# What would you do to earn more money from 400k



## brillopad

Ok folks hyperthetical question, your 63 yrs old no pension going to come your way, got 400k in the bank, the question is what's the best way to earn an income from said dosh.Dennis


----------



## waspes

Buy some houses and rent them out.


Peter.


----------



## rayc

I have passed your question onto my Nigerian friend and he will be contacting you shortly with an offer too good to ignore.
Seriously, do not put all your eggs in one basket. Even UK banks have a paltry maximum of £75,000 per person in their failure funds.


----------



## Pat-H

Pay a financial consultant for their advice.


----------



## barryd

Nicholsong started a thread about investments recently but Im not sure it came to any conclusions. People seem reluctant to share such information on forums but this is the thread. http://forums.motorhomefacts.com/26-off-topic/171041-investments.html

I think either you are clever, prepared to take risk and play the markets, you let someone else do it for you and they cream some off or you invest in property and rent it out. Thats how I see it anyway with my very limited knowledge.

I may be looking for similar in the near future if I decided to retire properly. My idea was to purchase a couple of flats near a hospital, rent only to NHS staff and maybe buy a small place in France which I may live in for some of the year and rent out now and again to friends or through an agency. I just want to clear enough cash to carry on motorhoming each month and Property seems the safest bet (to me). I guess they are a fall back and a pension as well as over say 10 to 20 years they are unlikely to drop in value and you could always either move into one or flog em and spend the proceeds when your ready for the knackers yard.

Im just treading water really here now. Neither making any real money nor loosing any. I may as well retire full time and live off investments but its a lot to sort out.

I think when I did some research into property there are certain areas that are much higher yield than others. Fortunately Darlington our nearest town and even Middlesbrough further east are high yield. My friend has loads of houses in Darlington. Picks them up for about £30-40K, does a bit of work on them and they rent for £400-500 a month! I doubt you will find much better than that.


----------



## barryd

Pat-H said:


> Pay a financial consultant for their advice.


Thats often a stock answer. How do you know your are dealing with the right person and how do you know you can trust them? Just ask Raynipper about Financial Consultants. 

I would rather listen and take advice from someone on here or even a few personal recommendations of a consultant if you go down this route but its rarely forthcoming.

If I had a recommendation to make I would definitely share it with my pals on here.


----------



## cronkle

The Santander 123 current account gives 3% ish for up to £20,000 each account - one account for you, one for Brenda and a joint one. A condition is that £500 has to go in each month but not from another Santander account so.....

Set up three similar TSB accounts which also require the same amount to go out each month and send the money around all six. The TSB accounts pays 5%. 

Each of the Santander accounts requires a £5 monthly fee.

Pay certain regular bills from these accounts and you will get 'cash back'.

For more info see the Martin Lewis website. There are other current accounts that do similar.

That accounts for £66,000. As already said invest the rest in property but only if you can find a decent builder to maintain the place - you may struggle>

Anything left over just send it to me and I will get rid of it for you.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

1st question might be, how's your health and how long do you expect to live, 2nd, do you intend to leave anything to anyone.

if we had £400k I think the absolute best investment would be to find a nice plot of land and build on it, flog it and keep doing it, but it does require a lot of energy, but for gain, it's pretty much unbeatable.

Surrey would not be the best place to do it though, land too expensive, you need to come north, lower wages too.


----------



## StephandJohn

Premium Bonds. We've both got a sizeable amount between us which we invested for the short term when some bonds came out (got our Santander 123). John got about 8.5% last year and I got 0.75%. So for the time being they are staying in.


----------



## emmbeedee

cronkle said:


> Set up three similar TSB accounts which also require the same amount to go out each month and send the money around all six. The TSB accounts pays 5%.


The TSB accounts only pay 5% up to £2,000 I think.

