Nana's estate complications after her death, is this legal?
Discussion
Background story is this:
Grandfather worked as head accountant for a company all his life and was trusted person in community, he retired and several months later it was noticed that one of the family at company (we think the son) was cooking the books after my grandfather left and skimming off the top.
This was covered up and my grandfather was accused and being the old sod he is, didn't tell anyone and rather than fight it he signed over his house and paid a sum out of his pension every month until his death to 'repay' the money he never took.
This came to light in recent years on his death bed when my father was checking his financials (the generation when wife does not check husbands affairs and trusts them)... the only way we could fight it and gain the family home back would be for my nana to fight the wrongful charge on the property as she was on the mortgage but never signed anything... she wouldn't as she valued her name in the community rather than the fact she was taken for a ride.
Anyway she was 'allowed' to live in the property rent free for the time in the property which amounts to 23/24 years.
However they demanded she pays buildings insurance on the property, is this legal that she is paying buildings insurance on a property that she no longer owns as she is effectively renting it (free for life) and I have never heard of renters being forced to cover the buildings insurance on the property they rent. Her own property and contents, sure, but not the rebuild of a property if in the case of a fire.
if illegal what are the next steps to get the money back? Knowing the family in question, they would be reluctant to pay, so Im assuming a charge on the property would be the best bet as they would never live in the family property since they are selling up their own £1m property nearby.
The property in question needs a good £50-60k refit and would be worth an easy £160-175 when renovated.
If anyone is a conveyancer solicitor Im happy to chat off line with them, my folks have asked me to check this out and thought here would be a good start on the weekend until I can get hold of someone next week.
Grandfather worked as head accountant for a company all his life and was trusted person in community, he retired and several months later it was noticed that one of the family at company (we think the son) was cooking the books after my grandfather left and skimming off the top.
This was covered up and my grandfather was accused and being the old sod he is, didn't tell anyone and rather than fight it he signed over his house and paid a sum out of his pension every month until his death to 'repay' the money he never took.
This came to light in recent years on his death bed when my father was checking his financials (the generation when wife does not check husbands affairs and trusts them)... the only way we could fight it and gain the family home back would be for my nana to fight the wrongful charge on the property as she was on the mortgage but never signed anything... she wouldn't as she valued her name in the community rather than the fact she was taken for a ride.
Anyway she was 'allowed' to live in the property rent free for the time in the property which amounts to 23/24 years.
However they demanded she pays buildings insurance on the property, is this legal that she is paying buildings insurance on a property that she no longer owns as she is effectively renting it (free for life) and I have never heard of renters being forced to cover the buildings insurance on the property they rent. Her own property and contents, sure, but not the rebuild of a property if in the case of a fire.
if illegal what are the next steps to get the money back? Knowing the family in question, they would be reluctant to pay, so Im assuming a charge on the property would be the best bet as they would never live in the family property since they are selling up their own £1m property nearby.
The property in question needs a good £50-60k refit and would be worth an easy £160-175 when renovated.
If anyone is a conveyancer solicitor Im happy to chat off line with them, my folks have asked me to check this out and thought here would be a good start on the weekend until I can get hold of someone next week.
For this sort of problem you need neither a conveyancer nor a car forum. You need to consult a lawyer who specialises in property and trust work.
If someone agrees to pay for insurance on a property they do not own that is perfectly legal unless the agreement is procured by undue influence or duress.
If someone agrees to pay for insurance on a property they do not own that is perfectly legal unless the agreement is procured by undue influence or duress.
Breadvan72 said:
For this sort of problem you need neither a conveyancer nor a car forum. You need to consult a lawyer who specialises in property and trust work.
If someone agrees to pay for insurance on a property they do not own that is perfectly legal unless the agreement is procured by undue influence or duress.
I have a conveyancer lined up for monday, just thought I would see if anyone else has any point of views on the subject.If someone agrees to pay for insurance on a property they do not own that is perfectly legal unless the agreement is procured by undue influence or duress.
Im pretty certain it would be under duress or indue influence, but proving that of a person passed away maybe difficult, but since they took him into a room and forced him to sign the document admitting skimming in the first place with no police/etc involved, that could be seen as under duress.
With the greatest respect, you have no way of categorically knowing that your late grandfather didn't seal the money. The fact that he repaid some appears to be an admission of guilt.
I agree you need to see a lawyer regarding this.
But in the meantime you state he signed the house over (ie the ownership changed) and you say he facilitated a charge over it (ie a debt was secured against it). They are two very different things and you will need to get the facts correct when meeting the lawyer.
I agree you need to see a lawyer regarding this.
But in the meantime you state he signed the house over (ie the ownership changed) and you say he facilitated a charge over it (ie a debt was secured against it). They are two very different things and you will need to get the facts correct when meeting the lawyer.
