Adjusting for inflation

[bainbridge]

Thanks everyone for responding, and for the inflation calculator x3

I agree with much of the sentiment in this thread, but of course family relationships can be complicated. I'm just trying to look at the big picture, about life after the funds are distributed and how this might impact the remaining relatives.

As far as the will is concerned I know that the case manager intends to split the estate as per the will unless they get written instructions from all beneficiaries agreeing otherwise.

So by doing nothing, I will end up with an equal share as per the will. However, the relative in question did live in the property after the deceased went into care. Had they moved out, the property would have been sold to put towards those care costs. They also paid for some maintenance costs.

My stance (not boxing) is that while I acknowledge the above, I don't agree in principle with what the relative proposes, which is that because they paid into 7 years of a 25 year mortgage, a third of the current value should go to them, to take into account what they paid in mortgage payments and maintenance costs. Then, whatever is left of the property value is split evenly, including them.

I'm willing to consider an informal agreement to give them a slightly larger share, but it was not their property to invest in, therefore they should not benefit from a straight share of the current value.

The ball is firmly in my court on this, whatever beneficial interest they think they might have.

Thanks again folks, it's something to think about.

 

[Penfold101]

Inflation calculator

Use our inflation calculator to check how prices in the UK have changed over time, from 1209 to now.

www.bankofengland.co.uk

“Can someone stop inflating the calculator please…”

 

[Richie]

I don't agree in principle with what the relative proposes, which is that because they paid into 7 years of a 25 year mortgage, a third of the current value should go to them, to take into account what they paid in mortgage payments and maintenance costs. Then, whatever is left of the property value is split evenly, including them.

What period of the mortgage did they repay e.g. 25 year mortgage and they paid years 7-14 (but not years 1-6 or years 15-25)?

 

[booyaka]

Thanks everyone for responding, and for the inflation calculator x3

I agree with much of the sentiment in this thread, but of course family relationships can be complicated. I'm just trying to look at the big picture, about life after the funds are distributed and how this might impact the remaining relatives.

As far as the will is concerned I know that the case manager intends to split the estate as per the will unless they get written instructions from all beneficiaries agreeing otherwise.

So by doing nothing, I will end up with an equal share as per the will. However, the relative in question did live in the property after the deceased went into care. Had they moved out, the property would have been sold to put towards those care costs. They also paid for some maintenance costs.

My stance (not boxing) is that while I acknowledge the above, I don't agree in principle with what the relative proposes, which is that because they paid into 7 years of a 25 year mortgage, a third of the current value should go to them, to take into account what they paid in mortgage payments and maintenance costs. Then, whatever is left of the property value is split evenly, including them.

I'm willing to consider an informal agreement to give them a slightly larger share, but it was not their property to invest in, therefore they should not benefit from a straight share of the current value.

The ball is firmly in my court on this, whatever beneficial interest they think they might have.

Thanks again folks, it's something to think about.

Unless they wish to legally contest the will there's nothing to be done. Give them nothing informally either. That will just seem like a soft touch and they will come back asking/demanding more.

Again - these payments are 25-30 years ago into a mortgage...

If the will doesn't include them, or doesn't included a big enough "slice" for them that they expect, and they have no ground to doubt/or contest the will - That's just tough.

 

[danlightbulb]

wrong!. the family with only 1 child said it was not fair and that their child should get 1/3 of the sale of the property and the other 2/3 split between the other 4 kids. its like some people feel an inheritance is some kind of right, rather than a gift from the person who has passed away.

It is interesting dilemma because what if one sibling had 6 kids, this diluting the spread significantly. Obviously I agree that it's a gift not a right but some families might think more allocation is going down one family branch than another.

Glad I'll never be in this position - small family.

 

[Richie]

It is interesting dilemma because what if one sibling had 6 kids, this diluting the spread significantly. Obviously I agree that it's a gift not a right but some families might think more allocation is going down one family branch than another.

But the kids are individuals who will then go on to have their own families (generally) thereby "diluting" the full amount equally. By doing it the way they want (1/3rd to each "set" of grandkids) means that the grandkids with siblings are worse off than the solo grandkid.

It would be different of the parents of said grandkids received the monies shared to them pro-rata to the number of kids they have.

 

[jaybee]

Unless they wish to legally contest the will .....

So how does that work then? What is the point in a Will, if it is then challengeable and not enforceable? I thought the whole point in a Will, was to make it clear how your money and assets will be distributed. Why do we hear of so many complications with Wills? I can understand when there was no Will made, but when there was one... why? I say this as someone with a Will. I made one, but I'm honestly not entirely confident I even understand my own one. I found the whole process and advice about it really quite bad.