I have one & the Santander as well.:wink2:


----------



## greygit

brillopad said:


> Ok folks hyperthetical question, your 63 yrs old no pension going to come your way, got 400k in the bank, the question is what's the best way to earn an income from said dosh.Dennis


Just be thankful you have that much, a lot of people of that age aint. :wink2:


----------



## mgdavid

brillopad said:


> Ok folks hyperthetical question, your 63 yrs old no pension going to come your way, got 400k in the bank, the question is what's the best way to earn an income from said dosh.Dennis


Really far too little info about you and your situation to suggest targeted guidance, but some ideas might be:
Are you currently employed and paying income tax? If so then open a Personal pension or a SIPP, plough in the maximum before April 5th in order to reclaim *all* the tax you've paid this year. Do the same next tax year too, if still working. Maybe accounts for £80k.
Do you have any life-shortening health issues? If so then get some enhanced annuity quotes for £100k.
Cash in decent interest-bearing accounts (TSB, Santander, First Direct saver, etc) could account for £50k.
BTL property - £100k (but be aware of the work it entails plus the recent initiatives to make it less profitable)
S&S ISAs - £70k

IFAs are a bit hit-and-miss in my experience, and that's being generous; even if lucky enough to find a good one, it will cost you - they usually want 2% to 3% of everything you invest through them, and then maybe 1% per annum management charge.

Diversity is the key, plus taking an interest and learning as much as you can about personal finance, investing, general economics and current affairs - then keeping on top of it.


----------



## brillopad

All of which have crossed my mind , as kev says land where I live would be to much, as for buying and then renting out it worries me that they won't pay the rent and it will cost to get them out, jese you can buy houses for 30to 40k up north, 

Right barry, how much do you think you need a month to carry on motor homing as you do ?


----------



## brillopad

greygit said:


> Just be thankful you have that much, a lot of people of that age aint. :wink2:


Yes your right the harder I worked the more thankfull I became


----------



## barryd

brillopad said:


> All of which have crossed my mind , as kev says land where I live would be to much, as for buying and then renting out it worries me that they won't pay the rent and it will cost to get them out, jese you can buy houses for 30to 40k up north,
> 
> *Right barry, how much do you think you need a month to carry on motor homing as you do* ?


Ideally £1500 a month but £1000 would do it. I think last summer with the rate being so good we were spending around £800 a month.

Yep you can get houses that cheap in certain parts of the north but they will need work. The point is though that £400K would buy you say 8 small terraced houses that dont need much if anything doing and the rent would be £400-500 a month. A single £400K house rented out would get you nowhere near that much collectively. I could rent this place out. Its lovely in a nice Village in the country but I wouldnt get nearly as much as if I flogged it and bought a few small ones or flats.

My issue with the small terraced houses in town would be they are right at the bottom of the market and more likely to attract troublesome tenants and need more maintenance.

I would rather pay say £70K for a two bedroom modern flat by a hospital that needs nothing doing to it and is likely to attract a professional longer term tenant. I think also the general opinion from those that have done it is to pick carefully a good agent to look after it. I dont want to be getting calls from tenants when Im 1000 miles away in the van.

All sounds great but I suspect there is a lot more hassle involved than you may first think.

I think for me what I might do is buy one flat, go through the motions with it and get it all settled, see how it pans out and then go from there.

I would probably sell this place first though. I love our home but its an expensive luxury we dont really need. We are hardly ever in it,and it costs a lot to keep empty half the year.

The good thing about having a motorhome of course is you can live in it while your sorting all this stuff out.


----------



## rayc

I guess the question is how long do you want to retain the level at £400,000? Are you looking for the interest to fund your way of life?
How much money would a person want, at say 80, put away for a rainy day?


----------



## brillopad

rayc said:


> I guess the question is how long do you want to retain the level at £400,000? Are you looking for the interest to fund your way of life?
> How much money would a person want, at say 80, put away for a rainy day?


The 400k is for using to get a bit of dosh coming in ,its not all the dosh I got, we bought a place down on the coast which we will live in, so need to get the 400k working for us if that makes sense, now as I'm a builder do I buy a crappy old gaff and do it up, then sell and do it again, but to be honest I didn't want to work that hard, I like the idea of getting money without doing to much, ( as we all do)


----------



## cronkle

brillopad said:


> The 400k is for using to get a bit of dosh coming in ,its not all the dosh I got, we bought a place down on the coast which we will live in, so need to get the 400k working for us if that makes sense, now as I'm a builder do I buy a crappy old gaff and do it up, then sell and do it again, but to be honest I didn't want to work that hard, I like the idea of getting money without doing to much, ( as we all do)


So, if you are retiring do you still want to be a builder; busmans holiday or do you want to keep your hand in for a while? What does Brenda think?


