Tenant in common

Thank you for indulging my curiosity.

What if you need care but were fully compos mentis, and wanted to pay for a home that cost more than your half would cover? Would you be able to do that?

Yes from my own other assets; yes, if the beneficiaries instructed the Trustees (they aren’t the same people) to amend the Deed. Otherwise no. And given that the only real value in our case is to protect at least some inheritance from our house, I would firmly resist any such change.

It’s relatively academic in our case, as my husband is extremely unlikely to need care beyond attendance allowance levels, if that, and I have every intention of selling the house, paying his beneficiaries, and moving abroad when he dies. But, of course, many a slip, and I could get run over by a bus tomorrow!

If it’s like ours, because the selling of the property and what happens to with regard to a new property are defined in the Deed of Trust, which ensures that the terms of the Trust are not breached - so if I sell my share of the house after my husband dies, for example, the Trustees can’t prevent me selling the other half, but ownership of any new property passes in the same proportions to me and the Trustees to hold in trust for my husband’s beneficiaries. Thus, I would still only have a percentage of a property, plus, of course, my own liquid assets, that could be used for assessing care costs.

There are also some legal safeguards - but not limitations - around rental income and profits from downsizing.

S

So as you have control over all the money, why can't it be taken into account when it comes to care fees? What if you need care but were fully compos mentis, and wanted to pay for a home that cost more than your half would cover? Would you be able to do that?

If correctly worded, which my husband's will was, I can move, downsize or sell up and rent if I wish, using the whole of the equity in this house, not just my half. The beneficiaries of my husband's half cannot force me out, but they must co-operate in any move I may wish to make.
If I downsize and money is left over, this has to be split according to his will equally between the three residuary beneficiaries, ie me, and my two step-children.
Everyone is happy about this. OK so the Steps have to wait till I die, but meanwhile they are going to benefit from price rises in house values ( and have already inherited cash from the estate ).
I emphasise that the will must be well-written.

Doodledog

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.

I was struggling to remember, what was advised, due to the fact I was very unwell and worried that I might pop my clogs at any time. 😉
However, I was definitely of sound mind! 😁

I decided it was better to say nothing here, rather have someone accuse me of disseminating misinformation.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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 ,

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.

Unnecessarily unpleasant remarks about second spouses as gold-diggers.

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.

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.

I will start a new thread on the banning topic.

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!)

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!)

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).

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.