Parent and Uncle not wanting to transfer land registry

mattdragon2

My uncle has a will that says his share splits between his 4 kids. My mum has a will that states her share goes to her 2 kids. So if my uncle passed, his 50% share would be split between his 4 kids.

My uncle and mum created a tenancy agreement that my uncles son signed to pay no rent and live there as long as they don't claim interest in the house.

What kind of fines would they have to pay? I would like examples to show them, so I can get this sorted out.

RAS

So, if uncle dies, by what mechanism do his children actually get their share of the house? What says whether the house can be sold if mum doesn't agree, or hasn't got the capacity to sign legal documents by that time? Ditto how do you get your share if uncle is still alive.

Go read the house buying selling and renting forum here. There's a long stickie for landlords and tenants listing all the regulations. EIRC, gas safety certificate, any selective licencing locally? Obligation to repair remains even if they get no income. If the tenant repairs then it's income in kind.

Plus of course having to pay CGT on sale.

Danien

Live there as long as they don't claim interest in the house? That does sound like he gets to live there for the rest of his life. Is there a clause I  the tenancy to evict if needed for house sale? Have they tried to set it up to prevent sale until he dies?

mattdragon2

It's a yearly tenancy, so he has to sign again next year. They put a claus that mum or uncle can evict with a months notice, they just didn't state a reason ie selling of house.

As far as I'm aware, the share is just passed down. Nothing happens, no force of sale or anything. It would have to be if we all agreed to who owns the shares to enact a sale I suppose. This is why they don't want to do the land registry because there is too much work to get all these documents signed.

I just wanted to start with them setting up land registry. If I mention about clauses on evicting for a house sale and who gets what, it will be responded with a blank wall because they don't want to deal with the situtation.

They want the kids to deal with the aftermath.

I understand it's not right and it's a bad situation to be put in, but I'm trying to do with what little I can considering I don't even have a share of the house yet.

Savvy_Sue

does the 'tenant' have responsibility to keep the house in good order? Or would they come cap in hand to Mum and Uncle if eg the roof blew off? 

RAS

mattdragon2 said:

It's a yearly tenancy, so he has to sign again next year. They put a claus that mum or uncle can evict with a months notice, they just didn't state a reason ie selling of house.

Well if they have used the word "tenant" anywhere in that agreement, they've probably set up a situation where the tenant has the right to reside for a year (fixed term).  At some point they can give notice (the usual legal requirement is 2 months), but not expect the tenant to leave until the end of the fixed term or the notice period, which ever is later.

If nothing else, they really do need to go and see a lawyer experienced in tenancy law and explain everything. Removing the occupier if they don't go willingly might require legal action. How likely do you think it is that uncle will play ball then? And if they have used the word tenant, they need to comply with the landlord legislation for the relevant country (all parts of the UK/GB are different). Failure to do could mean it's very difficult to remove the occupier, whatever they've got on paper.

RAS

You say in your first post that mum and uncle inherited as tenants in common. 

On the other hand, you also say that the Land Registry still names grandma? So there is no record of the restriction severing the tenancy between mum and uncle on the Land Registry?

What other documentary evidence is there that the tenancy has been severed?

There have been problems on threads here when wills were written assuming a tenancy in common, and it was discovered that the property was still held as a joint tenancy.

One refered to a step-child whose inheritance from dad failed because the tenancy has never been severed so her step-mother got the house. Another after the death of the second spouse when the children of the first to die discovered that they were entitled to nothing. That case would have disinherited the other family if the deaths had happened in the other way round.

I don't know this would play out when the owners were siblings rather than spouses, and the property still owned by the estate of their parent.

pjs493

Are the mum and uncle boomers by any chance? The ‘let’s leave the kids to deal with the aftermath’ sounds very much like my in-laws. 

My husband and his sibling tried for years to get their parents to make some sensible financial planning with regards to their estate, but their response was always ‘we started with nothing, so we don’t care what is left or what mess everything is in when we both die’.

My husband’s primary concern was that with everything split 50/50 between him and his sibling, the family home would need to be sold because neither could afford to buy the other out of the house (or at least my husband and I wouldn’t be in a position to buy out his sibling). My in-laws are rapidly depleting cash assets with extravagant spending so the worry was that there would be the house and not a huge amount of cash assets when the time came. IHT would be due and would be huge due to the value of the house. My husband desperately wanted us to live in his ancestral home once his parents were gone because of the sentimental attachment he had to the house. His sibling had no interest in living there. 

It doesn’t affect me anymore because now that my husband has died, I suspect they’ve changed their Wills to leave everything to their surviving child. Previously, if one of their children predeceased them, that child’s share was to be divided between their own children. But I’m under no illusions that they’ve cut out my children, either at the insistence of my husband’s sibling or out of spite. 

In your situation it sounds like the death of either mum or uncle would require the house to be sold due to the number of people due to inherit upon either death, and it being unlikely that six cousins would want to own a sixth of a house and all the obligations that go with it. So it would be prudent to have the Land Registry changed into the names of mum and uncle. They may have SDLT to pay which might be why they don’t want to make the change. Or they could just be being stubborn and don’t care about the consequences. 

The other tricky situation is the resident cousin. They’re obviously benefiting from free accommodation and it’s unlikely that anyone due to inherit would be happy with that arrangement continuing should mum or uncle die. Does the tenancy agreement state that they can’t claim any interest in it while they live there? Or does it specify that they can’t take their share when they come to inherit a portion of the house? 

The situation comes across as a bit of a powder keg to be honest and it might take a bit of strength in numbers between the cousins to convince mum and uncle that they’re better off changing the LR soon. 

It might also be worth exploring how the mum and uncle’s Wills are worded. Does everyone get a share of the house, or the proceeds from it? If it’s a share, this could have implications for anyone who doesn’t own a house already, they would lose their FTB status and those who already own a home will suddenly find they have the burden of owning a second home and the expenses that come with it. 

Best scenario is for mum and uncle to change LR, leave the house to whomever they see fit, but word their Wills so that the proceeds of the sale of the house are divided between their children, rather than a specific share of the house itself. When either mum or uncle dies, their death with trigger the sale of the house in order to liquidate the asset and the proceeds to be distributed. If mum dies, 50% of the proceeds get split between her children and uncle gets his 50% in cash. In uncle dies, the house is sold and his 50% is divided between his four children and mum gets her 50% in cash. 

BikingBud

mattdragon2 said:

It's a yearly tenancy, so he has to sign again next year. They put a claus that mum or uncle can evict with a months notice, they just didn't state a reason ie selling of house.

As far as I'm aware, the share is just passed down. Nothing happens, no force of sale or anything. It would have to be if we all agreed to who owns the shares to enact a sale I suppose. This is why they don't want to do the land registry because there is too much work to get all these documents signed.

I just wanted to start with them setting up land registry. If I mention about clauses on evicting for a house sale and who gets what, it will be responded with a blank wall because they don't want to deal with the situtation.

They want the kids to deal with the aftermath.

I understand it's not right and it's a bad situation to be put in, but I'm trying to do with what little I can considering I don't even have a share of the house yet.

Too much work now!

Imagine how bad this could possibly get and consider the work then required to unpick it all, distribution of estate where multi-generation intransigence has occurred and perhaps not least the very high probability of an irregular tenancy, failure of landlord to meet statutory obligations, ongoing tax liabilities, council tax etc.

What happens when one of the apparent beneficiaries wants their share? If it all gets messy and needs unpicking by resorting to legal process, the odds are extremely slim that there will be anything left.

That might be your best bargaining point that if it's not sorted now the lawyers will have it all! 

Best wishes! 

BikingBud

mattdragon2 said:

Sorry, I changed the title.

They don't want to do anything with the house, just leave leave it for the kids to sort out. Too much hassle for them to sell.

At the moment one of the uncles kids are living at the accomodation but they signed a tenancy agreement to stay there rent free as long as they have no interest in the house.

At the moment they still don't see why the house should be registered on the land registry since they don't want to do anything with the house. I was trying to get them to register but couldn't find a reason for them to do it.

Coming back to this, why don't they sell it then and each distribute as they wish?