Right of occupation question
Discussion
I don't know whether anyone can advise on this, or even if it exists. I'll keep it as brief as possible.
MrsC's oldest friend (from school), who is in her early 50s, has, let's say, not had a particularly successful life. Never married, no career to speak of, doesn't own a property, and isn't particularly well off (and certainly no reserve of money anywhere). Approximately 18 months to 2 years ago, she moved back to live with her mother, who's quite elderly, and at the time had just lost her husband and said she'd appreciate the help around the house and the company. During the time that the friend (let's call her X) has been living with her mother, the mother's physical and mental health has slowly deteriorated, to the point where after breaking her hip in a fall recently, the hospital and whichever other services were involved have said that she needs to be living in a care home as her needs are beyond what X can reasonably provide. The intention is that she goes into a local authority care home at a cost of c. £1000/week. The mother has around £100k in cash. As I have gently pointed out, statistically she's not likely to get to a point where she runs out of that cash (and in fact not even to the point where she hits the level where she's allowed to retain the balance, £20-something thousand currently I believe).
X however has 2 sisters. One is mercenary to the point of making Idi Amin look like a pet rabbit, the other is easily led by the mercenary one and will tend to side/agree with her. The mercenary sister (let's call her Idi then) is very comfortably off financially, and as has been her custom for several years, is currently spending the summer in her French residence, Covid and Brexit notwithstanding. As soon as it was decided that the mother was gong into care, Idi looked up from her poolside G&T and quickly rang an estate agent near to the mother's home, whom she has instructed to view the mother's house on Monday with a view to renting it out to cover the care home costs (thus, I assume, ensuring that Idi preserves her share of the £100k). The same house, of course, which has been home to X for the past couple of years and which is her home and her only place of residence. She has nowhere else to go other than throwing herself at the feet of another family member somewhere (or, indeed, us).
It's not clear whether any of the sisters has LPA over the mother's affairs, nor what's in the will. It's unlikely that the will leaves the house to X, since prior to the mother becoming ill it was understood that the will left a straight 3-way split between the sisters, and she's not believed to have altered that any time recently (and is now I guess incapable of doing so).
So it comes down to, does X have any rights to remain in the mother's home whilst the mother is alive? I'm aware that, for example, on house sale papers, you have to declare any adults living in the house, which I believe is due to the possibility of such a person being able to refuse to move and thus scuppering the sale? (Not clear on the detail on this). I know that X is going to take legal advice next week, but she's clearly deeply concerned and is asking us if we know where she stands. I don't, hence this post.
TIA.
MrsC's oldest friend (from school), who is in her early 50s, has, let's say, not had a particularly successful life. Never married, no career to speak of, doesn't own a property, and isn't particularly well off (and certainly no reserve of money anywhere). Approximately 18 months to 2 years ago, she moved back to live with her mother, who's quite elderly, and at the time had just lost her husband and said she'd appreciate the help around the house and the company. During the time that the friend (let's call her X) has been living with her mother, the mother's physical and mental health has slowly deteriorated, to the point where after breaking her hip in a fall recently, the hospital and whichever other services were involved have said that she needs to be living in a care home as her needs are beyond what X can reasonably provide. The intention is that she goes into a local authority care home at a cost of c. £1000/week. The mother has around £100k in cash. As I have gently pointed out, statistically she's not likely to get to a point where she runs out of that cash (and in fact not even to the point where she hits the level where she's allowed to retain the balance, £20-something thousand currently I believe).
X however has 2 sisters. One is mercenary to the point of making Idi Amin look like a pet rabbit, the other is easily led by the mercenary one and will tend to side/agree with her. The mercenary sister (let's call her Idi then) is very comfortably off financially, and as has been her custom for several years, is currently spending the summer in her French residence, Covid and Brexit notwithstanding. As soon as it was decided that the mother was gong into care, Idi looked up from her poolside G&T and quickly rang an estate agent near to the mother's home, whom she has instructed to view the mother's house on Monday with a view to renting it out to cover the care home costs (thus, I assume, ensuring that Idi preserves her share of the £100k). The same house, of course, which has been home to X for the past couple of years and which is her home and her only place of residence. She has nowhere else to go other than throwing herself at the feet of another family member somewhere (or, indeed, us).