----------



## cabby

I suppose it depends on whether you wish to just reap a sensible return on that amount or do some part time building and make it earn more.
Property investment is possibly the safest way, either redevelopment or build a property portfolio.Use a recommended rental agency.

cabby.

Either that or find a country Taxi firm for sale.


----------



## brillopad

cronkle said:


> So, if you are retiring do you still want to be a builder; busmans holiday or do you want to keep your hand in for a while? What does Brenda think?


Who knows what she thinks, I'm not sure she knows


----------



## Stanner

Pat-H said:


> Pay a financial consultant for their advice.


That will ensure you no longer have to worry about what to do with your £400k.:wink2:


----------



## GEMMY

If you want to make it 500k I might know where 9 flats in one building might be available :wink2:fully let of course .


tony


----------



## cabby

That's cheap as chips.Almost tempted.

cabby


----------



## havingfun

There is no such thing as easy money!!!!.Even when you have it, as some one is always in your pocket.Bernard


----------



## stewartwebr

People seem to think property is the answer, I hope it is as I have a sizable portfolio. However, it may not fit in with the typical motorhomers way of life. Property needs attention and constant repairs and that can be difficult and expensive if you are not around to resolve.


I'm lucky that I can continue working (unfortunately - tied into final salary scheme) and my partner looks after the properties, which is almost a full time job. Once I retire we will need to look at placing the properties under a management team or employ someone to do it, this should be factored into the any yield. Typical cost of management companies is 12%


You also need to consider more than just property yield. Yield is fine if you are in for the long run. However, higher yield areas normally mean lesser affluent areas with lower house prices. This invariably means less return on property when you come to sell. A flat in the North will not increase in value as quickly as in the South (typically). We also have the new increased Buy to Let stamp duty and don't forget you pay income tax on the rent received and you pay capital gains on any profit you make when you come to sell. So not quite as simple as some may think.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Build and sell can't be that bad an idea there are lot of big firms doing it, getting land and planning that's the hard work, get in some Polish skills (they don't mind working ALL day and not being paid a kings ransom for it) there is a housing shortage so selling a decent property would be easy enough too, I'd not do buy to let, way too risky, and could cost a fortune if it went badly.


----------



## chilly

brillopad said:


> Ok folks hyperthetical question, your 63 yrs old no pension going to come your way, got 400k in the bank, the question is what's the best way to earn an income from said dosh.Dennis


Why not just spend it? That's £20K a year for 20 years!

There's no pockets in shrouds>


----------



## GEMMY

cabby said:


> That's cheap as chips.Almost tempted.
> 
> cabby


Are you 'more' tempted:


----------



## barryd

chilly said:


> Why not just spend it? That's £20K a year for 20 years!
> 
> There's no pockets in shrouds>


Thats actually a good point. When do you cash in your chips and just spend it. For us its a little different to most. We have nobody to leave money to but we are only just turned 50. I would obviously like to think Mrs D would be looked after if I pop me clogs but there must come a time when you think, sod it. Ive got £XX tied up in property and investment, may as well cash it all in, by a brand new motorhome and spend it all.


----------



## chilly

barryd said:


> sod it. Ive got £XX tied up in property and investment, may as well cash it all in, by a brand new motorhome and spend it all.


Is the correct answer:grin2:

We don't have anyone to leave any money to so it's a matter of getting the timing right so I spend my last tenner on my deathbed (or more likely Mrs Hill)


----------



## mgdavid

the timing's the tricky bit!
If the survivor of a couple eventually cannot cope on their own and needs residential care or full nursing care, that's a grand a week for a decent quality place. Anyone who's been inside the base standard of council-paid homes will know they want better for their surviving partner.


----------



## Brock

After the last financial collapse, the Bankruptcy Courts were full of property developers ruing their lack of financial acumen and realising the path to greed often diverts into poverty. So when investing in property - which remains a good thing - ensure you have cash assets to tide you over the bad times which will surely return. Do not become asset rich and cash poor because in a forced sale, your assets won't make you rich.

