This is sad

[GrannyMac]

In the DM today there is an article in the Money section about an older couple, who lived together for 35 years, but never married.  Their home, which they bought together, was in the woman's name, as the man had a business, and wanted to keep the risks separated.   

She died at 91, and within months he, at 89, was evicted by her children.  Both partners had adult children who had always got on well, but no longer.   Even worse, he is now selling his business for around £300k, and her children want half of that because their late mother was listed as an owner on Companies House.

Legally right, but morally wrong IMO.  What a pity the couple didn't make sure they looked after each other in their wills.  

[Mups]

While on the surface that does seem incredibly heartless and greedy of the kids,  as often in these cases, we don't know all the details.

Unless we know this old couple personally,  how do we know what the old chap was like?  For all I know he might have been a throughly unpleasant man who abused his wife, and never got on with her kids,  so now they want him out.

However, it may be nothing like that whatsoever,  and the kids might just be plain resentful and greedy so-and-so's.   We only know the outcome, and not what led up to it.

[dextrous63]

Has Granny morphed into Brian?  I think we should be told 😬

[Ashy]

There are circumstances when it is sensible to make a will, and this would be one of those, so we must assume that they didn't make wills to protect each other in their old age. I agree that it's a tragedy and the beneficiaries could have been more sympathetic.

[GrannyMac]

I just thought in this day and age it was well known that cohabiting couples, unlike married couples, have no legal rights to assets not in their name.  It appears not to be so. 

October 02, 2024, 12:07:19 PM

Has Granny morphed into Brian?  I think we should be told 😬

No, I didn't invent it! 

[Mups]

There are circumstances when it is sensible to make a will, and this would be one of those, so we must assume that they didn't make wills to protect each other in their old age. I agree that it's a tragedy and the beneficiaries could have been more sympathetic.

Yes,  I agree.    I think it is always best to make a will.

[GrannyMac]

There are circumstances when it is sensible to make a will, and this would be one of those, so we must assume that they didn't make wills to protect each other in their old age. I agree that it's a tragedy and the beneficiaries could have been more sympathetic.

Spot on Ashy.

[Scrumpy]

When it comes to money and property always cover your back..
Our (lovely) children can sometimes be nasty little sods when there is money involved..
 Nobody can say and be absolutely sure that  'My children would never do that'..

We just hope that they wouldn't..

[Alex]

I too thought couples who lived together, particularly for many many years had the same rights as a married couple.  Very sad.

[dextrous63]

I can't help but wonder if there's something else going on here.  If he lived there then technically he'd have been a tenant and would have to pay rent of an appropriate amount.  HMRC would be onto this at some stage I'd imagine.  Even if they got round that, then when they did decide to sell up when he left (in one way or, er, another), then they'd be liable for capital gains tax.

There may be all sorts of things going on here to minimise tax payment and possible loss of equity (eg if he was declared legal owner, then the state would take its share if he needed care).

On the face of it, it seems somewhat harsh.  But who knows what the real reasoning may be🤷🏻�♂️

[GrannyMac]

I can't help but wonder if there's something else going on here.  If he lived there then technically he'd have been a tenant and would have to pay rent of an appropriate amount.  HMRC would be onto this at some stage I'd imagine.  Even if they got round that, then when they did decide to sell up when he left (in one way or, er, another), then they'd be liable for capital gains tax.

There may be all sorts of things going on here to minimise tax payment and possible loss of equity (eg if he was declared legal owner, then the state would take its share if he needed care).

On the face of it, it seems somewhat harsh.  But who knows what the real reasoning may be🤷🏻�♂️

The article states they bought the house together, but put it in her name.  As a cohabiting couple neither would pay rent. If they were married, the home would have passed to him.  Let's face it, until quite recently many homes were owned in the man's name because they were very often the main earner/mortgage holder.

It's a warning to couples who live together without being married.  My sister in law lived with her partner for many years before they married in their 60s.   I'm glad they did, because he had made no will, and she'd have had no rights when he died as she would not have been his next of kin.  She could have been homeless too.  His kids will inherit when she dies.

And Scrumpy, you're right.

[dextrous63]

Granny, I was referring to him becoming a tenant and thus liable to pay rent after she had died and her offspring inherited the deeds.

[GrannyMac]

Granny, I was referring to him becoming a tenant and thus liable to pay rent after she had died and her offspring inherited the deeds.

Sorry, I didn't realise.  No chance, they wanted it sold. 

[Mups]

I can't help but wonder if there's something else going on here.  If he lived there then technically he'd have been a tenant and would have to pay rent of an appropriate amount.  HMRC would be onto this at some stage I'd imagine.  Even if they got round that, then when they did decide to sell up when he left (in one way or, er, another), then they'd be liable for capital gains tax.

There may be all sorts of things going on here to minimise tax payment and possible loss of equity (eg if he was declared legal owner, then the state would take its share if he needed care).

On the face of it, it seems somewhat harsh.  But who knows what the real reasoning may be🤷🏻�♂️

That's how I feel too, Dex.   There is no doubt a lot we don't know.


(Good God man,  that twice we've agreed today)!! 

[GrannyMac]

The article in the DM was really to warn couples living together about what could happen to assets if they don't marry.  There's a paywall so I can't link it, but they quote a high proportion of people who really aren't aware they could end up with nothing no matter how long they've been together, or how much they've contributed if not in their name.