It's not clear whether any of the sisters has LPA over the mother's affairs, nor what's in the will. It's unlikely that the will leaves the house to X, since prior to the mother becoming ill it was understood that the will left a straight 3-way split between the sisters, and she's not believed to have altered that any time recently (and is now I guess incapable of doing so).
So it comes down to, does X have any rights to remain in the mother's home whilst the mother is alive? I'm aware that, for example, on house sale papers, you have to declare any adults living in the house, which I believe is due to the possibility of such a person being able to refuse to move and thus scuppering the sale? (Not clear on the detail on this). I know that X is going to take legal advice next week, but she's clearly deeply concerned and is asking us if we know where she stands. I don't, hence this post.
TIA.
Yes/no/maybe. Sorry for the vagueness, but it isn’t straightforward.
X could stay in the house if either (a) X could show mother granted her a permission to stay there (a licence, based on a contract, which could be oral) or (b) X could establish what’s known as a type of estoppel. Basically (very) a representation, plus detrimental reliance.
Then it gets tricky.
This: “ Approximately 18 months to 2 years ago, she moved back to live with her mother, who's quite elderly, and at the time had just lost her husband and said she'd appreciate the help around the house and the company.”
suggests mother was happy to have X in the house as long as mother was in the house. Establishing a right of occupation beyond the point that mother was in the house looks difficult.
Then throw this in: while mother is alive, the only person who can chuck X (whether by terminating the licence or the rights established by the estoppel) is mother. Or mother’s lawfully appointed agent. So on the basis of what you know, just mother. And if mother isn’t looking to evict X, there’s no reason for X to budge.
And that means that Idi can keep her plans to rent out the house to herself because she (Idi) has no rights to deal with mother’s property.
So: X is in but the legal basis on which X is in is unclear. Maybe X should be paying some rent. Maybe when mother checks out the executors will look to deduct accrued pseudo rent from X’s share of the estate. Dunno. Some form of sensible amicable brokered agreement is probably what’s needed but that is far easier said than done.
I would not be surprised based purely on what you’ve said to learn that Idi thinks X is largely responsible for her own misfortune and deserves little to no breaks in life. Spoils to the victor and all that. Idi may not be able to do that much while mother is alive. After that though X may find herself rapidly outgunned/outresourced if Idi takes a hostile line.
X could stay in the house if either (a) X could show mother granted her a permission to stay there (a licence, based on a contract, which could be oral) or (b) X could establish what’s known as a type of estoppel. Basically (very) a representation, plus detrimental reliance.
Then it gets tricky.
This: “ Approximately 18 months to 2 years ago, she moved back to live with her mother, who's quite elderly, and at the time had just lost her husband and said she'd appreciate the help around the house and the company.”
suggests mother was happy to have X in the house as long as mother was in the house. Establishing a right of occupation beyond the point that mother was in the house looks difficult.
Then throw this in: while mother is alive, the only person who can chuck X (whether by terminating the licence or the rights established by the estoppel) is mother. Or mother’s lawfully appointed agent. So on the basis of what you know, just mother. And if mother isn’t looking to evict X, there’s no reason for X to budge.
And that means that Idi can keep her plans to rent out the house to herself because she (Idi) has no rights to deal with mother’s property.
So: X is in but the legal basis on which X is in is unclear. Maybe X should be paying some rent. Maybe when mother checks out the executors will look to deduct accrued pseudo rent from X’s share of the estate. Dunno. Some form of sensible amicable brokered agreement is probably what’s needed but that is far easier said than done.
I would not be surprised based purely on what you’ve said to learn that Idi thinks X is largely responsible for her own misfortune and deserves little to no breaks in life. Spoils to the victor and all that. Idi may not be able to do that much while mother is alive. After that though X may find herself rapidly outgunned/outresourced if Idi takes a hostile line.
