Joint Tenancy and legal robbery.

[Bobbyboy]

My brother-in-law and his partner purchased a new home some 5 years ago for the sum of £400,000 approximately, he put 90% into the pot and his partner the balance.

Unfortunately, a year ago he needed to go into a Nursing home as he is suffering with Parkinsons disease and cannot walk and is wheelchair bound and he also finds it very difficult to talk and impossible to have a conversation. He will spend the rest of his life in the Nursing home.

In March this year his partner was diagnosed with cancer and given a few months to live, therefore she sent him a letter via her solicitor to say that she was severing her joint tenancy in equity over their home, which I understand means he can do nothing about her decision.
This means that as the house will now be sold, he will only receive 50% of the value £200,000,
and her estate gains £200,000 for an input of only £40,000.
As he was expecting the full value when she died to help pay for his Nursing home fee's he is rather annoyed, it seems like legal robbery to him.
Therefore, if you are purchasing a home with a partner beware.

[des8]

Because the joint tenancy has been severed it does not automatically mean the benefit is split 50/50.
your brother in law should consult a solicitor for a way forward.

Could the severance have been done to ensure that the whole estate was not to be swallowed up by care fees?

[dslippy]

He signed a form agreeing exactly to just this. If he and his partner were not married, I would hope that the solicitor involved took extra steps to bring home the precise consequences to your brother-in-law and his partner of what was being signed.

[Bobbyboy]

Because the joint tenancy has been severed it does not automatically mean the benefit is split 50/50.
your brother in law should consult a solicitor for a way forward.

Could the severance have been done to ensure that the whole estate was not to be swallowed up by care fees?

I have consulted a solicitor and he told me that there was nothing that could be done to change things.

[Bobbyboy]

He signed a form agreeing exactly to just this. If he and his partner were not married, I would hope that the solicitor involved took extra steps to bring home the precise consequences to your brother-in-law and his partner of what was being signed.

As far as I can tell that is not the case as it came as a complete shock to him.

[atticus]

There appear to be grounds to go to court seeking a declaration about the values of the respective equitable interests. I would suggest taking legal advice.

[Bobbyboy]

There appear to be grounds to go to court seeking a declaration about the values of the respective equitable interests. I would suggest taking legal advice.

I have asked advice of a solicitor, and this is his reply:

Up until the receipt of the note the home was owned by them as "joint tenants".
This means they each owned 100% of the property, and if one died the other was the sole owner.

By changing the ownership into "tenants in common" both separately own a proportion of the property.
That proportion is not necessarily 50/50 as it will depend on how it was purchased and who put what into the pot!
By changing the manner of the holding, if one dies their portion does not necessarily pass to the survivor.
Their share will be part of their estate and ownership will pass according to their will (or if no will according to the rules of intestacy)

This move could possibly have been brought on to protect the property, as far as possible, from the claims of the local council to cover care home fees.

There is nothing that your b-i-l can do unilaterally to change this move

[atticus]

You miss the point. The solicitor has made the same point, that the respective equitable interests are not necessarily 50% each

... By changing the ownership into "tenants in common" both separately own a proportion of the property.
That proportion is not necessarily 50/50 as it will depend on how it was purchased and who put what into the pot!

In fact, I recommend you to read the whole of the solicitor's advice carefully. It is well-stated and clear, and does not have the effect described in your first post.

[des8]

He cannot change the alteration to the way in which the property is held ie tenants in common, but when it comes to disposing of the property by one or the other owners, then the respective proportions can be agreed between them or decided by order of the court.
It is better to come to an agreement about proportions firstly now rather than later when it has to be decided for inheritance purposes or secondly later rather than by order of the court.

I speak from experience as executor to a person who severed a joint tenancy and then left his share to a charity.
The respective solicitors for the charity and disowned family are still arguing the toss over proportions two and a half years later!

[dslippy]

He cannot change the move to tenancy in common, but he can do something to settle the shares on which the property is to be held.

He can apply under the trusts of Land and appointment of Trustees Act 1996 for a declaration as to the respective interests.

[Huxie]

I have asked advice of a solicitor, and this is his reply:

Up until the receipt of the note the home was owned by them as "joint tenants".
This means they each owned 100% of the property, and if one died the other was the sole owner.

By changing the ownership into "tenants in common" both separately own a proportion of the property.
That proportion is not necessarily 50/50 as it will depend on how it was purchased and who put what into the pot!
By changing the manner of the holding, if one dies their portion does not necessarily pass to the survivor.
Their share will be part of their estate and ownership will pass according to their will (or if no will according to the rules of intestacy)

This move could possibly have been brought on to protect the property, as far as possible, from the claims of the local council to cover care home fees.

There is nothing that your b-i-l can do unilaterally to change this move

That advice was actually from DES8 on this forum, on one of your previous threads about this:

https://legalbeagles.info/forums/for...48#post1612648

[des8]

Don't even recognise my own meanderings now

[atticus]

That Des8 does give good advice!

Now, as suggested, see a solicitor.

[Bobbyboy]

That Des8 does give good advice!

Now, as suggested, see a solicitor.

Last Thursday I did consult a solicitor taking with me the letters that BIL had received from his partner, and he gave me the same advice as DES8 [sorry I used your words but was easier than me trying to explain as I do not understand these things].

Therefore, where do I go now?

Is this the way to go:
He can apply under the trusts of Land and appointment of Trustees Act 1996 for a declaration as to the respective interests.

If so, how do I go about?

Thanks' to you all for your replies all much appreciated.

[MIKE770]

Des8 is a persons nick name