I would get a full health check to identify any likely health issues that will extend or shorten my life. Better to spend the money on making sure you can live long enough to enjoy it.

When I retired, I worked out we needed to acquire £636k at current values over 20 years to tide us both over until we are 80. That's £450k to cover our living and motorhoming expenses, £96k for repairs & replacement to the house/motorhome, and 20% for contingencies. I assume we can make our money grow in line with the inflation rate for retired people.. Thereafter, it will be £32k pa until we both go into a Nursing Home in which case it will be £52k pa [halved if one dies] - it's £500pw each in the north, £1,000pw each in the South East.

However, these figures do not allow for paying taxes on income, say another £250k until 80.

If both of us live until we are 90, spending the last 5 years in a Nursing Home, we will need £1.25m at current values.


----------



## fatbuddha

there are some upcoming changes that will help savers

1. from April 6th, every basic rate tax payer gets a tax free £1000 annual allowance on interest earned. that's £1000 free of tax - for basic rate tax payers, that equates to interest on £71k of savings in top easy access accounts. see here for more insight - http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/latesttip/. however higher rate tax payers only get £500 allowance, and those in the 45% bracket get nothing.

2. there will be ISA wrappers for P2P investments where interest is currently taxed. as these are often paying interest around 6%, these can be wrapped into a ISA tax free account which means you are better off. I don't know if it applies to all P2P investments or just a select few so you need to do your own research. I have an account with RateSetter and they will be offering one - https://www.ratesetter.com/blog/article/first-innovative-finance-isa-product-announced.


----------



## nicholsong

stewartwebr said:


> People seem to think property is the answer, I hope it is as I have a sizable portfolio. However, it may not fit in with the typical motorhomers way of life. Property needs attention and constant repairs and that can be difficult and expensive if you are not around to resolve.
> 
> I'm lucky that I can continue working (unfortunately - tied into final salary scheme) and my partner looks after the properties, which is almost a full time job. Once I retire we will need to look at placing the properties under a management team or employ someone to do it, this should be factored into the any yield. Typical cost of management companies is 12%
> 
> You also need to consider more than just property yield. Yield is fine if you are in for the long run. However, higher yield areas normally mean lesser affluent areas with lower house prices. This invariably means less return on property when you come to sell. A flat in the North will not increase in value as quickly as in the South (typically). We also have the new increased Buy to Let stamp duty and don't forget you pay income tax on the rent received and you pay capital gains on any profit you make when you come to sell. So not quite as simple as some may think.


I think that post has a lot of sensible comments about the property market in it.

Several of them are borne out by my experience; I bought a terraced house in a leafy part of SW London (Barnes) 17 years ago which had to be stripped out for new services and a roof addition (now 4 beds, large living room and 2 baths) and lived in it for several years but have been renting it out on/off for 7-8 years. I pay an agent 12% - the office only does rental management so are specialists and was founded by a lady whose husband is a builder, and most of the staff have been there 15 years so know their onions - not easy to find such good agents, especially 1/2 mile from the property.

My net yield, after fees repairs and tax is only 3% of current value, but in 17 years the capital value has gone up over 400%. This illustrates Stewart's point about the total (Rent + Capital Gain) over the years.

Of course if the rental yield needs to be a certain minimum one might have to go for a higher yield and accept a lower capital gain.

Although there is are reasons for having a portfolio of properties - spread of risk of voids, the portfolio can start small and expand etc, there are the risks that if they are cheap the quality of the tenants and their ability to pay the rent are increased as are the chances of voids.

I have never had tenants whose references did not disclose incomes of less than £100K and the current tenants' combined incomes come to £200K and either would be good for the total rent - important to me because they only started co-habiting at the start of the tenancy. Also tenants on that sort of income tend to have a lifestyle such that they are unlikely to 'trash' a place.

I have had very short voids between tenants - last one, two years ago, was 10 days, which were needed for a quick freshen-up of some decoration.