BlackWidow13 said:
Yes/no/maybe. Sorry for the vagueness, but it isn’t straightforward.
X could stay in the house if either (a) X could show mother granted her a permission to stay there (a licence, based on a contract, which could be oral) or (b) X could establish what’s known as a type of estoppel. Basically (very) a representation, plus detrimental reliance.
Then it gets tricky.
This: “ Approximately 18 months to 2 years ago, she moved back to live with her mother, who's quite elderly, and at the time had just lost her husband and said she'd appreciate the help around the house and the company.”
suggests mother was happy to have X in the house as long as mother was in the house. Establishing a right of occupation beyond the point that mother was in the house looks difficult.
Then throw this in: while mother is alive, the only person who can chuck X (whether by terminating the licence or the rights established by the estoppel) is mother. Or mother’s lawfully appointed agent. So on the basis of what you know, just mother. And if mother isn’t looking to evict X, there’s no reason for X to budge.
And that means that Idi can keep her plans to rent out the house to herself because she (Idi) has no rights to deal with mother’s property.
So: X is in but the legal basis on which X is in is unclear. Maybe X should be paying some rent. Maybe when mother checks out the executors will look to deduct accrued pseudo rent from X’s share of the estate. Dunno. Some form of sensible amicable brokered agreement is probably what’s needed but that is far easier said than done.
I would not be surprised based purely on what you’ve said to learn that Idi thinks X is largely responsible for her own misfortune and deserves little to no breaks in life. Spoils to the victor and all that. Idi may not be able to do that much while mother is alive. After that though X may find herself rapidly outgunned/outresourced if Idi takes a hostile line.
Thank you, that's really helpful.X could stay in the house if either (a) X could show mother granted her a permission to stay there (a licence, based on a contract, which could be oral) or (b) X could establish what’s known as a type of estoppel. Basically (very) a representation, plus detrimental reliance.
Then it gets tricky.
This: “ Approximately 18 months to 2 years ago, she moved back to live with her mother, who's quite elderly, and at the time had just lost her husband and said she'd appreciate the help around the house and the company.”
suggests mother was happy to have X in the house as long as mother was in the house. Establishing a right of occupation beyond the point that mother was in the house looks difficult.
Then throw this in: while mother is alive, the only person who can chuck X (whether by terminating the licence or the rights established by the estoppel) is mother. Or mother’s lawfully appointed agent. So on the basis of what you know, just mother. And if mother isn’t looking to evict X, there’s no reason for X to budge.
And that means that Idi can keep her plans to rent out the house to herself because she (Idi) has no rights to deal with mother’s property.
So: X is in but the legal basis on which X is in is unclear. Maybe X should be paying some rent. Maybe when mother checks out the executors will look to deduct accrued pseudo rent from X’s share of the estate. Dunno. Some form of sensible amicable brokered agreement is probably what’s needed but that is far easier said than done.
I would not be surprised based purely on what you’ve said to learn that Idi thinks X is largely responsible for her own misfortune and deserves little to no breaks in life. Spoils to the victor and all that. Idi may not be able to do that much while mother is alive. After that though X may find herself rapidly outgunned/outresourced if Idi takes a hostile line.
As to your final paragraph, nail on head! From what I know, that's exactly how the dynamic works between the two of them.
But overall, really useful info, thank you for taking the time to jot that down.
elanfan said:
Never mind what Idi wants what does the mother want to happen? If she’s still campus mentus Idi has no control whatever
The problem with that seems to be that the mother's dementia has accelerated rapidly, that being one of the key points that the medical and social people have said she needs a care home, so she's probably classed as sub compos mentis now. As far as I know she's gone rapidly downhill over the past 6 months or so. Whether there was a discussion to that effect beforehand I don't know, but will ask.gottans said:
One other thought, would X be considered dependent upon Mother as Mother was providing shelter, etc.
Interesting thought. It's not as if she's not capable of looking after herself (X that is), would she count as being dependent as such? All good things to consider though, thanks.CAPP0 said:
gottans said:
One other thought, would X be considered dependent upon Mother as Mother was providing shelter, etc.
