House Deeds Question

[livEwirE]

Hi all,

My wife and I bought our house before we were married. Now that we are married, is it necessary to inform the bank and change the deeds and if so is there much involved.

Thanks

 

[Protocol]

There are other current threads on putting houses into joint names.

I bought my house before I married.

But the idea of adding a second owner to the deeds never crossed my mind.

There's no need - my wife has ownership rights in law. She didn't buy the house, she doesn't (directly) pay the mortgage.

But she now owns half the house.

And if I die, she inherits the house automatically.

If we separate, she gets to stay in the house.

 

[mf1]

"But she now owns half the house.

And if I die, she inherits the house automatically.

If we separate, she gets to stay in the house. "

Just to clarify - a non owning spouse does not "own half the house". She has certain entitlements to seek to prevent a sale or mortgage by the owning spouse. She also has certain succession rights. If you have children, she will only "inherit the house automatically" if you have made a will stating that. If you separate, there are no hard and fast rules about the family home.

mf

 

[wbbs]

Exactly what I just thinking when I read this, it's not as clear cut as that!

 

[Protocol]

mf1,

I assumed that under the 1969 Succession Act, my wife would automatically inherit our house if I die???

I don't have a will. We have one child.

I assume that she inherits all my assets, automatically, if the child is under 18.

????????

 

[Mrs Vimes]

If you have children, she will only "inherit the house automatically" if you have made a will stating that.

I'm copying this comment of mine from the other thread on this topic:

I am aware of one case where the father had owned the house before they married and died intestate. Their child was over 18 and forced the mother to sell the family home to realise his legal right share. This would have been avoided if the house had been jointly owned by both spouses as it would then have fallen outside his estate.

If this father had willed the house to the widow, could the son have challenged the will for failure to make adequate provision, do you think? (Assuming he was still in full-time education, for example)

 

[mf1]

"If this father had willed the house to the widow, could the son have challenged the will for failure to make adequate provision, do you think? (Assuming he was still in full-time education, for example) "

Goodness me, this has certainly sparked something off!

By way of background, it is helpful to note that the Succession Act brought in provision for widows/widowers who might otherwise not have been provided for by their spouses. The classic example was where a farmer left the farm to the eldest son.

So the Succession Act says that, if you married and are making a will, you must make provision for a spouse ( where no children) of not less than 50% of sole assets - (because joint assets will pass automatically outside the net estate). If there are children, the spouse is entitled to not less than 33%.

And if there is no will, the Succession Act says that the spouse gets 66% and the children share the remaining 33%. And then there are various helpful sections about appropriating the family home.

In (very) broad terms, the norm is for spouses to leave all of their estate to their spouses with the children only inheriting if the surviving parent is widowed before death. So, in the question posed - could the son have challenged the will?- the answer is yes, he could challenge but the more important issue is whether a Court would hear him and make any order in his favour. The High Court generally takes the view that provision for spouses is the priority.

I hope that helps a little and that anyone ( married with children) reading this would consider making a will as a priority. It can save a lot of heartache.

mf