Mums house put in my name

lisyloo

I would give another vote for seeing a solicitor. I not think the inheritance issue is overly complex.
my MIL insisted on a hand written will.
it turned out to be invalid (probate office didn’t like the signature in CAPS and witnesses had died).
it dragged out probate. Wasn’t particularly complex in the end for the executor to sign a declaration, but took ages for them to decide what to do.
a bit of money spent now on professional advice can save a headache later.

on the care side, also I would say when someone needs 24 hour care it obviously becomes difficult/impossible.
best to think about what happens when care is needed (perhaps she can afford daily care visits).
i am meaning more from the OPs point of view than the mother’s.

AdrianC

lisyloo said:

on the care side, also I would say when someone needs 24 hour care it obviously becomes difficult/impossible.
best to think about what happens when care is needed (perhaps she can afford daily care visits).
i am meaning more from the OPs point of view than the mother’s.

Yup.

It's very easy for people who've never seen the reality of somebody needing care to say "Oh, I'd never..." - but, sometimes, it's actually in the person's best interests to get proper professional care round the clock. All the equipment, multiple people available, nursing and medical attention on call.

And that's before we get into the effect on the carer's own life.

Especially if we consider dementia.

It's the mother's money for every single second she's alive. It's for her to spend on her best interests during her life. And, yes, that may well mean care. Prioritising "inheritance" over that is sheer selfish greed. It only becomes "inheritance" once they've breathed their last.

getmore4less

Remember the proposal is the OP pays for 50% and will be living in the place

Joint ownership makes sense.

There is no early inheritance.

No deprivation of assets.

No gift with reservation.

Irishpearce26

getmore4less said:

Remember the proposal is the OP pays for 50% and will be living in the place

Joint ownership makes sense.

There is no early inheritance.

No deprivation of assets.

No gift with reservation.

But it wont be joint ownership as the OP clearly states the house will be in her name. Also her mum will be in a separate annex so technically not living in the same place. It is deprivation of assets by giving the asset over rather than jointly owning the house.

getmore4less

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Remember the proposal is the OP pays for 50% and will be living in the place

Joint ownership makes sense.

There is no early inheritance.

No deprivation of assets.

No gift with reservation.

But it wont be joint ownership as the OP clearly states the house will be in her name. Also her mum will be in a separate annex so technically not living in the same place. It is deprivation of assets by giving the asset over rather than jointly owning the house.

The point is mum should  not sign over the property but own jointly.

Signed over has all the flaws getting discussed.

Irishpearce26

getmore4less said:

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Remember the proposal is the OP pays for 50% and will be living in the place

Joint ownership makes sense.

There is no early inheritance.

No deprivation of assets.

No gift with reservation.

But it wont be joint ownership as the OP clearly states the house will be in her name. Also her mum will be in a separate annex so technically not living in the same place. It is deprivation of assets by giving the asset over rather than jointly owning the house.

The point is mum should  not sign over the property but own jointly.

Signed over has all the flaws getting discussed.

Again your missing the point the OPs mother wants to sign over the house in the OPs name = deprivation of assets 

getmore4less

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Remember the proposal is the OP pays for 50% and will be living in the place

Joint ownership makes sense.

There is no early inheritance.

No deprivation of assets.

No gift with reservation.

But it wont be joint ownership as the OP clearly states the house will be in her name. Also her mum will be in a separate annex so technically not living in the same place. It is deprivation of assets by giving the asset over rather than jointly owning the house.

The point is mum should  not sign over the property but own jointly.

Signed over has all the flaws getting discussed.

Again your missing the point the OPs mother wants to sign over the house in the OPs name = deprivation of assets 

You missing the point the suggestion is what they should consider as an alternative to avoid problems that have been mentioned not what they think they want to do.

The question asked was

Could any one advice on any tax implications or any advice relevant. Many thanks

I think my suggestion falls within that remit to overcome most of the issues raised.