Interesting thought. It's not as if she's not capable of looking after herself (X that is), would she count as being dependent as such? All good things to consider though, thanks.What's the likely rentable value of the house? Is it going to make much of dent in the £1000/wk fees, especially bearing in mind the rent is taxable? What condition is the house in? It may not be trivial to get into a rentable state.
Unless the sister has an LPA it seems odd that an agent will take instructions from her - although when wife's Godfather died an EA took instructions from his neice to market the house (the day after he died!). The solicitor who was his executor was a bit miffed, but didn't make as much of a fuss as we would have liked him to.
Unless the sister has an LPA it seems odd that an agent will take instructions from her - although when wife's Godfather died an EA took instructions from his neice to market the house (the day after he died!). The solicitor who was his executor was a bit miffed, but didn't make as much of a fuss as we would have liked him to.
At risk of becoming "that guy", ie the one who doesn't tell the whole story to start with, there is an update.
I only found this out today, I didn't know when I posted yesterday. It transpires that both X and Sister 3 (ie not Idi) have LPA, and it has been set up to be Joint & Several. My understand of that clause is that either of them can act without the input of the other, therefore, since Sister 3 usually sides with and is led by Idi, it seems X is somewhat stuffed if they move against her.
I guess that brings us round full circle to the question of whether X legally has any right to occupy the house, for which there is clearly a significant question mark.
I only found this out today, I didn't know when I posted yesterday. It transpires that both X and Sister 3 (ie not Idi) have LPA, and it has been set up to be Joint & Several. My understand of that clause is that either of them can act without the input of the other, therefore, since Sister 3 usually sides with and is led by Idi, it seems X is somewhat stuffed if they move against her.
I guess that brings us round full circle to the question of whether X legally has any right to occupy the house, for which there is clearly a significant question mark.
If LPA's can't agree then one would petition the Court to dissolve it. It is as simple as that. Which will then leave the Court to appoint someone independent.
It sounds like everyone involved(except X) wants to prioritise their own needs/wants. Shameful. Where were the other two daughters when the Mother needed help. No where it seems. But a few quid is up for grabs and the fighting ensues.
It sounds like everyone involved(except X) wants to prioritise their own needs/wants. Shameful. Where were the other two daughters when the Mother needed help. No where it seems. But a few quid is up for grabs and the fighting ensues.
Burwood said:
If LPA's can't agree then one would petition the Court to dissolve it. It is as simple as that. Which will then leave the Court to appoint someone independent.
It sounds like everyone involved(except X) wants to prioritise their own needs/wants. Shameful. Where were the other two daughters when the Mother needed help. No where it seems. But a few quid is up for grabs and the fighting ensues.
Once again, spookily spot on with your analysis in the second paragraph! It sounds like everyone involved(except X) wants to prioritise their own needs/wants. Shameful. Where were the other two daughters when the Mother needed help. No where it seems. But a few quid is up for grabs and the fighting ensues.
But ref the dissolution question, presumably sister 3 could act anyway before X can get it dissolved? Might be a way forward though, thanks, I shall pass that on.
CAPP0 said:
Burwood said:
If LPA's can't agree then one would petition the Court to dissolve it. It is as simple as that. Which will then leave the Court to appoint someone independent.
It sounds like everyone involved(except X) wants to prioritise their own needs/wants. Shameful. Where were the other two daughters when the Mother needed help. No where it seems. But a few quid is up for grabs and the fighting ensues.
Once again, spookily spot on with your analysis in the second paragraph! It sounds like everyone involved(except X) wants to prioritise their own needs/wants. Shameful. Where were the other two daughters when the Mother needed help. No where it seems. But a few quid is up for grabs and the fighting ensues.
But ref the dissolution question, presumably sister 3 could act anyway before X can get it dissolved? Might be a way forward though, thanks, I shall pass that on.
Thinking pragmatically, would taking in a lodger or two be a compromise enough to slake the moneylust?
Or the sister making use of the house agreeing a rental that will be deducted from her inheritance due from the estate.
