as deprivation of capital.

I think the fact that this is happening and being done 20 years after divorce when neither party has mental capacity by somebody who has POA for both parties would ring very big alarm bells as it is of absolutely no benefit to either, however, there may be a benefit to the person with POA further down the line if done

Because at the moment they are still linked via the house. If mother needs care that has to be paid for then council are free to place a charge on the house which could cover the full value of the house if necessary. If tenancy severed then the council will only be able to claim back 50% of the house value.

Forget divorce, this has to do with house ownership. The same would apply if they weren't married. 

unholyangel

unforeseen said:

pphillips said:

unforeseen said:

If one of them needed care, would it be seen as deprivation of assets as it would limit council claw back to 50% instead of the full bill when other owner dies?

At this point in their lives there is no benefit to either parent in severing the tenancy so I fail to see how somebody with POA could do it as it achieves nothing as far as I can see

This makes no sense, why would divorcees have to fund each others care?
Can't see how sorting out marital assets after a divorce could be seen as deprivation of capital.

I think the fact that this is happening and being done 20 years after divorce when neither party has mental capacity by somebody who has POA for both parties would ring very big alarm bells as it is of absolutely no benefit to either, however, there may be a benefit to the person with POA further down the line if done

Because at the moment they are still linked via the house. If mother needs care that has to be paid for then council are free to place a charge on the house which could cover the full value of the house if necessary. If tenancy severed then the council will only be able to claim back 50% of the house value.

Forget divorce, this has to do with house ownership. The same would apply if they weren't married. 

I disagree that it's of no benefit to either. It's of benefit to both. It's guaranteeing funds will be available for both of their care rather than just one of them (with no guarantee that either of them will be that one). It is securing an asset, not depriving themselves of one. 

I don't see how the LA could argue deprivation in any event. There is no transfer of assets here. They're simply changing how it is held. Not altering any value they have in it.

If they were to sell the house (perhaps because both of them entered care), they'd only be entitled to 50% share even if it was still held as joint tenants. I don't think anyone would suggest that is deprivation. Merely splitting the equity to reflect their actual share of that equity. 

noclaf

The reason I am going for the deputyship for both parents is the potential care costs as I think one parent may need additional care soon...progressive condition etc

onwards&upwards

noclaf said:

Mojisola said:

noclaf said:

there was a specific clause in mum's will to the effect that my father "is excluded from the will and does not benefit at all from her estate". 

A property that is jointly owned doesn't become part of the estate of the first to die. 
Definitely get legal advice about this. 

Will do, it passes to the surviving joint owner right?  

Its not so much that it 'passes' to them, more that they continue to own 100% of it as they always did, only now there isn't another owner who also owns 100% anymore.