On the repair/replacement side there is only one washing machine to go wrong not 8, and the capital cost of replacement as a % of the rent and value of the property is small in comparison to 8 machines in lower cost properties.

I make the above points to illustrate that there can be a successful way of having money in one (or more) properties of high value in 'good' areas - also think quality of schools, increasingly important to some families - my first tenants sold a house 300m from mine, rented mine for 2 1/2 years while looked for and extended another house and have moved less than 800m in total because of kids' schools.

A valid point was made above about buying close to hospitals, to which I would add close and/or Universities - not for student rentals but for mature research post-grads or junior lecturers who may be thinking of a two-year term there and moving on to another university.

Just my jottings on the rental market.

Geoff


----------



## salomon

The examples on property investment are good. But it still depends on whether you want easy access to capital or have anyone you want to leave the money to. 
We own 2 properties but live in both of them. Any other property investments would tie up too much capital. The UK property market may well be lucrative and relaively liquid but that is not the case elsewhere. Having effectively cut all links with the UK, investing in Uk property is really not an option. Reasons for leaving the UK ? Income tax, capital gains tax, inheritance tax. Not Necessarily in that order.

Our intention is to die in debt. We will never achieve that aim unfortunately.

Our capital is invested in open architecture pension funds, managed by wealth management companies. They take 0,85% annually.
You can put anything you like into these funds. Even physical property...the fund holds the deeds. They are typically held offshore where you must pay income tax at local rates on any withdrawals. As long as you have enough diversification then you can get some yield even in the current market ( saying that, a large chunk is currently held indirectly in property). The fees are not expensive IMO. Some of the rates quoted in this thread are astonishingly high.


----------



## nicholsong

salomon said:


> Our intention is to die in debt. We will never achieve that aim unfortunately.


Sarah, Sarah,

I can help out with that aim next time we meet.:wink2::laugh:

Geoff (always willing to help)


----------



## rayrecrok

It depends on how much if any you want to hand on when you are gone, decide who is getting what take that away from your sum, decide how many useful years you are going to be active and divide the remainder by those years, then leave an amount you feel you might need for a rainy day and sending you off...

Put the rest in what ever is safe and giving you a bit of interest..
Then blow the bloody lot!.. It's not the dress rehearsal .:wink2: ,you can be sure who ever you leave anything too will blow it!. 

ray.


----------



## Mrplodd

Another vote for buying a couple of houses and renting them out.

Monthly income and you still have the capital asset which should increase in value, no risk attached, no brainer really. (well thats what I would do)

Down my way a 2 bed house is the best rental to own, cost wise about 160-170K per house for a decent letting one) monthly rental about £750-£800 PCM so with just two houses you would have an income in the region of £1500-£1600 per month thats £18000 a year !! (less any letting agent fees etc. Where else will you get that sort of GUARANTEED return??? 

Premium bonds will give you around 8.5% but they might not of course. 

Andy


----------



## barryd

Mrplodd said:


> Another vote for buying a couple of houses and renting them out.
> 
> Monthly income and you still have the capital asset which should increase in value, no risk attached, no brainer really. (well thats what I would do)
> 
> Down my way a 2 bed house is the best rental to own, cost wise about 160-170K per house for a decent letting one) monthly rental about £750-£800 PCM so with just two houses you would have an income in the region of £1500-£1600 per month thats £18000 a year !! (less any letting agent fees etc. Where else will you get that sort of GUARANTEED return???
> 
> *Premium bonds will give you around 8.5% but they might not of course*.
> 
> Andy


Yeah they definitely "might not". If the average yield on PB was anywhere near 8.5% everyone would be stuffing money in them like there is no tomorrow.

I agree about the houses though but its clear to me that the yield varies geographically. There are definitely areas where you can do better than others. £170K would buy you three terrace houses in Darlington or two half decent flats and the rental would be probably £450 per house or £500 to £600 for a flat.

I think there are some hot areas in the Midlands as well. For me though I think Ill buy somewhere I know like Darlington as I was born there (dont live there now but nearby). My brother in law is a builder (of sorts) and my best mate runs a long established building firm and has a large property portfolio. What can possibly go wrong?


----------



## chasper

Have you ever seen those programmes about the High Court Enforcement Officers on Channel 5? I think its called Can't pay we'll take it away. Thats what could go wrong.


----------



## barryd

chasper said:


> Have you ever seen those programmes about the High Court Enforcement Officers on Channel 5? I think its called Can't pay we'll take it away. Thats what could go wrong.


Yeah well I might come across as a bit daft but its all a con.


----------



## stewartwebr

chilly said:


> Is the correct answer:grin2:
> 
> We don't have anyone to leave any money to so it's a matter of getting the timing right so I spend my last tenner on my deathbed (or more likely Mrs Hill)


Don't want to detract from the OP but we have been discussing this very point. We have no one to leave it too, so who do you leave it too, its a difficult question. I have a couple of Nephews who in their minds think they will be taken care of. They seem to be missing a critical part to be remembered you need to be around. Only time I hear from them is a week before Christmas when they have their hands reached out. That stopped a few years ago and we have heard nothing from them since. We have done some real sole searching on this very subject a few months ago. Its not easy!


----------



## Brock

Stewart, if you have a risk that grasping nephews will seek to challenge your will if you leave them nothing, take legal advice and ensure you have a robust will.

Have a look at this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-33684937


----------



## Pat-H

Even with a robust Will its possible to have it overturned.


----------



## nicholsong

Pat-H said:


> Even with a robust Will its possible to have it overturned.


It may be by offspring or dependant relatives, but I doubt that the cases would cover an extension to nephews, just on the basis of their expectations.


----------



## locovan

Pat-H said:


> Even with a robust Will its possible to have it overturned.


 Pat what do you mean surely if we write a will that is our wish. Are you saying someone you dont leave money to can jump in and claim some ??? :surprise:


----------



## DJMotorhomer

*Open New Business*



rayc said:


> I have passed your question onto my Nigerian friend and he will be contacting you shortly with an offer too good to ignore.
> Seriously, do not put all your eggs in one basket. Even UK banks have a paltry maximum of £75,000 per person in their failure funds.


For a sure fire way of seeing a fantastic return on a business venture.....

Open a paddle shop at the side of sh*t creek :wink2:


----------



## Stanner

locovan said:


> Pat what do you mean surely if we write a will that is our wish. Are you saying someone you dont leave money to can jump in and claim some ??? :surprise:


Yes exactly that my B-in-L specifically altered his will to say that his wife who walked out on him should get nothing at all and it should all go to my son and daughter.

The wife challenged it and actually claimed she was having to borrow off her aged parents to maintain her lifestyle of 3 holidays a year, £50/month on "hair and nails" £100/month on clothes and socialising etc. etc.

He had told us that he believed he had done enough to ensure they were legally "separated" but she still had access to the house and strangely absolutely nothing "legal" from the time she had walked out could be found in his papers which she had taken away for "safe keeping".

She claimed half, but didn't realised that meant half of *everything* including the assets & money she had already leeched off him, so only ended up with another £18,000.
She even lost some of that when it was found out she had pocketed some pension payments made after the date of his death.

But YES people you specifically exclude from your will can claim from it AND get some of it.


----------



## nicholsong

Stanner said:


> Yes exactly that my B-in-L specifically altered his will to say that his wife who walked out on him should get nothing at all and it should all go to my son and daughter.
> 
> The wife challenged it and actually claimed she was having to borrow off her aged parents to maintain her lifestyle of 3 holidays a year, £50/month on "hair and nails" £100/month on clothes and socialising etc. etc.
> 
> He had told us that he believed he had done enough to ensure they were legally "separated" but she still had access to the house and strangely absolutely nothing "legal" from the time she had walked out could be found in his papers which she had taken away for "safe keeping".
> 
> She claimed half, but didn't realised that meant half of *everything* including the assets & money she had already leeched off him, so only ended up with another £18,000.
> She even lost some of that when it was found out she had pocketed some pension payments made after the date of his death.
> 
> But YES people you specifically exclude from your will can claim from it AND get some of it.


Family and dependants are a special case and can claim under

*Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975*


----------



## mgdavid

In the above example, a divorce with a Financial Agreement containing a Clean Break clause, all finalised and approved by the Court before death would have prevented the later claim.