It was an easy fix to allow her to stay
simply put she has 50% possession of the property based on marriage law and to have the property forceably sold would have ment that she would be made homeless so then its a round of court battles and suing as no-one is allowed to have there possessions forceably taken ( unless they have broken the law anddddd been found guilty ) under habeas corpus ( the magna carta ), to avoid this it would have been easier to draw an order to say she gets to stop under certain stipulations that preclude any need for further court activity
so it was easier at the time to say sod it leave her where she is rather than trying to subdivide her portion
however on her death you will need to get your head around it all , grandads already put his hands up to the crime so unless there brand new evidence then your stuck given hes pled guilty already and no-one will find a need to ever question this . You will however need to fight it out to get nan`s portion of the property ( buy the grandads portion out to make it easier and then sell it on afterwards )on her death.
its reasonable to assume grandmas got conditions to stay at the property and a reasonable expectation is to maintain that property , included in this would be the idea of insurance as that would be perceived as an expectation , even if its not written that she has to insure it it would be considered a duty of care of the property , consider it she is not allowed to devalue the house etc etc , sounds rough but thats how these things are drawn up
find yourself a POCA solicitor who can direct you further
simply put she has 50% possession of the property based on marriage law and to have the property forceably sold would have ment that she would be made homeless so then its a round of court battles and suing as no-one is allowed to have there possessions forceably taken ( unless they have broken the law anddddd been found guilty ) under habeas corpus ( the magna carta ), to avoid this it would have been easier to draw an order to say she gets to stop under certain stipulations that preclude any need for further court activity
so it was easier at the time to say sod it leave her where she is rather than trying to subdivide her portion
however on her death you will need to get your head around it all , grandads already put his hands up to the crime so unless there brand new evidence then your stuck given hes pled guilty already and no-one will find a need to ever question this . You will however need to fight it out to get nan`s portion of the property ( buy the grandads portion out to make it easier and then sell it on afterwards )on her death.
its reasonable to assume grandmas got conditions to stay at the property and a reasonable expectation is to maintain that property , included in this would be the idea of insurance as that would be perceived as an expectation , even if its not written that she has to insure it it would be considered a duty of care of the property , consider it she is not allowed to devalue the house etc etc , sounds rough but thats how these things are drawn up
find yourself a POCA solicitor who can direct you further
izzzzythedog said:
It was an easy fix to allow her to stay
simply put she has 50% possession of the property based on marriage law and to have the property forceably sold would have ment that she would be made homeless so then its a round of court battles and suing as no-one is allowed to have there possessions forceably taken ( unless they have broken the law anddddd been found guilty ) under habeas corpus ( the magna carta ), to avoid this it would have been easier to draw an order to say she gets to stop under certain stipulations that preclude any need for further court activity
so it was easier at the time to say sod it leave her where she is rather than trying to subdivide her portion
however on her death you will need to get your head around it all , grandads already put his hands up to the crime so unless there brand new evidence then your stuck given hes pled guilty already and no-one will find a need to ever question this . You will however need to fight it out to get nan`s portion of the property ( buy the grandads portion out to make it easier and then sell it on afterwards )on her death.
its reasonable to assume grandmas got conditions to stay at the property and a reasonable expectation is to maintain that property , included in this would be the idea of insurance as that would be perceived as an expectation , even if its not written that she has to insure it it would be considered a duty of care of the property , consider it she is not allowed to devalue the house etc etc , sounds rough but thats how these things are drawn up
find yourself a POCA solicitor who can direct you further
OP, the gibberish post above indicates why seeking legal advice here isn't perhaps the best of ideas. I particularly like the nonsensical references to habeas corpus and Magna Carta. simply put she has 50% possession of the property based on marriage law and to have the property forceably sold would have ment that she would be made homeless so then its a round of court battles and suing as no-one is allowed to have there possessions forceably taken ( unless they have broken the law anddddd been found guilty ) under habeas corpus ( the magna carta ), to avoid this it would have been easier to draw an order to say she gets to stop under certain stipulations that preclude any need for further court activity
so it was easier at the time to say sod it leave her where she is rather than trying to subdivide her portion
however on her death you will need to get your head around it all , grandads already put his hands up to the crime so unless there brand new evidence then your stuck given hes pled guilty already and no-one will find a need to ever question this . You will however need to fight it out to get nan`s portion of the property ( buy the grandads portion out to make it easier and then sell it on afterwards )on her death.
its reasonable to assume grandmas got conditions to stay at the property and a reasonable expectation is to maintain that property , included in this would be the idea of insurance as that would be perceived as an expectation , even if its not written that she has to insure it it would be considered a duty of care of the property , consider it she is not allowed to devalue the house etc etc , sounds rough but thats how these things are drawn up
find yourself a POCA solicitor who can direct you further
OP - be clear in your own mind what your concerns are and what you want to resolve.
- do you want to contest whether your grandfather was guilty? It may be very hard to prove innocence so it may be better to accept he was guilty however painful and unpalatable this may be.