The problem with fighting the money obsessed grade of person is the inherent disadvantage that you risk damaging your soul.
Or the sister making use of the house agreeing a rental that will be deducted from her inheritance due from the estate.
The problem with fighting the money obsessed grade of person is the inherent disadvantage that you risk damaging your soul.
Teddy Lop said:
Thinking pragmatically, would taking in a lodger or two be a compromise enough to slake the moneylust?
Or the sister making use of the house agreeing a rental that will be deducted from her inheritance due from the estate.
The problem with fighting the money obsessed grade of person is the inherent disadvantage that you risk damaging your soul.
Perhaps she has no money to pay. It never ceases to amaze me how low some family will go to screw over another member because all of a sudden it's the right thing to do (in their warped mind). It's always the ones with plenty of money imposing some punitive demand on the one with far less. A bullying power move. X should tell her bOr the sister making use of the house agreeing a rental that will be deducted from her inheritance due from the estate.
The problem with fighting the money obsessed grade of person is the inherent disadvantage that you risk damaging your soul.
h of a sister to FRO and she isn't moving nor paying-there is zero they can do. They are siblings, they should be able to resolve a petty dispute between themselves.Burwood said:
Perhaps she has no money to pay. It never ceases to amaze me how low some family will go to screw over another member because all of a sudden it's the right thing to do (in their warped mind). It's always the ones with plenty of money imposing some punitive demand on the one with far less. A bullying power move. X should tell her bh of a sister to FRO and she isn't moving nor paying-there is zero they can do. They are siblings, they should be able to resolve a petty dispute between themselves.
My sister-in-law is a feral council scum type, she decided to move back into the parent's house when her kids, and consequently quite a few of her benefits, were removed from her. She was evicted by court order after living there for three years and was liable for the costs. My wife and her elder sister had LPA over her mother's affairs, as she was in a care home, the father died within three months of the SIL moving in, we can only guess at what happened to the twenty grand he had in his current account, because it was empty when he died...h of a sister to FRO and she isn't moving nor paying-there is zero they can do. They are siblings, they should be able to resolve a petty dispute between themselves.gazza285 said:
Burwood said:
Perhaps she has no money to pay. It never ceases to amaze me how low some family will go to screw over another member because all of a sudden it's the right thing to do (in their warped mind). It's always the ones with plenty of money imposing some punitive demand on the one with far less. A bullying power move. X should tell her bh of a sister to FRO and she isn't moving nor paying-there is zero they can do. They are siblings, they should be able to resolve a petty dispute between themselves.
My sister-in-law is a feral council scum type, she decided to move back into the parent's house when her kids, and consequently quite a few of her benefits, were removed from her. She was evicted by court order after living there for three years and was liable for the costs. My wife and her elder sister had LPA over her mother's affairs, as she was in a care home, the father died within three months of the SIL moving in, we can only guess at what happened to the twenty grand he had in his current account, because it was empty when he died...h of a sister to FRO and she isn't moving nor paying-there is zero they can do. They are siblings, they should be able to resolve a petty dispute between themselves.Burwood said:
gazza285 said:
Burwood said:
Perhaps she has no money to pay. It never ceases to amaze me how low some family will go to screw over another member because all of a sudden it's the right thing to do (in their warped mind). It's always the ones with plenty of money imposing some punitive demand on the one with far less. A bullying power move. X should tell her bh of a sister to FRO and she isn't moving nor paying-there is zero they can do. They are siblings, they should be able to resolve a petty dispute between themselves.
My sister-in-law is a feral council scum type, she decided to move back into the parent's house when her kids, and consequently quite a few of her benefits, were removed from her. She was evicted by court order after living there for three years and was liable for the costs. My wife and her elder sister had LPA over her mother's affairs, as she was in a care home, the father died within three months of the SIL moving in, we can only guess at what happened to the twenty grand he had in his current account, because it was empty when he died...h of a sister to FRO and she isn't moving nor paying-there is zero they can do. They are siblings, they should be able to resolve a petty dispute between themselves.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff