Tenant in common

I'm not sure that anyone has been 'hounded' off the site, but I am also sad to see long-standing members banned. There seems to be an all or nothing approach to moderation, unless there are behind the scenes warnings that we don't know about. What on earth did Callistemon do to deserve a ban?

As others have said, people have different views, and that's absolutely fine. There would be far less to talk about if not. Yes, there are those who can't resist unpleasant digs at the expense of a reasoned argument, but they are usually dealt with on the thread, or ignored. There is no real need for intervention unless they are being racist or otherwise offensive, or if they are knowingly distressing others.

Disagreement is not hounding, bullying or anything other than disagreement.

I could count on one hand the number of times in fourteen years in ten years, I have been deleted! 😪
That's my Sunday ruined.

Very reasoned post Doodledog.. I'm not sure i wish to continue on a site which makes such permanent bans, especially to people whose views might be different to mine, but who make them in a respectful and considered manner.. I never saw a post by either GSM or Callistemon that was vindictive or insulting.. they just spoke their own truth..

Oh Marydoll - I'm so sorry!
I read your post BEFORE it was deleted and there was certainly nothing untoward said.
Things seem to be changing on this website.
Don't be sad.
Hopefully the sun is shining where you are!

I’m feeling sorry for the OP now., as this thread has been completely derailed.

There already is/was a long thread recently about recently banned posters.

Just to return to the topic of the OP, if I may, it is possible for one party to instigate a severing of a joint tenancy in order to become tenants-in-common, without the consent of the other party. I don’t know why. There are pros and cons to that.

Rest assured that a spouse over pension age or indeed a younger carer will never be forced to move out if one goes into care.
If you are t-i-c, you need to make a will and leave your share of the house. Always best to discuss the wording with a solicitor, to leave no loopholes.
It is very useful for couples with children from previous marriages, as they can each leave their share to their own children whilst the spouse does not lose their home, nor their right to downsize.

I don’t think GSM was banned she just took the huff.

Getting deleted is easy to do, just don’t do it too often.

Is there any benefit to being a TIC if you have been married to the same partner all your life? Plus your AC belonging to both of you, jointly, (if that makes sense).

Calendargirl

Is there any benefit to being a TIC if you have been married to the same partner all your life? Plus your AC belonging to both of you, jointly, (if that makes sense).

It would enable you to leave your half to your children rather than it going automatically to your husband. This would prevent the situation of your husband remarrying after your death and then when he dies the whole house passing to his new wife (and subsequently her family). You might consider it very unlikely that he would marry again but people do very unpredictable things after being widowed (especially men!)

Thanks Eddiecat

I know none of us can foretell the future, but am absolutely sure that if I am the first to die, DH would not marry again.

And if he did, our AC would be on the case, making sure no gold digger would be fleecing their dad (and them out of any potential inheritance!)

I will start a new thread on the banning topic.

Calendargirl

Thanks Eddiecat

I know none of us can foretell the future, but am absolutely sure that if I am the first to die, DH would not marry again.

And if he did, our AC would be on the case, making sure no gold digger would be fleecing their dad (and them out of any potential inheritance!)

You cannot ever say that. My friend died at 51 from MS and bowel cancer. Her long term partner had cared for her for years. Within a year he had met a lady with a young son (online) who was also bereaved at the same time.

They married and are very happy yet everybody expected him to go to pieces when she died.

This can be very advantageous if you are trying to protect your property for your partner and children. I have seen all too often where the property was left to the spouse only for them to be groomed out of it by some gold digger when they died. Family got zilch. Solicitors' words 'Be nice to grandparents or you may see your inheritance go to some stranger.

Unnecessarily unpleasant remarks about second spouses as gold-diggers.

eazybee

Unnecessarily unpleasant remarks about second spouses as gold-diggers.

Apologies if that’s how it came across. Of course, many second marriages aren’t like that, but let’s face it, some are.

No offence intended though, not the best terminology to use.

Wow. I never imagined a simple question I asked about TIC would involve so many posters getting deleted and being derailed. . Thankyou all for your advice. I will read up on all the links. And just leave it there ,

If you are TiC and one dies and their child inherits their half. Can that child then live in or sell their part of the property?

No because the surviving partner will have a lifetime interest in the whole property.

Our lawyer advised against it, when we were updating our wills.

Just read this thread as was interested in the OP and OMG!

When an elderly relative was in a care home with dementia there would often be little squabbles amongst the females in particular. I witnessed one incident that descended into hand slapping at the dining table.

This thread and others puts me in mind of it. Reporting, finding the most innocuous posts “deeply unpleasant”, being offended.

Reminds me why I give GN a wide berth for long periods.

Shame if GSM and Callistemon have been banned/suspended but they’re probably better off out of it.

The other reason for having the house held as tnenats in common has nothing to do with second spouses, whether gold diggers or not, but paying of care fees after the first person dies.

If the house is held in common so that each owns half in their own right. If when No 1 dies No 2 goes into care and is there a long time, so that fees esceed their half share in the house, the local authority cannot look to the No 1's share of he house to pay the fees, so this money is protected.

Marydoll

Our lawyer advised against it, when we were updating our wills.

So did ours. If memory serves, it was because if one spouse is widowed, they are left with half of the couple's money, whereas a joint tenant is left with all of it. Depending on the age at which the surviving spouse is widowed, a cut of 50% could have serious repercussions for life choices.

It might mean that half of the estate is protected from being used to pay for the care of the first to need it, but if care is also needed for the surviving spouse s/he only has 50% of their collective money to pay for it, so is likely to end up in a home that is not as good as the one they could have had.

It may be that the children (or other heirs) who have inherited the 50% will use the money to make up the difference and pay towards the home, but an agreement that this will happen means that they have to hang on to it untouched until the second parent dies. This could have tax and other financial implications for them, particularly in the event of a divorce, as the money would be seen as a marital asset. It is also unenforceable, as it would be the epitome of deprivation of assets.

Overall, given the absence of a reliable crystal ball, it is safer to keep the estate as jointly owned, as far more people do not need care as need it, and being left with 50% of your own assets is only likely not to matter if there is a lot of money in the pot. Most 'ordinary people' would feel the pinch, particularly when on a fixed income such as a pension.

By 'life choices' I meant things like downsizing or moving to be nearer family etc. If you own 50% of your house, you are going to have far fewer options than if you own all of it.

Doodledog, you have explained it far better than I could have done.

Thank you Marydoll. I wouldn't advise anyone to take financial advice from me though . My post is just what I remember our solicitor saying when we made our wills/POAs.