- do you know what he signed over? The whole house? A share of the house? The exact nature of the ownership is important for your grandmother as she may require care that requires paying for and even half the house is still an asset. It is also material to the decisions the family may take in terms of repairs (ie she may still have a vested interest in the upkeep over and above it being her home). Conversely if she is effectively a tenant than the landlord could have obligations.
You mention they/she have been allowed to stay there rent free. Is this a formal agreement?
The insurance is in many ways not the most significant issue here.
- do you want to contest whether your grandfather was guilty? It may be very hard to prove innocence so it may be better to accept he was guilty however painful and unpalatable this may be.
- do you know what he signed over? The whole house? A share of the house? The exact nature of the ownership is important for your grandmother as she may require care that requires paying for and even half the house is still an asset. It is also material to the decisions the family may take in terms of repairs (ie she may still have a vested interest in the upkeep over and above it being her home). Conversely if she is effectively a tenant than the landlord could have obligations.
You mention they/she have been allowed to stay there rent free. Is this a formal agreement?
The insurance is in many ways not the most significant issue here.
Jon1967x said:
OP - be clear in your own mind what your concerns are and what you want to resolve.
- do you want to contest whether your grandfather was guilty? It may be very hard to prove innocence so it may be better to accept he was guilty however painful and unpalatable this may be.
- do you know what he signed over? The whole house? A share of the house? The exact nature of the ownership is important for your grandmother as she may require care that requires paying for and even half the house is still an asset. It is also material to the decisions the family may take in terms of repairs (ie she may still have a vested interest in the upkeep over and above it being her home). Conversely if she is effectively a tenant than the landlord could have obligations.
You mention they/she have been allowed to stay there rent free. Is this a formal agreement?
The insurance is in many ways not the most significant issue here.
There is proof that he didn't take the monies but the company has long gone now, so proving anything is difficult and probably going to cost a lot of money, it was attributed to the son of the owner of the company, who was known to do this and had been warned in the past, they just saw a way out by accusing my grandfather of doing so instead as he just retired and could make it look ike he fiddled the books, even though the money went missing after he left (good several months)... not a nice family to deal with by many accounts.- do you want to contest whether your grandfather was guilty? It may be very hard to prove innocence so it may be better to accept he was guilty however painful and unpalatable this may be.
- do you know what he signed over? The whole house? A share of the house? The exact nature of the ownership is important for your grandmother as she may require care that requires paying for and even half the house is still an asset. It is also material to the decisions the family may take in terms of repairs (ie she may still have a vested interest in the upkeep over and above it being her home). Conversely if she is effectively a tenant than the landlord could have obligations.
You mention they/she have been allowed to stay there rent free. Is this a formal agreement?
The insurance is in many ways not the most significant issue here.
My nana didn't know that my grandfather had done anything with the house... was only on his deathbed 5 years ago we found out, she is on the deeds, so its not really allowed, but.... Nana when alive didn't want to go through any type of court case, as the neighbours might find out (she didn't want to sully the family name)...
She/they were classed as tenants in a rent free house for 23 odd years. There is nothing to do with a care home as she passed 2 weeks ago whilst still living in the house.
Im not sure of the exact agreement, again this will be something my grandfather didn't disclose to my nana until their son (my father) was looking through all his financials when he was dying.
I will talk with conveyance solicitor on Monday, but we could not fight for the house before without my Nana's permission, she refused to give that, so we have had our hands tied for 5 years, not sure we can do anything now in her death, but my folks want to check the buildings insurance payments at the very least.
Crappy way to get done over out of inheritance...
Du1point8 said:
Crappy way to get done over out of inheritance...
Perhaps it's better to go through life looking at any financial gift - big or small - from a relative passing as a fortuitous circumstance, rather than is all too often the case nowadays looking at/after elderly relatives with one eye on a kitchen extension or the like when they pass. Not saying this is where you're coming from, however as a general point it's a shame that inheritance seems to bring out the worst in people.
Durzel said:
Du1point8 said:
Crappy way to get done over out of inheritance...
Perhaps it's better to go through life looking at any financial gift - big or small - from a relative passing as a fortuitous circumstance, rather than is all too often the case nowadays looking at/after elderly relatives with one eye on a kitchen extension or the like when they pass. Not saying this is where you're coming from, however as a general point it's a shame that inheritance seems to bring out the worst in people.
each one of us has been very successful in life, this is down to the fact that there is something not right going on.
Breadvan72 said:
In what century is this increasingly tall story set? "Sully the family name." WTF?
She was born in the 1920s and for some reason values the family name over proving something right and proving her husband did not do the things that was mentioned, the family were happy to prove that but because she was of a generation that did not believe in certain things if it drag the family name through the mud, even though proven to be right, she wouldn't do it.Strange to me and you, but this was a previous generation we are talking about.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff