Who is responsible for maintenance?

F

Froggus

Registered User
Messages
12
Hypothetical situation:

Son/Daughter buys parents house for less than market value

parents can live in house until their death

They do not pay rent, it is not a landlord/tenant situation

There is no legal arrangement about who maintains the property.

Who is responsible for maintaining the property?

thanks
 
I would imagine whoever they mutually agree is responsible for it. I doubt that anything like statutory rights come into this?
 
Perhaps then a mutually agreeable solution needs to be negotiated, hypothetically?
Nicola
 
Froggus said:
There is no legal arrangement about who maintains the property.

Who is responsible for maintaining the property?
Click to expand...


If that question needs to be asked (hypothetically speaking, of course ;)), then there should be a legal agreement in place as they obviously are in disagreement about it!
 
I guess there would be a number of factors to consider, most of the moral/ethical ones rather than legal precedent.

- How much below market value did the child pay?
- Are the repairs one that affect the short or long term? (eg:heating problem or decoration, probably the parents. A problem that would affect the long-term stability of the property, probably the child...to protect their investment)
- Can the parents/child afford the repairs?
- Would it be more reasonable to split the costs?

For all concerned, it would be worth trying to get something sorted out sooner rather than later as it is things like this can easily affect relations.
 
Froggus said:
There was no agreement as far I know mutual, verbal or legal.
Click to expand...
These are not exclusive as agreements are mutual and verbal, either written or oral and may or may not be legally enforceable.

Hypothetical non-agreements are more difficult to comment on. :rolleyes:
 
sam h said:
I guess there would be a number of factors to consider, most of the moral/ethical ones rather than legal precedent.

- How much below market value did the child pay?
- Are the repairs one that affect the short or long term? (eg:heating problem or decoration, probably the parents. A problem that would affect the long-term stability of the property, probably the child...to protect their investment)
- Can the parents/child afford the repairs?
- Would it be more reasonable to split the costs?

For all concerned, it would be worth trying to get something sorted out sooner rather than later as it is things like this can easily affect relations.
Click to expand...

Ok. What if (hypotheticaly speaking) the child/owner paid approx 30% of its market value, there is no money left, the child/owner may have money that he/she is not proclaiming but is refusing to maintain the property in a habitable condition (and may or may not be a psychopath and therefore not a reasonable person to deal with) the mother is now living on her own after being widowed and is living on her pension. Would there be a legal precedent for this.

thanks
 
Oh my God, what a (hypothetical) mess.

Did the parents get any legal advise before signing away their principal asset for such a low amount?
I'm not a legal person, but I reckon the mother will have to get legal advice to see if anything can be done. Maybe they can show there was undue influence, or an implication that the child would maintain the property to the level they purchased it.

Any legal eagles around today who could offer advice?
 
And are there and tax implications of such a hypothetical deal that may have been overlooked, given that the absence of any agreements shows it wasn't exactly thought out properly?
 
Mother needs proper legal advice. By any chance did father alone sign the property to the child, when (what year) did this happen and what were the reasons for it.
 
Well the mother should simply report the son to the Tax authorities as he received a gift at 30 % below market value. Talk aout Gratitude or what.Poor woman.
 
OP - I don't think your story is uncommon (child forces elderely parent into unliveable situation to get them out of home in order to get hands on property) so if you give some more details there is little possibility of your hypothical situation being discovered.
 
rmelly said:
And are there and tax implications of such a hypothetical deal that may have been overlooked, given that the absence of any agreements shows it wasn't exactly thought out properly?
Click to expand...

I'm sure there must be but shopping them to the tax man won't solve the immediate problem. Maybe at some time in the future but not now.

Bronte said:
Mother needs proper legal advice. By any chance did father alone sign the property to the child, when (what year) did this happen and what were the reasons for it.
Click to expand...

Yes it was the Father but the mother went along with it probably naively.
The child in question had two businesses and proclaimed to anyone that would listen that they were "doing very well". The truth is however that neither business ever made a profit and in fact have made significant losses. The house was sold in late 2004. The reason was to sustain the parents in their old age. But I feel they did not realise it's true worth at the time.

Bronte said:
OP - I don't think your story is uncommon (child forces elderely parent into unliveable situation to get them out of home in order to get hands on property) so if you give some more details there is little possibility of your hypothical situation being discovered.
Click to expand...

Ok keep your comments coming any advice is welcome
 
how much money is required to make the repairs? Could another family member lend her the money and could she then take in lodgers to repay after repairs made?
 
rmelly said:
how much money is required to make the repairs? Could another family member lend her the money and could she then take in lodgers to repay after repairs made?
Click to expand...

She doesn't want to take in any lodgers and it is unlikely that the money would be repaid. also since the family has effectively been disinherited (including the mother) there would be a reluctance to offer money to maintain a house that they do not have an interest in. The consensus is that the owner should pay and this is not the first maintenance issue and prob won't be the last. There needs to be some kind of clarification about this issue for the future.
 
Would the mother be willing to go to court and fight the transfer of the property to the child? Did she get independant legal advise (ie not the same solicitor as the father)at the time of the transfer in 2004, I believe there are rules on this, family home protection act springs to mind. What does the owner of the property have to gain by not repairing the property? The mother needs to go to a solicitor.
 
is the 'approx 30% of its market value' based on the 2004 market value? Was it independently valued at the time to arrive at this market value? What condition was the house in at that point in time?
 
"The consensus is that the owner should pay and this is not the first maintenance issue and prob won't be the last."

Nor really a consensus with the person who counts though, is it.

Sorry to be a jarring note, but the test to apply here is to ask the question as to what the parties would have agreed at the time had they addressed this issue, and whether this can be deemed to be an implied term of their agreement. In this exercise you would be guided to some extent by the terms which would be agreed if this were by 'bargain at arms length'.

If OP's parents had sold the house to one of the "Home Reversion" equity release type schemes, it is certainly possible (depending on age) that a payment of 30% of the value of the home is all they would have got, and that for this up-front payment, they would have left no equity behind them on their death.

None of the equity release companies in operation undertakes to maintain a house while the equity releasor is still living there. Unless the payment made was significantly less than what an equity release company would have paid, and it can be shown that there was some element of undue influence or duress, then the original bargain will stand. Absent any evidence of such agreement being implicit in the particular circumstances of this case, it does not seem to me that 'property owner must carry out maintenance' could reasonably be argued to form an implied term of the agreement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top