Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
SarahBell

You Signed Your House Away - Tough

Recommended Posts

Sorry, you signed your house away

P.T.writes: When my wife died in 1998 I took out a sale and leaseback deal giving me the right to live in the house until I died.

I retain a 23 per cent interest in the property. I married again last December, but I have been told that if I die before my wife she must vacate the property within 21 days. Is this legal?

Sometimes a problem is so open and shut that there is no way I can argue with the bank, insurer, finance company or whatever. This is one of those times.

When you sold the 77 per cent stake in your house, the contract quite reasonably allowed you to carry on living there for the rest of your days.

The company that bought the 77 per cent stake will have estimated how many years you would live before it could take delivery of the property. That is the basis on which it decided how much to pay you.

You cannot rewrite that sale contract and shift the handover date to some time that could easily be years into the future.

Sorry, but a deal is a deal.

Read more: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-2010614/TONY-HETHERINGTON-Euro-insanity-let-rogue-brokers.html#ixzz1R7ZbAjpe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, you signed your house away

P.T.writes: When my wife died in 1998 I took out a sale and leaseback deal giving me the right to live in the house until I died.

I retain a 23 per cent interest in the property. I married again last December, but I have been told that if I die before my wife she must vacate the property within 21 days. Is this legal?

Sometimes a problem is so open and shut that there is no way I can argue with the bank, insurer, finance company or whatever. This is one of those times.

When you sold the 77 per cent stake in your house, the contract quite reasonably allowed you to carry on living there for the rest of your days.

The company that bought the 77 per cent stake will have estimated how many years you would live before it could take delivery of the property. That is the basis on which it decided how much to pay you.

You cannot rewrite that sale contract and shift the handover date to some time that could easily be years into the future.

Sorry, but a deal is a deal.

Read more: http://www.thisismon...l#ixzz1R7ZbAjpe

ITS NOT FAIR!..ITS NOT FAIR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what of his 23% when he dies? Cant he bequeath it to his wife or would she just get a 23% share of the sale price?

21 days seems very quick, would a court really uphold that? No one can be turfed out that quickly and I doubt any judge in the land would do it to an old lady newly widowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what of his 23% when he dies? Cant he bequeath it to his wife or would she just get a 23% share of the sale price?

21 days seems very quick, would a court really uphold that? No one can be turfed out that quickly and I doubt any judge in the land would do it to an old lady newly widowed.

Councils will give you far less time to clear out the effects of a dead-un. So 21 days is pretty generous. I think the army are similarly "callous" too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody have any stats on how many people have "sold and rent back"?

I get a feeling that these people probably did so at the height of the housing boom, and got (relatively) good deals on their houses. This would imply that the companies running these schemes are going to be a in a whole lot of trouble when they end up realising that they can't sell the said properties.

Or is the plan just to rent the houses out in future? If that's the case, I would also guess that they are going to be faced with quite a large upgrading cost to bring said properties up to current rental standards.

Problems with their business model, either way. Another business based on perpetual growth of house prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Councils will give you far less time to clear out the effects of a dead-un. So 21 days is pretty generous. I think the army are similarly "callous" too.

Clearing out effects is not the same as being turfed out on the death of a spouse.

The army are not that callous, wives get a lot of support and help and time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearing out effects is not the same as being turfed out on the death of a spouse.

The army are not that callous, wives get a lot of support and help and time.

If you're not on the tenancy then it is the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're not on the tenancy then it is the same thing.

I agree but he owns 23% which will become hers.

They would also have to gain possession, can you really see that happening within 21 days let alone a judge supporting it?

....and fwiw even on a break up wives get 3 months to remain in a quarter.

Edited by Number79

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a contract. She has no claim to occupation or posession. Get on with it.

I agree with the mickey take ...

ITS NOT FAIR ITS NOT FAIR

but I would add ...

GIVE ME THE MONEY THOUGH, I WANT THAT, I WANT EVERYTHING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit shocked by the responses here tbh, it wasnt the wife that entered into this deal. Does no one think that she should be shown a little compassion when her husband dies?

3 weeks isnt a lot of time to reorganise your entire life, especially at a time of a loss like that ffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit shocked by the responses here tbh, it wasnt the wife that entered into this deal. Does no one think that she should be shown a little compassion when her husband dies?

3 weeks isnt a lot of time to reorganise your entire life, especially at a time of a loss like that ffs.

Gotta agree with this. From my own experience, the loss of a spouse puts you into something akin to a state of shock for a few months. That's why widow(er)s are generally advised not to take any major decisions if at all possible during this time, until they can think straight again.

It would be simply inhumane to throw someone out of their home within 21 days of their spouse dying. I really can't imagine that it would we legal to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... It would be simply inhumane to throw someone out of their home within 21 days of their spouse dying. I really can't imagine that it would we legal to do so.

But it is not her house. It is something that he is renting. When he dies, the contract ends.

Thing is, he entered a contract, and now his situation has changed. Solution? Move on. That way, she can get the stability that she would need should he die first.

Starting afresh means they can write a new contract on the terms that they want. Presumably, he saved the 77% that he cashed in? Maybe he could use that to buy something smaller? Why should the other party have to change the contract because he has a change of situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it is not her house. It is something that he is renting. When he dies, the contract ends.

Thing is, he entered a contract, and now his situation has changed. Solution? Move on. That way, she can get the stability that she would need should he die first.