 

[Richie]

So how does that work then? What is the point in a Will, if it is then challengeable and not enforceable? I thought the whole point in a Will, was to make it clear how your money and assets will be distributed. Why do we hear of so many complications with Wills? I can understand when there was no Will made, but when there was one... why? I say this as someone with a Will. I made one, but I'm honestly not entirely confident I even understand my own one. I found the whole process and advice about it really quite bad.

Its to allow family to correctly challenge it in circumstances where they believe the deceased was manipulated to make changes. Unfortunately, it is now just being abused by family members out for a quick buck or to try and get a "win" over a long running family dispute/falling out.

Its quite pathetic when used improperly.

 

[GravyMonster]

which is that because they paid into 7 years of a 25 year mortgage, a third of the current value should go to them, to take into account what they paid in mortgage payments and maintenance costs

I don't for one second believe this person should get anything at all, however taking the above statement in a mathematical sense, I assume £61/month was not the ENTIRE mortgage payment? So even at best they would only be entitled to a return on % of the mortgage they paid for those 7 years, not all of it.

 

[Jokester]

I think someone paying a mortgage (or part of) would have some reasonable claim to having equity in the property so seeing that then divvied up as part someone else’s will doesn’t appear to be particularly fair.

IANAL, so get proper legal advice over this.

 

[jaybee]

So basically someone paid a mortgage on a property for some amount of time, but never ended up owning or benefiting from the sale of that property? I can't think of many scenarios where that would happen. How does that happen?

 

[Thekwango]

So basically someone paid a mortgage on a property for some amount of time, but never ended up owning or benefiting from the sale of that property? I can't think of many scenarios where that would happen. How does that happen?

can you genuinely not think of a single scenario where that occurs?

 

[Stu999]

Did they really pay anything towards it? That's the question.

 

[throwaway4372]

Ha yes.
That still isn't resolved by the way. It's unbelievable. I don't even want to think of the amount of money, mental effort and mental health that's been wasted on fighting over money.

Dread to think what happens when my parents or anyone of my mums siblings passes as I don't know how things will be handled then.

Tell them you paid the mortgage.

 

[jaybee]

can you genuinely not think of a single scenario where that occurs?

Someone was "paying towards the mortgage" unofficially and was not listed on it? So they paid the owner rent or keep and believe this entitles them to a share?

 

[MatsyLR]

So she paid less than £100 per month for a number of years barely covering just utilities and they want a third of the house value? Unless I'm reading it wrong because that is madness.

 

[booyaka]

I think someone paying a mortgage (or part of) would have some reasonable claim to having equity in the property so seeing that then divvied up as part someone else’s will doesn’t appear to be particularly fair.

IANAL, so get proper legal advice over this.

potentially during the persons lifetime they may have done, however they are now deceased and therefore the estate/assets of the deceased no longer exist as assets of the deceased, they belong to the beneficiaries named in the will.

No claim at all.

 

[booyaka]

So how does that work then? What is the point in a Will, if it is then challengeable and not enforceable? I thought the whole point in a Will, was to make it clear how your money and assets will be distributed. Why do we hear of so many complications with Wills? I can understand when there was no Will made, but when there was one... why? I say this as someone with a Will. I made one, but I'm honestly not entirely confident I even understand my own one. I found the whole process and advice about it really quite bad.

You can challenge a will - but as per any other legal challenge - you need a solid reason/evidence to see it changed post death.

You can do a deed of variation for saying IHT purposes (i.e skipping a generation to give money to the kids from a grandparent etc) - All beneficiaries whose interests are affected by the variation must agree to it. The variation also needs to be completed within a certain timeframe, typically two years from the date of death, to qualify for tax benefits

That's different to challenging a will - Rarely will a will be legally changed after death unless someone has forceable got the individual to change their will at the last minute or something out of the ordinary has happened.

Challenging a will is an extremely costly and expensive for everyone involved. Can go on for decades....

Only winners are the lawyers and solicitors in most cases

 

[Jokester]

potentially during the persons lifetime they may have done, however they are now deceased and therefore the estate/assets of the deceased no longer exist as assets of the deceased, they belong to the beneficiaries named in the will.

No claim at all.

Crikey, well there's a lesson, never pay towards someone elses mortgage out of good faith unless you get some sort of formal agreement.

 

[jaybee]

Imagine paying off someone's mortgage whilst not being named on it. Oh wait, I did that for 4 landlords over nearly 20 years.