Hypothetical inheritance question regarding buying in-laws house

13»

Comments

  • MeteredOut
    MeteredOut Posts: 1,264 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    edited 24 January at 1:29PM
    pjs493 said:
    There's been a lot of discussions re. "the trust" and "the trustees" in recent posts. Just to point out from the OP post (my bolding):

    "I assume their share would be held in trust until they become of age."

    There's a good chance it is, but, if not, then things change somewhat...



    How else would it be held? I can't imagine a solicitor would have suggested that minors inherit without a trust being set up until they reach a certain age. The estate is fairly substantial.
    Agreed. Assuming (that word again) that's what was discussed with the solicitor. 

    The fact the OP wrote "I assume" and not "their share will be held in trust" is all I was calling out.

    I agree with those that state the in-laws could also change their own wills; death has a really funny way of changing people.
  • Tucosalamanca
    Tucosalamanca Posts: 521 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper
    pjs493 said:
    So I've read a lot of comments here with many people suggesting that keeping the property wouldn't be in the best interest of trustees doing their required task. I'm surprised by this given how good property investment is. Liquidating the house and putting the money into stocks and share or a high interest savings account wouldn't give the same return as the house has increased in value over the years. Renting it out to strangers would also give a higher return than cash investments.

    This is your opinion but have you actually spent much time comparing property vs investments?
    I have seen very little evidence that property outperforms, I'm far from convinced.
    Add tax implications into the mix, I would suggest that investments in ISA or pensions can be a better proposition.

    As to becoming a landlord and renting to strangers, this also isn't clear cut.
    Just five minutes reading MSE forums will show how difficult and potentially expensive it can be.

    You're making many assumptions, mostly for things that are entirely out of your hands.
    What ifs and expectation can be very upsetting if things don't go as you would hope.
    Perhaps take a step back and see what life brings?

  • pjs493
    pjs493 Posts: 281 Forumite
    First Post Name Dropper
    pjs493 said:
    So I've read a lot of comments here with many people suggesting that keeping the property wouldn't be in the best interest of trustees doing their required task. I'm surprised by this given how good property investment is. Liquidating the house and putting the money into stocks and share or a high interest savings account wouldn't give the same return as the house has increased in value over the years. Renting it out to strangers would also give a higher return than cash investments.

    This is your opinion but have you actually spent much time comparing property vs investments?
    I have seen very little evidence that property outperforms, I'm far from convinced.
    Add tax implications into the mix, I would suggest that investments in ISA or pensions can be a better proposition.

    As to becoming a landlord and renting to strangers, this also isn't clear cut.
    Just five minutes reading MSE forums will show how difficult and potentially expensive it can be.

    You're making many assumptions, mostly for things that are entirely out of your hands.
    What ifs and expectation can be very upsetting if things don't go as you would hope.
    Perhaps take a step back and see what life brings?

    The house has increased in value by at least £200k in the last ten years, I’m not sure anyone would see that kind of return on cash investments. Its increase in value has a lot to do with its prime location, land that comes with it and it’s also easy to commute from into central London. While property in other parts of the country may not see such big increases in value, in this case I think location accounts for a lot. 

    This really was all just a hypothetical question at the beginning of the thread. I feel like it’s getting a bit weeded down now. Obviously things can change over the years between now and when my in laws are no longer with us, but it was really just a thought about whether my husband’s vision for the future might still be a possibility in some way and how and if his death complicated things to the point where I couldn’t raise his children in his childhood home like he hoped we’d be able to. 


  • pjs493
    pjs493 Posts: 281 Forumite
    First Post Name Dropper
    pjs493 said:
    There's been a lot of discussions re. "the trust" and "the trustees" in recent posts. Just to point out from the OP post (my bolding):

    "I assume their share would be held in trust until they become of age."

    There's a good chance it is, but, if not, then things change somewhat...



    How else would it be held? I can't imagine a solicitor would have suggested that minors inherit without a trust being set up until they reach a certain age. The estate is fairly substantial.
    Agreed. Assuming (that word again) that's what was discussed with the solicitor. 

    The fact the OP wrote "I assume" and not "their share will be held in trust" is all I was calling out.

    I agree with those that state the in-laws could also change their own wills; death has a really funny way of changing people.
    I was the OP and it was more of a turn of phrase. I’m pretty sure that it is in trust until they turn 18. 

    As many point out, yes they could change their Wills and disinherit their grandchildren from my husband and leave everything to his sibling. Anything is possible. 

    As an aside, before they retired and sold off their businesses and the properties those businesses operated out of, they had originally left the house to my husband and the business and business related properties to my brother in law. This was because my BIL expressed an interest in carrying on the family business and was (about 20 years ago) in the process of taking over the operation of the business from his parents but with them remaining owners of the businesses until they died. They also wanted the house to stay in the family and knew my husband wanted to live in it after them. 

    Cash assets were then to be divided so that they both got an even split of the estate. At the time I remember it being mentioned by someone (I think it was a solicitor family friend of my in laws at a dinner party) that this could result in an uneven split depending on the value of respective properties and the success for the business under the management of my BIL. The conversation veered off into jokes about my BIL seeing himself out of millions by running the business incompetently by playing too much golf and not spending enough time in the office. More jokes were made about my in laws spending cash assets on luxury holidays five times a year. It was all spoken about rather lightly at the time. 

    They sold the businesses and business properties when my BIL changed his career direction, at that time they updated their Wills to just split everything down the middle. By this point both their children were married and grandchildren started making an appearance which presumably also influenced a change. 

    It’s entirely possible that they’ll cut out my children entirely now and leave it all to their surviving son or to a cat shelter. Who knows. 
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.6K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards