New Post Advanced Search

Planning for death - forum discussion

edited 16 October 2012 at 1:44PM in Deaths, Funerals & Probate
105 replies 37.8K views
1567911

Replies

  • Keep_pedallingKeep_pedalling Forumite
    8.2K posts
    Fifth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    Afraid once you are gone what happens to the property is out of your hands. It is actually very difficult to keep a house within one family unless you simply leave it to the oldest / favourite child and even then they may not want it.
  • MojisolaMojisola Forumite
    33.7K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Malthusian wrote: »
    Has the beneficiary told you they want to live in your house after you are gone (or are they living with you now)? I ask out of interest because people seem to decide they want their heirs to live in their "family home" far more often than the heirs do.
    VfM4meplse wrote: »
    No, I would like them to benefit from the property in whatever way they choose (aside from selling it) before its passed down to the next generation. Renting it out is fine if that is what they choose to do.

    If someone left a property to me with this kind of stipulation, I'd look on it more as a millstone than a kind gift.

    I want to chose where I live, I don't want to be a landlord and I don't want to have to spend my money on an empty house in order to stop it deteriorating. :(

    What will happen if your beneficiaries refuse to take on the house?
  • VfM4meplseVfM4meplse
    34.3K posts
    I've been Money Tipped!
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Mojisola wrote: »
    What will happen if your beneficiaries refuse to take on the house?
    Not an issue, they are happy to do so.
    Value-for-money-for-me-puhleeze!

    "No man is worth, crawling on the earth"- adapted from Bob Crewe and Bob Gaudio

    Hope is not a strategy :D...A child is for life, not just 18 years....Don't get me started on the NHS, because you won't win...I love chaz-ing!
  • Afraid once you are gone what happens to the property is out of your hands. It is actually very difficult to keep a house within one family unless you simply leave it to the oldest / favourite child and even then they may not want it.
    Does anyone else think that the concept of the "family home" is an outdated idea from Agatha Christie novels?
  • MojisolaMojisola Forumite
    33.7K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    VfM4meplse wrote: »
    Not an issue, they are happy to do so.

    People's circumstances change.

    Some years ago, I might have done now. Now with poor health and limited income, I definitely wouldn't.
  • VfM4meplseVfM4meplse
    34.3K posts
    I've been Money Tipped!
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Mojisola wrote: »
    People's circumstances change.

    Some years ago, I might have done now. Now with poor health and limited income, I definitely wouldn't.
    I don't want to die before they do but this is the best approach for us should it happen.

    I just want to die in peace and it seems that even that may be impossible.
    Value-for-money-for-me-puhleeze!

    "No man is worth, crawling on the earth"- adapted from Bob Crewe and Bob Gaudio

    Hope is not a strategy :D...A child is for life, not just 18 years....Don't get me started on the NHS, because you won't win...I love chaz-ing!
  • MojisolaMojisola Forumite
    33.7K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    VfM4meplse wrote: »
    I don't want to die before they do but this is the best approach for us should it happen.

    I just want to die in peace and it seems that even that may be impossible.

    Why is it so important that the property should be kept for the next generation? Wouldn't it be better for the house to be sold and the money passed on?

    I have a relative who owns the home where her mother was born and she and all her siblings were born and grew up. She was passing it down in her will to her two children, thinking that they and their children would appreciate the family connection and would use it.

    One of her adult children now lives in Australia; the other hasn't visited the house for many years - family holidays are taken in sunny places. Neither has the slightest interest in spending time at the house or looking after it.

    Fortunately, this has happened while she is in a position to rethink her will - she is selling the house and the children will inherit money to spend as they want.
  • VfM4meplseVfM4meplse
    34.3K posts
    I've been Money Tipped!
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Mojisola wrote: »
    Why is it so important that the property should be kept for the next generation? Wouldn't it be better for the house to be sold and the money passed on?
    Purely because as an outsider it was so hard to get a foot on the London market in the first place; I would like someone to benefit without the scrimping, scraping and 70hr work week that I had. I'd like it to be a family bolthole to give future generations a chance whilst establishing themselves, but once it goes to the final recipient they can do what they like with it.
    Value-for-money-for-me-puhleeze!

    "No man is worth, crawling on the earth"- adapted from Bob Crewe and Bob Gaudio

    Hope is not a strategy :D...A child is for life, not just 18 years....Don't get me started on the NHS, because you won't win...I love chaz-ing!
  • securityguysecurityguy Forumite
    2.4K posts
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    Does anyone else think that the concept of the "family home" is an outdated idea from Agatha Christie novels?

    Exactly. It's an idea from a very narrow portion of society, where primogeniture was regarded as right and proper. Houses were passed down the line of first-born males, with ad hoc solutions when there were no direct male heirs, and everyone else just lumped it. And this applied to a minute number of people, loosely the "upper classes". As home ownership developed before (for the middle classes) and after (for everyone else) the war, there were other social changes which meant that primogeniture wasn't a plausible solution. And without primogeniture, what do people want: progressively smaller and smaller shares of houses as children, grandchildren and greatgrandchildren further sub-divide your former house? What?
  • securityguysecurityguy Forumite
    2.4K posts
    Seventh Anniversary 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭
    VfM4meplse wrote: »
    Purely because as an outsider it was so hard to get a foot on the London market in the first place; I would like someone to benefit without the scrimping, scraping and 70hr work week that I had..

    So why isn't the money more useful? Then they can buy a smaller house further in, or a large house further out, or a house on the Central Line because that's the best for their job, or pool the money with their spouse, or whatever.

    And a house in London is just a millstone if you're working in Aberdeen. You'd be better off selling it an buying a mansion in Aberdeenshire.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support