----------



## StephandJohn

I don't know if nephews can contest a will but I recently went with a friend to a solicitor to write her will. She is leaving everything shared equally between her son and daughter but the son is an aggressive bully who she is sure will contest the will just to delay its settlement and cost her daughter her inheritance in legal fees. The Solicitor suggested some wording to help and also that she went to her GP to get a letter to prove she was in a sound mind when she made the will.


----------



## Stanner

He had accepted that she (seemingly) wanted nothing more to do with him (whilst he was still alive that is) and it was heading toward divorce, but he died before anything got started. 
They had exchanged equity in the 2 properties they had, so that each owned one outright and he did tell me that he thought he had done enough to be "legally separated" from her.

She had only a year or so earlier pocketed £104k from the sale of his Mother's house - yet claimed she needed support from her parents to maintain her lifestyle and couldn't afford to live without even more of his money.

Just why is it possible for someone to overturn the specific wishes expressed in a will?


----------



## Brock

If your bother-in-law was still married at the time, then they each owned half of the assets each unless some other agreement was reached. Therefore, he could not will assets that were jointly owned, only his share in the assets. 

His will was not overturned. He just tried to will things he did not own in their entirety.

I'm guessing because I'm not a legal expert. 

We're off to have new wills grant up this afternoon! Our existing will was based on our children being underage. Now we have to worry about protecting assets and ensuring we have enough for Care Home fees.


----------



## nicholsong

Brock said:


> If your bother-in-law was still married at the time, then they each owned half of the assets each unless some other agreement was reached. Therefore, he could not will assets that were jointly owned, only his share in the assets.
> 
> His will was not overturned. He just tried to will things he did not own in their entirety.
> 
> I'm guessing because I'm not a legal expert.
> 
> We're off to have new wills grant up this afternoon! Our existing will was based on our children being underage. Now we have to worry about protecting assets and ensuring we have enough for Care Home fees.


Property (Houses etc.) can be owned jointly either as 'Joint Tenants', in which case the survivor owns the property in its entirity and does not form part of the deceased's Estate., or as 'Tenants in Common', where each owns a specified share and that specified share, on death of each, goes into that person's Estate and can be willed.

Geoff


----------



## Stanner

Then why should that be if they had exchanged equity on their 2 properties and each owned one outright?

What is this all about then


> *Joint tenants*
> 
> As joint tenants (sometimes called 'beneficial joint tenants'):
> 
> 
> you have equal rights to the whole property
> the property automatically goes to the other owners if you die
> you can't pass on your ownership of the property in your will
> *Tenants in common*
> 
> As tenants in common:
> 
> 
> you can own different shares of the property
> the property doesn't automatically go to the other owners if you die
> you can pass on your share of the property in your will


In this case she no longer had ANY interest in the property yet could demand half of it.


----------



## GEMMY

nicholsong said:


> Property (Houses etc.) can be owned jointly as 'Tenants in Common', where each owns a specified share and that specified share, on death of each, goes into that person's Estate and can be willed.
> 
> Geoff


I've always said to Mrs T...........we're common :wink2:

tony


----------



## locovan

Stanner said:


> Yes exactly that my B-in-L specifically altered his will to say that his wife who walked out on him should get nothing at all and it should all go to my son and daughter.
> 
> The wife challenged it and actually claimed she was having to borrow off her aged parents to maintain her lifestyle of 3 holidays a year, £50/month on "hair and nails" £100/month on clothes and socialising etc. etc.
> 
> He had told us that he believed he had done enough to ensure they were legally "separated" but she still had access to the house and strangely absolutely nothing "legal" from the time she had walked out could be found in his papers which she had taken away for "safe keeping".
> 
> She claimed half, but didn't realised that meant half of *everything* including the assets & money she had already leeched off him, so only ended up with another £18,000.
> She even lost some of that when it was found out she had pocketed some pension payments made after the date of his death.
> 
> But YES people you specifically exclude from your will can claim from it AND get some of it.