Irishpearce26

getmore4less said:

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Remember the proposal is the OP pays for 50% and will be living in the place

Joint ownership makes sense.

There is no early inheritance.

No deprivation of assets.

No gift with reservation.

But it wont be joint ownership as the OP clearly states the house will be in her name. Also her mum will be in a separate annex so technically not living in the same place. It is deprivation of assets by giving the asset over rather than jointly owning the house.

The point is mum should  not sign over the property but own jointly.

Signed over has all the flaws getting discussed.

Again your missing the point the OPs mother wants to sign over the house in the OPs name = deprivation of assets 

You missing the point the suggestion is what they should consider as an alternative to avoid problems that have been mentioned not what they think they want to do.

The question asked was

Could any one advice on any tax implications or any advice relevant. Many thanks

I think my suggestion falls within that remit to overcome most of the issues raised.

Yes yes I know what you are saying but ultimately its a very flowery way the OP is asking 'can my mother hand over her assets to avoid tax or equivalent but only after I divorce so my ex so he isn't entitled to any (fair enough there). 

If it was a case of them going 50/50 then they would, the big one is that the mother wants to avoid any costs or tax.

getmore4less

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Remember the proposal is the OP pays for 50% and will be living in the place

Joint ownership makes sense.

There is no early inheritance.

No deprivation of assets.

No gift with reservation.

But it wont be joint ownership as the OP clearly states the house will be in her name. Also her mum will be in a separate annex so technically not living in the same place. It is deprivation of assets by giving the asset over rather than jointly owning the house.

The point is mum should  not sign over the property but own jointly.

Signed over has all the flaws getting discussed.

Again your missing the point the OPs mother wants to sign over the house in the OPs name = deprivation of assets 

You missing the point the suggestion is what they should consider as an alternative to avoid problems that have been mentioned not what they think they want to do.

The question asked was

Could any one advice on any tax implications or any advice relevant. Many thanks

I think my suggestion falls within that remit to overcome most of the issues raised.

Yes yes I know what you are saying but ultimately its a very flowery way the OP is asking 'can my mother hand over her assets to avoid tax or equivalent but only after I divorce so my ex so he isn't entitled to any (fair enough there). 

If it was a case of them going 50/50 then they would, the big one is that the mother wants to avoid any costs or tax.

I think they have not considered 50:50 is a potentially better solution than gifting 1/2 the property.

Irishpearce26

getmore4less said:

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Irishpearce26 said:

getmore4less said:

Remember the proposal is the OP pays for 50% and will be living in the place

Joint ownership makes sense.

There is no early inheritance.

No deprivation of assets.

No gift with reservation.

But it wont be joint ownership as the OP clearly states the house will be in her name. Also her mum will be in a separate annex so technically not living in the same place. It is deprivation of assets by giving the asset over rather than jointly owning the house.

The point is mum should  not sign over the property but own jointly.

Signed over has all the flaws getting discussed.

Again your missing the point the OPs mother wants to sign over the house in the OPs name = deprivation of assets 

You missing the point the suggestion is what they should consider as an alternative to avoid problems that have been mentioned not what they think they want to do.

The question asked was

Could any one advice on any tax implications or any advice relevant. Many thanks

I think my suggestion falls within that remit to overcome most of the issues raised.

Yes yes I know what you are saying but ultimately its a very flowery way the OP is asking 'can my mother hand over her assets to avoid tax or equivalent but only after I divorce so my ex so he isn't entitled to any (fair enough there). 

If it was a case of them going 50/50 then they would, the big one is that the mother wants to avoid any costs or tax.

I think they have not considered 50:50 is a potentially better solution than gifting 1/2 the property.

I think they have but they want to check whether putting it in the daughters name will save them lots of money/avoiding tax/care funds.

If you are going to live with someone the first thing you consider is 50/50 split of everything unless you think you can milk a lil cheddar cheddar by avoiding due process. 

Best solution is to go 50/50 on the mortgage but i don't think the mother would like to have a mortgage charge hanging on over her.