Inheritance/Nursing Homes
Discussion
Hoping to pick the brain of a few legal beagles here today.
A friend of mine unfortunatly recently lost his mum, which left his dad (Who has Alzheimer's) behind. She was his primary carer (not being paid) and looked after him. Since she has passed, he has moved into his daughters house, as he needs someone around all the time.
They have discussed selling the house that he lived in for many years with his wife, no mortgage, and spliting it between my friend and his sister. Equal shares. However, if his dad should need in the future, to go into a residential home, without much savings behind him, how does that leave them standing?
Would the government chase my friend and his sister to pay, or would the state help out with the costs? Before any actions are taken, I thought I would help him out and use the resources of PH to find some answers.
Many thanks in advance
Lou
A friend of mine unfortunatly recently lost his mum, which left his dad (Who has Alzheimer's) behind. She was his primary carer (not being paid) and looked after him. Since she has passed, he has moved into his daughters house, as he needs someone around all the time.
They have discussed selling the house that he lived in for many years with his wife, no mortgage, and spliting it between my friend and his sister. Equal shares. However, if his dad should need in the future, to go into a residential home, without much savings behind him, how does that leave them standing?
Would the government chase my friend and his sister to pay, or would the state help out with the costs? Before any actions are taken, I thought I would help him out and use the resources of PH to find some answers.
Many thanks in advance
Lou
Parents can sell a house and 'gift' the proceeds to their children, or just 'gift' the house, then the children let them live there free of charge.
This is often done to avoid inheritance taxes but the parents need to survive for seven years following the transfer otherwise it's viewed as a tax dodge and HMRC come knocking.
I would expect some similar rules would be in place in this situation.
This is often done to avoid inheritance taxes but the parents need to survive for seven years following the transfer otherwise it's viewed as a tax dodge and HMRC come knocking.
I would expect some similar rules would be in place in this situation.
Not a legal person but firstly having been through something very similar I feel for his daughter already, this is no small task she has taken on.
The way the council will see it is that he owns a house and they will want it sold to pay for a care/nursing home. If the house is sold they will still regard the proceeds as fair game and will want that money to pay for it.
What the family need to aim for is "continual care", which effectively means the council will foot the care/nursing home bill. Obviously the council will do everything they can to wriggle out of granting it but it can be done.
It would seem our system suits those who are skint better than those who make any effort in life!
The way the council will see it is that he owns a house and they will want it sold to pay for a care/nursing home. If the house is sold they will still regard the proceeds as fair game and will want that money to pay for it.
What the family need to aim for is "continual care", which effectively means the council will foot the care/nursing home bill. Obviously the council will do everything they can to wriggle out of granting it but it can be done.
It would seem our system suits those who are skint better than those who make any effort in life!
A friend of mine inherited the share (50%) of his parents house when one of them died.
The other after a couple of years needed to go into care, of course then the council wanted the house to be sold to cover the cost, but because the son had 50% share in it he was able to prevent this, but only by moving into the house to confirm he was living there.
The other after a couple of years needed to go into care, of course then the council wanted the house to be sold to cover the cost, but because the son had 50% share in it he was able to prevent this, but only by moving into the house to confirm he was living there.
Normally would not reply, but this makes me a little annoyed.
The chap has Alzheimers, (pardon spelling) - he's not dead!!!
As he is incapable of managing his own finances, clearly a child, or other nominated party is responsible for that. Surely they have to protect HIS best interests. That should not include carving up his estate prematurely (possibly the pounds signs in the eyes of the siblings are a little big!) - the house, if sold, should have the cash put in an account for HIS purposes, nursing care, medical bills - whatever.
When he goes to sing with the choir eternal, they can then discuss splitting the estate, either as per his Will, or 50/50 if there are no nominated beneficiaries. But until then, hands off.
The chap has Alzheimers, (pardon spelling) - he's not dead!!!
As he is incapable of managing his own finances, clearly a child, or other nominated party is responsible for that. Surely they have to protect HIS best interests. That should not include carving up his estate prematurely (possibly the pounds signs in the eyes of the siblings are a little big!) - the house, if sold, should have the cash put in an account for HIS purposes, nursing care, medical bills - whatever.
When he goes to sing with the choir eternal, they can then discuss splitting the estate, either as per his Will, or 50/50 if there are no nominated beneficiaries. But until then, hands off.
TooMany2cvs said:
Daz1855 said:
It would seem our system suits those who are skint better than those who make any effort in life!
Why _should_ the tax payer pay for care for those who can afford to pay it for themselves?Why should the taxpayer subsidise somebody's inheritance?
G-Rich said:
When he goes to sing with the choir eternal, they can then discuss splitting the estate, either as per his Will, or 50/50 if there are no nominated beneficiaries. But until then, hands off.
Too right.My dad was reading some retirement magazine years ago, I asked him what was in it as it looked boring. He told me it was about how to make sure I couldn't get my hands on his money.