Soooo Is there any point in writing a will and naming people in the family that you dont want to leave money to ?? If they can turn around and make a claim ?:kiss:


----------



## Stanner

None whatsoever it would seem - you need to ensure they are no longer "family".

If it is a spouse make sure you are totally and utterly divorced beyond all doubt.
If it is offspring shoot them from your death bed.


----------



## Stanner

Brock said:


> If your bother-in-law was still married at the time, then they each owned half of the assets each unless some other agreement was reached. Therefore, he could not will assets that were jointly owned, only his share in the assets.
> 
> His will was not overturned. He just tried to will things he did not own in their entirety.
> 
> I'm guessing because I'm not a legal expert.


Did you read what I posted?

They had exchanged equity in the 2 properties so that they owned one property each OUTRIGHT.

Also the will was not some home brewed special, but was drawn up by a large legal practice in Southampton who operate will making services for large organisations.

So if what you say is right, they might not be legal experts either.


----------



## emjaiuk

I'm not sure about this, and am not very knowledgeable about it, but I seem to recollect that if you wish to exclude somebody from your will, you have to give specific, reasonable and coherent reasons within your will why you wish them to be excluded.


Malcolm


----------



## Brock

Yes, Stanner, I did read what you said. And as I said, I was guessing. I've stopped guessing now and deleted my second post as I doubt it would have been welcomed. 

I shall continue to retain absolute faith in the law of property based on my 42 years experience and on the law of probate based on my 22 years of experience. I've also clocked up 10 years of managing outsourced legal services so have every confidence that the firm I instructed to revise my will today will get it right. I'll not trouble you with my 8 years of experience successfully suing solicitors for professional negligence but the solicitor I'm using is well aware of it!

Truly, I hope you find the understanding you seek.


----------



## Stanner

Brock said:


> Yes, Stanner, I did read what you said. And as I said, I was guessing. I've stopped guessing now and deleted my second post as I doubt it would have been welcomed.
> 
> I shall continue to retain absolute faith in the law of property based on my 42 years experience and on the law of probate based on my 22 years of experience. I've also clocked up 10 years of managing outsourced legal services so have every confidence that the firm I instructed to revise my will today will get it right. I'll not trouble you with my 8 years of experience successfully suing solicitors for professional negligence but the solicitor I'm using is well aware of it!
> 
> Truly, I hope you find the understanding you seek.


So, are you a legal expert or not?

So, even if they exchange the equity in the two properties so they own one each in their own name, they still own half of the property they no longer own?


----------



## mgdavid

Stanner said:


> So, are you a legal expert or not?
> 
> So, even if they exchange the equity in the two properties so they own one each in their own name, they still own half of the property they no longer own?


Absolutely, yes. If they are married, the properties are marital assets. Thought everyone knew that.


----------



## Stanner

mgdavid said:


> Absolutely, yes. If they are married, the properties are marital assets. Thought everyone knew that.


Yes so it is and that is what caught her out when she found that she had to put back into the equation everything she had already taken out.

However the intention of the "equity swap" was to severe that link - obviously it was a pointless exercise.

So it seems that if they were separated, but still married, either of them could sell their property and give the money away/**** it up against the wall without the other's permission and still demand their share of the other house in the event of a divorce?


----------



## mgdavid

sort of - BUT while the 'starting position' for a financial order is a 50/50 split, that situation would give the other party plenty of reason to propose a split of 60/40 or 70/30 or whatever it worked out to, taking into account that the mis-spent / frittered money would be treated as part of the split share already taken. The tricky bit is proving it, which is where the Form E comes in, along with the legal requirement for full financial disclosure which includes things like copies of all bank statements going back to the date of the breakdown or separation.


----------



## Stanner

So how does that all work if one of the parties is dead and the party that is left is the profligate one who has been excluded from the will?


----------



## mgdavid

as you're now well into the realms of your imagination I'll leave that one for you to ponder!


----------



## Stanner

mgdavid said:


> as you're now well into the realms of your imagination I'll leave that one for you to ponder!



What imagination?

That was the situation.


----------



## mgdavid

Stanner said:


> What imagination?
> 
> That was the situation.


You already gave the actual situation and outcome in post 48, I'm presuming you're now asking about something different?


----------

