Delicate will and inheritance issue.

silvercar

Brother's behaviour is awful. To say that they expect it to be 50/50 is plain wrong. They would never have expected their sister to pre-decease their father, so would always only be expecting a third share. The fact that this share now belongs to their sister's partner, rather than their sister, is irrelevant to their own finances. 

Malthusian

MoneySeeker1 said:

There is a big difference between what is legal and what is moral on this issue. Legally he can keep it. Morally he can't keep it.

Morally he most certainly can. If the father had died shortly after putting into place this cackbrained scheme, and then the OP's partner had died at the same time she did in reality, the OP would now own one third of the house (or the proceeds of it), exactly as he does now.

If the father had not put this scheme in place at all and had predeceased his daughter, it sounds likely that she would have inherited one third of the property via his Will or via intestacy, and the OP would now own it.

If the OP and his partner had married, and then some years later - long enough for the marriage assets to be intertwined - they divorced, the one third of the dad's house would have been an asset of the marriage and the starting point is that the OP would have been legally entitled to one half of the value (before taking into account children, each spouse's needs, etc).

The point being that once the father decided to hand one third of his property to his daughter (despite still living in it), it became hers to do what she wanted with. That includes passing it to someone else, including on death or divorce. She could have given her share to the Church of Scientology if she'd felt like it (who would then have forced a sale or buy-out).

The brothers have no way of knowing if their sister would or wouldn't have "shared" with OP (ie he'd have had the benefit of it - though it wasn't his).

Yes they do - as per her Will, or decision to allow intestacy to run its course, she wanted him to have it.

In the OP's position I would ask the brothers to make me an offer to buy me out, to avoid the expense and upset of a forced sale. I see no reason the OP should have the hassle and legal responsibility of being the father's landlord. If the father ends up having to move as a result of his cackbrained tax-dodging scheme blowing up in his face, well, people who try to dodge tax quite frequently end up making their lives much worse, that's not the OP's fault. It could be a lot worse. (Note: I don't endorse the Daily Mail's sympathetic attitude to the tax evaders in the linked case, but it is a useful illustration of how badly tax-dodging can go wrong.)

If I felt undeserving of the money I would donate some or all of the surplus proceeds (after paying the IHT bill) to a charitable cause that my deceased partner cared for.

calleyw

Your partner was give a 3rd of a property, an asset that is not liquid and its her to do as she wants with it. As one other poster mentioned if it has been cash would her brothers been coming around demanding the money back.  Doubt it.  No matter what her brothers or certain posters say on here. I would say they can buy the 3rd at market value but I am not just handing it back. 

Her father created this issue by trying to be clever to avoid care home fees.  And now it has come to bite eveyone on the bum.

Its your choice what you do.  But your partner left it to you so you could benefit from it.  So I would personally tell them all to jog on and don't let them bully them in to doing something you don't want to.

All the best what ever you chose.

Yours

Calley x

MobileSaver

MoneySeeker1 said:

There is a big difference between what is legal and what is moral on this issue. Legally he can keep it. Morally he can't keep it.

I am sorry but you are completely wrong!

A third of the property was gifted to the sister so from that point on both the morally and legally right thing to do was what the sister wanted and clearly she wanted her partner to have it. This is not remotely a grey area or open to interpretation.

xylophone

The OP has no legal or moral obligation whatsoever to hand over his share of the property to his late partner's brothers.

Yes, as his partner's heir, his is the obligation to pay the IHT.

But if he is generous enough to transfer his share to the brothers/their father, there is absolutely no reason why he should be expected to bear the legal costs/any CGT costs/ any potential costs to his own estate.

i wonder would the late partner's family be carrying on in this way had the OP been married to the deceased?

gettingtheresometime

MoneySeeker1 said:

There is a big difference between what is legal and what is moral on this issue. Legally he can keep it. Morally he can't keep it.

Well what was morally wrong was the father trying to be a smart !!!!!! and try get around having to pay for potential care home fees - well that certainly ended well didn't it.
If the family want to have sole ownership of the house then they need to stump up some sort of compensation

Gers

MoneySeeker1 said:

There is a big difference between what is legal and what is moral on this issue. Legally he can keep it. Morally he can't keep it.

The brothers have no way of knowing if their sister would or wouldn't have "shared" with OP (ie he'd have had the benefit of it - though it wasn't his). They have to treat it, accordingly, as "It was our sisters money - not sister & husbands money".

Utter twaddle. At least you've moved away from your previous incorrect position. 

Of course, people are aware that you are still pursuing your own agenda here with your recent inheritance so your comments are skewed to support that.

The brothers don't have to have knowledge of what their sister had shared - none of their business!

getmore4less

They(brothers) could have removed their deceased sister from the legal title and just waited it out every one non the wiser.

janey54321

Hi.  This is a difficult one for the OP as neither keeping nor giving back the share is ideal.  I think I would find it difficult to keep the asset, but the brothers behaviour would lead me to resent giving it back!  I would probably pass on both these options and sign over the third share (less the unexpected tax bill amount) to a charity or charities that my partner would have liked to support.

thepurplepixie

MoneySeeker1 said:

There is a big difference between what is legal and what is moral on this issue. Legally he can keep it. Morally he can't keep it.

The brothers have no way of knowing if their sister would or wouldn't have "shared" with OP (ie he'd have had the benefit of it - though it wasn't his). They have to treat it, accordingly, as "It was our sisters money - not sister & husbands money".

Of course they know, she owned a third of the house and she left a will leaving it to him so yes it was sisters share and she left it to the OP.