Starting afresh means they can write a new contract on the terms that they want. Presumably, he saved the 77% that he cashed in? Maybe he could use that to buy something smaller? Why should the other party have to change the contract because he has a change of situation?

No, it's not her house. It is her home though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what of his 23% when he dies? Cant he bequeath it to his wife or would she just get a 23% share of the sale price?

21 days seems very quick, would a court really uphold that? No one can be turfed out that quickly and I doubt any judge in the land would do it to an old lady newly widowed.

Nope after 21 days they could apply for a possession order. Would take another few weeks I'd have thought, and then they would have to apply for an eviction warrant. Another 14 days for an a bailiff appointment. Quite a bit of scope to spin it out a bit, hardship.

Or his new wife could just negotiate perhaps, in exchange for co-operating with the house sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit shocked by the responses here tbh, it wasnt the wife that entered into this deal. Does no one think that she should be shown a little compassion when her husband dies?

3 weeks isnt a lot of time to reorganise your entire life, especially at a time of a loss like that ffs.

Shouldn't it have been up to the hubby to negotiatet he period when he signed onto the contract? It isn't the company you should be angry at (or even the HPC'ers) - it's the husband who has signed up to the 21 day period.

Still, when he's gone, it's not his problem, is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She doesn't have to make a decision. The decision was made in 1998. All that the letter is about, because prices have risen since 1998 (if the letter is real), is that the house has gone up a lot in value and the family now want to reverse what was done.

Yes, she should be out in 21 days. If it's 4 weeks, 5 weeks, 6 weeks, then I have no doubt there's no point enforcing against her, and anyway, there'll be family around then, when the money's being divided. Plus, she's had the advantage of having had access to 77% of the property value for 13 plus years..... no doubt.

Yes, it's harsh, but where do you stop - 6 months, a year ? Until she dies - in which case he'd have got a lot less than 77%.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be simply inhumane to throw someone out of their home within 21 days of their spouse dying. I really can't imagine that it would we legal to do so.

In reality wouldn't that be 21 Days + at least a month for a possession order and at least another month for bailiff enforcement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She doesn't have to make a decision. The decision was made in 1998. All that the letter is about, because prices have risen since 1998 (if the letter is real), is that the house has gone up a lot in value and the family now want to reverse what was done.

Yes, she should be out in 21 days. If it's 4 weeks, 5 weeks, 6 weeks, then I have no doubt there's no point enforcing against her, and anyway, there'll be family around then, when the money's being divided. Plus, she's had the advantage of having had access to 77% of the property value for 13 plus years..... no doubt.

Yes, it's harsh, but where do you stop - 6 months, a year ? Until she dies - in which case he'd have got a lot less than 77%.....

What do you mean, she doesn't have to make a decision? She has to find somewhere else to live! Finding a new home and moving with 21 days notice would be quite a challenge for anyone, let alone an old lady who has just been widowed!

Edit: BTW, I realise she must move, it's just the time scale that is unrealistic. Three months might be reasonable.

Edited by snowflux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean, she doesn't have to make a decision? She has to find somewhere else to live! Finding a new home and moving with 21 days notice would be quite a challenge for anyone, let alone an old lady who has just been widowed!

Edit: BTW, I realise she must move, it's just the time scale that is unrealistic. Three months might be reasonable.

I would guess that when he signed the original deal, he didn't expect anyone of value to be living there - hence the 21days probably didn't matter. He may have even been paid a little more for such a short time span.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess that when he signed the original deal, he didn't expect anyone of value to be living there - hence the 21days probably didn't matter. He may have even been paid a little more for such a short time span.

I suppose so. Obviously, 21 days would be perfectly sufficient for an executor to arrange for the house to be emptied after his death if he was living there alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality wouldn't that be 21 Days + at least a month for a possession order and at least another month for bailiff enforcement

[/quote

In fact its 13years (and counting) plus 21 days. The solution, if the husband doesn't want to be a callous selfish *******, is to buy/rent an alternative place for his future widow. He has already received her inheritance, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should be an ast. Not sure how that works when someone dies, but surely it should be covered by the 2 months notice, which I still feel is too little notice.

You might say the guy was greedy, I would say he was trying to enjoy some of the benefits of rising house prices that most other homeowners enjoyed. Before it all went pop, financially astute if you ask me. He could have stc but then he would have had to move. The real badies in this are the company who were clearly trying to make money from rising house prices, they are a pure vi company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean, she doesn't have to make a decision? She has to find somewhere else to live! Finding a new home and moving with 21 days notice would be quite a challenge for anyone, let alone an old lady who has just been widowed!

Edit: BTW, I realise she must move, it's just the time scale that is unrealistic. Three months might be reasonable.

Why do we let emotion cloud the issue when talking about housing, when I die I do not expect my employer to carry on paying wages for 6 months so that my wife does not face hardship. It is generally accepted that we should have adequate savings or suitable insurance in place, whats so differant here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do we let emotion cloud the issue when talking about housing, when I die I do not expect my employer to carry on paying wages for 6 months so that my wife does not face hardship. It is generally accepted that we should have adequate savings or suitable insurance in place, whats so differant here?

What emotion? I'm talking practicality here. If your wife was run over by a bus today, do you think you'd manage to find somewhere else to live and move within 3 weeks (in between organising the funeral arrangements, inheritance, etc.)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.