Overturn of a deed-of-gift of family home made 36 years ago

[Mikezoeclem]

Forget that. Look at the basis on which she has continued to live in the property. What understandings were there? Can the attempt to evict be resisted?

Even though we will not litigate to overturn the dog, we most certainly would defend an eviction case if it is mounted. The fact that she has been living in the property for 60 odd years of which since the dog 36 years “under licence” but verbal, is 87 years of age, highly vulnerable with diabetes and severe memory issues - all of which surely would lead the judge to allow her to remain in her home. The judge - privately - (like the rest of the family) would be appalled that a son could contemplate throwing his mother out of the home in which he was raised and would refuse the eviction application.

[Mikezoeclem]

Eviction is a two-stage process. The judge may award possession of the property to the son but the judge then is bound to consider submissions from the occupant’s representatives about arguments around actual removal ie homelessness and consequential detriment to health. We would anticipate many months of the occupant being allowed to remain.

[atticus]

Has the son commenced action to evict?

[Mikezoeclem]

Has the son commenced action to evict?

No, but I believe what is stopping him is my explicit threat that the moment the eviction paperwork has been served I will take the story to the red tops who would love to print the full story under the headline “Heartless 66 yr old son seeking to evict his 87yr old mother”

[atticus]

That's one way of keeping the lady in her home.

[Mikezoeclem]

That's one way of keeping the lady in her home.

If you would like to read the barrister’s 3-page assessment, I’d be happy to send it as you are an academic. English law is currently powerless to help in her unique very rare situation.

[atticus]

That would be interesting, thank you. Can you please redact names (but not the barrister's) and send it with a private message.

[Mikezoeclem]

Sorry I couldn’t send privately but have placed here redacted. Please comment if you feel it would help our case.

[atticus]

Thank you. That is a good and clear advice: nothing in it surprises me, as I think you will have realised. This barrister seems very suitable for this type of case.

Can I suggest that you delete it from the public pages, in case the son finds it. If need be, you can ask EXC to do that for you.

[Mikezoeclem]

Thank you. That is a good and clear advice: nothing in it surprises me, as I think you will have realised. This barrister seems very suitable for this type of case.

Can I suggest that you delete it from the public pages, in case the son finds it. If need be, you can ask EXC to do that for you.

Thankyou for your help over this case.
As a postscript, yesterday the old lady had her 88th birthday. Amongst her many gifts was a bunch of flowers and a card from her oldest son! Was this a sign of remorse? No, he always has sent them but we had expected - after the last 9 months- that the hypocrisy would end. We looked to see if there was an eviction notice accompanying the flowers but could find none.

[Mikezoeclem]

The attached addendum addressed the issue of estoppel in relation to eviction

[atticus]

Do you realise that anyone can read stuff you post here? Do you really want the son to read the advice you have obtained from Counsel?

NB I completely agree with that advice. Nothing has been said to suggest circumstances in which an estoppel can arise.

[Mikezoeclem]

Do you realise that anyone can read stuff you post here? Do you really want the son to read the advice you have obtained from Counsel?

NB I completely agree with that advice. Nothing has been said to suggest circumstances in which an estoppel can arise.

I’ve tried requesting admin to remove it but it is evident that there is no one effecting that role. Please try for me!

[PallasAthena]

The document you originally attached to your post 38 has been deleted, or at least I can't see the Counsels Opinion attached anywhere in the thread now. Unless you mean the Addendum in post 41

[atticus]

EXC please delete the document in post #41