G-Rich said:
Normally would not reply, but this makes me a little annoyed.
The chap has Alzheimers, (pardon spelling) - he's not dead!!!
As he is incapable of managing his own finances, clearly a child, or other nominated party is responsible for that. Surely they have to protect HIS best interests. That should not include carving up his estate prematurely (possibly the pounds signs in the eyes of the siblings are a little big!) - the house, if sold, should have the cash put in an account for HIS purposes, nursing care, medical bills - whatever.
When he goes to sing with the choir eternal, they can then discuss splitting the estate, either as per his Will, or 50/50 if there are no nominated beneficiaries. But until then, hands off.
I agree with this post too.The chap has Alzheimers, (pardon spelling) - he's not dead!!!
As he is incapable of managing his own finances, clearly a child, or other nominated party is responsible for that. Surely they have to protect HIS best interests. That should not include carving up his estate prematurely (possibly the pounds signs in the eyes of the siblings are a little big!) - the house, if sold, should have the cash put in an account for HIS purposes, nursing care, medical bills - whatever.
When he goes to sing with the choir eternal, they can then discuss splitting the estate, either as per his Will, or 50/50 if there are no nominated beneficiaries. But until then, hands off.
If he is able to pay for his own care with the proceeds of his house he will potentialy get better care than he would if he was dependent on the state.
A substantial amount of my grandfathers estate went to fund his care home costs in the last few years of his life.
I wonder how many of the people trying to get round the rules are volunteering to pay more tax when they're working to fund the state paying all the care costs?
Devil2575 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Daz1855 said:
It would seem our system suits those who are skint better than those who make any effort in life!
Why _should_ the tax payer pay for care for those who can afford to pay it for themselves?Why should the taxpayer subsidise somebody's inheritance?
Why should the taxpayer subsidise someone who did not put an ounce of effort during an entire non-working life and has lived on state handouts for X number of years ?
el stovey said:
G-Rich said:
When he goes to sing with the choir eternal, they can then discuss splitting the estate, either as per his Will, or 50/50 if there are no nominated beneficiaries. But until then, hands off.
Too right.My dad was reading some retirement magazine years ago, I asked him what was in it as it looked boring. He told me it was about how to make sure I couldn't get my hands on his money.
covboy said:
Devil2575 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Daz1855 said:
It would seem our system suits those who are skint better than those who make any effort in life!
Why _should_ the tax payer pay for care for those who can afford to pay it for themselves?Why should the taxpayer subsidise somebody's inheritance?
Why should the taxpayer subsidise someone who did not put an ounce of effort during an entire non-working life and has lived on state handouts for X number of years ?
How do you know they didn't put any effort in?
How many people actually spend their entire lives on benefits? I suspect the majority of people who require state supported nursing home places are those who worked their entire lives on lowish wages.
Do you think that the level of care someone recieves from state funded elderly care is the same as you could get of you can pay for it yourself?
G-Rich said:
el stovey said:
G-Rich said:
When he goes to sing with the choir eternal, they can then discuss splitting the estate, either as per his Will, or 50/50 if there are no nominated beneficiaries. But until then, hands off.
Too right.My dad was reading some retirement magazine years ago, I asked him what was in it as it looked boring. He told me it was about how to make sure I couldn't get my hands on his money.
ds. They better not need any help when they're older! LouD86 said:
Hoping to pick the brain of a few legal beagles here today.
A friend of mine unfortunatly recently lost his mum, which left his dad (Who has Alzheimer's) behind. She was his primary carer (not being paid) and looked after him. Since she has passed, he has moved into his daughters house, as he needs someone around all the time.
They have discussed selling the house that he lived in for many years with his wife, no mortgage, and spliting it between my friend and his sister. Equal shares. However, if his dad should need in the future, to go into a residential home, without much savings behind him, how does that leave them standing?
Would the government chase my friend and his sister to pay, or would the state help out with the costs? Before any actions are taken, I thought I would help him out and use the resources of PH to find some answers.
Many thanks in advance
Lou
Sorry to hear about your friend's loss. The daughter has taken on a big responsibility.A friend of mine unfortunatly recently lost his mum, which left his dad (Who has Alzheimer's) behind. She was his primary carer (not being paid) and looked after him. Since she has passed, he has moved into his daughters house, as he needs someone around all the time.
They have discussed selling the house that he lived in for many years with his wife, no mortgage, and spliting it between my friend and his sister. Equal shares. However, if his dad should need in the future, to go into a residential home, without much savings behind him, how does that leave them standing?
Would the government chase my friend and his sister to pay, or would the state help out with the costs? Before any actions are taken, I thought I would help him out and use the resources of PH to find some answers.
Many thanks in advance
Lou
This is a complicated area and as already mentioned you should tread carefully, both from a legal, tax and moral perspective.
