Property inheritance

Looking at it from the outside, I think you have every right to be upset, baffled and perhaps a little angry, if not on your DH behalf, certainly on behalf of the brother who is doing all the caring and has given up paid employment to do so. My initial suspicions are that the middle brother, who seems to do very little to help their Mother, has taken steps to look after himself only. I am no expert on the matter, and I am sure others can advise, but I suspect that SS will be looking into this situation when it comes to paying care fees; it is (rightly) very difficult to avoid paying fees simply by willing your property to a family member. I don't think you are being unreasonable or getting on your high horse,and looking at it another way; why should I, or anyone else on here, pay care home fees for your MiL in order for your BiL to inherit the entire property? Take the good advice given on here, go and speak to someone at Age Concern, you will not be the first with this type of problem, I am sure!

Thanks all for advice. As social services are now involved, think we will probably wait and see what comes from that. My husband is very philosophical about it all but the younger brother is hurt, i know, despite his middle brother's actions, he loves his mum and will always take care of her as he has always done. He will have clear conscience for life but it's hard watching him getting up in early hours when she needs him and now staying overnight when she needs it, as i said she now really needs full time care. He has done it all and the middle brother has split the family with his actions.

The only reason I would suggest reading some of the AC's fact sheets is that ss vary in their interpretation of the rules/guidance and this would give you some idea. One awful scenario is that ss are liberal with their interpretation and decide not to count the house as her asset. In that case the shortfall in the fees between her pension and what the la will pay will be funded. But if she had the money from her house, she could perhaps have a much nicer care home for her last few months/years. It would seem beyond wrong that mb has the house and your mil as ax result has less or no choice in the home she finishes her life in.

But if she legally transferred the house to her middle son ten years ago, it's beyond the 7 year limit and she won't be liable for care home fees anyway.

Tbh we will probably leave it to the social services. It is the youngest brother who will lose as he has done the most for his mum and will carry on doing despite middle brother's behaviour. So week we will see . Might tell him to go to cab. Thanks for replies .

The 7 year rule is no longer written in stone. As long as SSD have reason to think the assets were shifted to avoid care home fees they can use the courts to put a legal charge on it regardless of the time that has passed.

Really? That was a bit sneaky...I thought it was law.

I agree LD - especially as she has carried on living in the house. I'd love the OP to come back snd update us when it's all sorted - my view is that as more and more people go into care and more and more of them have houses and as las have less and less money, they will get tougher and tougher on this deprivation of assets rule. Did anyone hear Money Box on this subject on Saturday? Also, the government has delayed yet again the increase in the amount you can have in savings before you are liable for care costs. The direction of travel is clear, whatever we think about it. I know what I think!

Has she been paying rent to her son over the ten years?

Ana I thought the 7 years was for IHT purposes and as I think I said earlier, it wouldn't work for IHT anyway as she's carrying on living there. I think for ss there never was a fixed rule but I'm not 100% sure - I think their rules are about intent.

Upset and anger apart, I would be fighting as a matter of principle, especially on behalf of the youngest brother.

Yes, she should have been paying rent to the middle son.

I am sure the youngest brother would be happier if he thought that you and DH were fully behind him - what will he do when his mother no longer needs him? It may well not be easy for him to find himself a job after a number of years out of the workforce. It will have also affected his pension payments. I still think it needs to be looked into now - for the sake of your MIL and young BIL.

Well Jalima that would be interesting!! It would have to be a market rent with all the proper tenancy agreements etc - crumbs that would go down well with the family - he gets the house and the rent!!

I thought the 7 year rule applied for SS care costs as well, but I could be wrong.

Sorry, Jalima, didn't see your post about rent until I'd posted mine!

A.so now to be renting out a property the 'landlord' has to do some sort of exams- it has been the case in Wales for a little while and just coming into England - DGD wars for an estate agent and has the qualification needed.

It just shows doesn't it what a minefield all this is. Some will 'get way with it', others will not. If only we had a government of any colour that would grasp this nettle. I'm not making a party political point - I think it's a disgrace that none of them have dealt with this over the years - we need a cross party agreement so that there is no political advantage or disadvantage in whatever scheme could be devised.

By contrast, if you sign over your house but remain living in the property, this would then be treated as a “gift with reservation of benefit.” This means you reserve the right to benefit from the property.

According to tax rules, the house will then remain part of your estate on your death, even if you live beyond seven years.

One way to get around this is by paying rent to your children. But you will have to pay market rent (the going rate for similar local rental properties) to take it out of the IHT net.

You also need to bear in mind that your children will then be liable for income tax on the rent you pay them.

As a parent, you need to tread carefully before passing your property on to your offspring as the council could view this as “deliberate deprivation of assets” to avoid residential care home fees.

Put simply, transferring property to your children in this way may be seen as an attempt to conceal property wealth to avoid paying for care.

If this is deemed to be the case, the local authority can reverse the transfer of ownership. This means the home is switched back to the parents, and will be included in the test for funding.

www.saga.co.uk/magazine/money/personal-finance/giving/what-you-need-to-know-about-signing-property-over-to-your-children

Oh dear ! please forgive my crass and thoughtless post , please accept my abject apology ,

Well if that's the case I hope the value of the house is taken into account for costs when the OP's MIL has to go into care so that at least the middle brother doesn't inherit the lot!

what Luckygirl said is the case as far as I am aware- it doesn't have a time limit, unlike inheritance tax.

Well the IHT 7 years doesn't apply either if you carry on living in the house snd aren't a proper tenant

Although as the OP says, the estate's not likely to attract IHT anyway.

Blimey, looks like the rules about transferring property are trickier than I thought! But if mum isn't paying rent to mb, he probably won't get as much out of the house as he thought her would if mum goes into nursing care.

Of course, if yb continues to take care of her, she might not go into care for very long and mb will benefit to the maximum later on. In a sense, yb is working for mb. He may want to think that over.

Does mb have poa over his mum's affairs? If not, then I don't think he can keep hold of the will. No one has the right to see it till your mil is dead, as a pp pointed out - sorry - except for the attorney and maybe, the poa. But unless that's mb, he has no right to have it either. Are you sure he does? Is it possible the lawyer has it?

But dh and yb may want to seek out more professional legal advice. It certainly can't hurt, imo. Nothing can be done while the lady is alive and the will, therefore, is not in effect. Well, nothing unless she were to change her will again. But, as you point out, she can't due to dementia. Legal advice would just be to give dh and yb the lay of the land and prepare them for what they may need to do when the sad day comes that the will matters.

Get legal advice first and foremost.

I think the other thing that causes such unhappiness, is not the loss of the money, although this can be considerable if you were hoping for it to ease your retirement years, but the underlying belief that most of us have that our parents love all their children equally. Once the assets of the family, the tangible remains of the family whose parents have died, are spread less than equally between the children, especially when there seems to be nor rhyme or reason for it there is this instinctive feeling that for some reason one's parents had favourites and this can be very difficult to deal with.