Tenants in common/Joint Tenants and care home fees (mum and daughter)

Amyyy_123

Hello

My mother and I are currently joint tenants of a house (done to help me out initially). I am beginning to think about the future and if (touch wood it doesn't need to happen) my mother needs to go into a care home, would it be better for us to stick to joint tenants, be tenants in common - 10% and 90%? OR transfer to myself as sole ownership, and what does this mean for care fees and assessment of assets for my mother, and for me to be living in the property? 

Also, to cover all situations and god forbid this also doesnt happen. But if I was to die young and before my mother, I need to ensure that the same is for her and she also isn't forced to sell the house (we live together at the moment). I would write in my will if full ownership or tenants in common for all to go to my mother. 

Any help would be appreciated. 

Keep_pedalling

You mother would be extremely foolish to gift a larger share of her home to you. How old are you? Sorry if that sounds a bit personal but if you are 60+ then the house will be disregarded in any financial assessment. 

elsien

Transferring the house to you with the sole intention of avoiding care home fees would be deliberate deprivation of assets and your mother would be treated as if she still had the notional capital. 

And anyone giving away a large part of their assets to someone else is putting themselves in the extremely vulnerable position. Life happens. Things change.  You could have a massive falling out and walk away with your 90% share, for example. 

Brie

please someone correct me if I'm wrong but if you are joint tenants you are both entitled to the full house.  So it's not that you own X and she owns Y.  So if she goes into care the house can't be sold to pay for her fees.  The LA might try to put a lien on it so that when it is sold (after your death?) they get their split but they can't kick you out.  

This might also be changed depending on your ages.  If you are over 60 it's almost like you are married and they can't kick you out.  

Obviously if you die first then your mom would own the whole house and if she then goes into care it could be sold to pay for that care.  

Amyyy_123

elsien said:

Transferring the house to you with the sole intention of avoiding care home fees would be deliberate deprivation of assets and your mother would be treated as if she still had the notional capital. 

And anyone giving away a large part of their assets to someone else is putting themselves in the extremely vulnerable position. Life happens. Things change.  You could have a massive falling out and walk away with your 90% share, for example. 

HI, 

Thanks for your comment. The house was always meant to be mine anyway. I am 32 and my mum is only 61. That is not the sole intention, its to ensure the best security for both of us - care fees is an example I can think of that could potentially lead to having to sell the house (which is my home). I want to make sure my mum has nothing to worry about if I died first but also I don't have to worry about losing my home if care is needed. I most likely wont live here for my whole life but would always have my mum live in it anyway.

Also neither of us are cruel enough to do that if we ever fell out - we have alot of mutual respect to each other and we know that this would never happen - I am 100% sure of that. 

Amyyy_123

Brie said:

please someone correct me if I'm wrong but if you are joint tenants you are both entitled to the full house.  So it's not that you own X and she owns Y.  So if she goes into care the house can't be sold to pay for her fees.  The LA might try to put a lien on it so that when it is sold (after your death?) they get their split but they can't kick you out.  

This might also be changed depending on your ages.  If you are over 60 it's almost like you are married and they can't kick you out.  

Obviously if you die first then your mom would own the whole house and if she then goes into care it could be sold to pay for that care.  

Thanks for this this was my understanding also. My only thought on this was that she would own 100% (as well as me also) so that would be used for care home fees and I wouldn't have a home, but maybe not? I am not married. This is why I wondered whether it would be better for me to transfer the house to my name, and put the house to my mum in my will - I just want to make sure before I do this that my mum wouldn't be left homeless if I died first? I really dont know what the best option is. Its more about us both having security of the home. I paid deposits/fees etc so it was always meant to be my house 

Amyyy_123

Keep_pedalling said:

You mother would be extremely foolish to gift a larger share of her home to you. How old are you? Sorry if that sounds a bit personal but if you are 60+ then the house will be disregarded in any financial assessment. 

Apologies if I've not explained this very well. The house was always meant to be mine. I paid deposits etc. We both live here, we are both young (mum 61), this post is more to find info of the best option to ensure we both have a home, I'm referring to care fees as an example I can think of that would potentially mean I would have to move out and sell the house depending on arrangements, which is why I was questioning the best option for security for both of us. 

elsien

One of you moves out to get married or  live with someone? You might want to realise the asset towards a new house, or if not living there then it would impact on any means tested benefits the non-resident person could claim. 
One of you goes bankrupt? 

Amyyy_123

elsien said:

One of you moves out to get married or  live with someone? You might want to realise the asset towards a new house, or if not living there then it would impact on any means tested benefits the non-resident person could claim. 
One of you goes bankrupt? 

elsien said:

One of you moves out to get married or  live with someone? You might want to realise the asset towards a new house, or if not living there then it would impact on any means tested benefits the non-resident person could claim. 
One of you goes bankrupt? 

Yes exactly, these are other examples as I most likely would move out myself at some point but would still leave my mum living in it. This is why I am wondering the best option. 

elsien

Would your mum be able to afford to buy you out, or you afford to buy her out? That is what it would ultimately come down to and I don't see how changing how the house is owned would make any difference to that if one of you needed your full share out, because if the answer is no then you would have to sell up. 

Amyyy_123

elsien said:

Would your mum be able to afford to buy you out, or you afford to buy her out? That is what it would ultimately come down to and I don't see how changing how the house is owned would make any difference to that if one of you needed your full share out, because if the answer is no then you would have to sell up. 

My mum wouldn't need to buy me out or have her full share. I have paid pretty much everything - we split the mortgage to help each other out as we were renting before so my mum is just happy that the rent is cheaper for her. If I moved, she would then just pay the mortgage "rent" on her own - still cheaper for her. I put her on it incase something happened to me and I didn't want her to be homeless but after further thought I wondered if this was the best option. I do think the ownership of the house would make a big difference in terms of if one of us died or needed care (for example)...