If after the house is sold, and the proceeds split between beneficiaries, the father subsequently requires care and the family then approach the Local Authority the LA could view the family's actions as a 'deprivation of assets', ie, a deliberate attempt by the caree, or their family, to avoid paying for care. In that situation it is possible that they will decline to pay for the care stating that the LA are accountable for the responsible use of public money.
The means-tested saving threshold, below which the LA should pay for care is £23,250. If one has more than this, and the father is likely to be viewed as above it if they value his estate including the house, then one is viewed as being self funding. You can either source and pay for your own care directly or use a LA brokerage system to do so.
There may be tax issues too. Certainly there is the matter of the 7 year survival rule for tax purposes if the house or proceeds are gifted to his children.
I am certainly not a lawyer but have done a little reading on the subject but a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing... Do your own research and/or check with someone who definitely knows what they're talking about!
Good luck.
Devil2575 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Daz1855 said:
It would seem our system suits those who are skint better than those who make any effort in life!
Why _should_ the tax payer pay for care for those who can afford to pay it for themselves?Why should the taxpayer subsidise somebody's inheritance?
The people least likely to agree with this stance invariably don't stand to inherit anything, so it doesn't cost THEM anything to think that way.
The same applies to inheritance tax, why should someone pay tax again on something that has already been taxed at least once just for being gifted it?
Devil2575 said:
covboy said:
Devil2575 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Daz1855 said:
It would seem our system suits those who are skint better than those who make any effort in life!
Why _should_ the tax payer pay for care for those who can afford to pay it for themselves?Why should the taxpayer subsidise somebody's inheritance?
Why should the taxpayer subsidise someone who did not put an ounce of effort during an entire non-working life and has lived on state handouts for X number of years ?
How do you know they didn't put any effort in?
How many people actually spend their entire lives on benefits? I suspect the majority of people who require state supported nursing home places are those who worked their entire lives on lowish wages.
Do you think that the level of care someone recieves from state funded elderly care is the same as you could get of you can pay for it yourself?
Her plan is now to move into the parental home and claim it as her own. She is utter scum.
Daz1855 said:
ecause someone who does without lots of "extras" during their whole life to leave something to their families instead should not be penalised for doing so.
The people least likely to agree with this stance invariably don't stand to inherit anything, so it doesn't cost THEM anything to think that way.
The same applies to inheritance tax, why should someone pay tax again on something that has already been taxed at least once just for being gifted it?
Maybe but not everyone. My father's inheritance when my grandfather died was reduced by a substantial ammount due to the cost of care. My father took the view that it wasn't his money until his father died so he had no claim on it. I hold a similar view.The people least likely to agree with this stance invariably don't stand to inherit anything, so it doesn't cost THEM anything to think that way.
The same applies to inheritance tax, why should someone pay tax again on something that has already been taxed at least once just for being gifted it?
Unless you wish to pay higher taxation to cover the cost of universal state funded healthcare for everyone, what do you propose?
It's the same argument as benefits, i'm penalised for working when someone who doesn't gets free money off the state. It tends to fail to recognise the fact that living off the state is a pretty rubbish exisitance. I say that as someone who has known people who lived off benefits. The stabndard of nursing care you will get if you sell your house to fund it will be better than that provided by the state. Kind of imnportant when you consider that you are at a very vulnerable stage of your life.
However if your concern is for how much you will inherit rather than the welfare of your elderly relatives then I see your point.
G-Rich said:
Normally would not reply, but this makes me a little annoyed.
The chap has Alzheimers, (pardon spelling) - he's not dead!!!
As he is incapable of managing his own finances, clearly a child, or other nominated party is responsible for that. Surely they have to protect HIS best interests. That should not include carving up his estate prematurely (possibly the pounds signs in the eyes of the siblings are a little big!) - the house, if sold, should have the cash put in an account for HIS purposes, nursing care, medical bills - whatever.
When he goes to sing with the choir eternal, they can then discuss splitting the estate, either as per his Will, or 50/50 if there are no nominated beneficiaries. But until then, hands off.
+1The chap has Alzheimers, (pardon spelling) - he's not dead!!!
As he is incapable of managing his own finances, clearly a child, or other nominated party is responsible for that. Surely they have to protect HIS best interests. That should not include carving up his estate prematurely (possibly the pounds signs in the eyes of the siblings are a little big!) - the house, if sold, should have the cash put in an account for HIS purposes, nursing care, medical bills - whatever.
When he goes to sing with the choir eternal, they can then discuss splitting the estate, either as per his Will, or 50/50 if there are no nominated beneficiaries. But until then, hands off.
Having lost my father late last year it's disgusting that siblings seem to forget basic human compassion and ethics when presented with an opportunity to make some money.
The thought never even entered my mind how I could leverage my father's property before his death, and it's very difficult for me to have to deal with it now even though I have no alternative but to.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff