Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Rights of Adult Child living with Parents

  • 11-01-2014 4:56pm
    #1
    Redsoxfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,431 ✭✭✭


    An adult child (now in their 50s) has been living with their elderly parents for a number of years (but not continuously since adolescence - the child had married and had their own family and house). Let's say that the child has been living with the parents for around 10 years now.

    The child did not pay any rent, nor could they be described as a carer, certainly not in a full time capacity.

    Both parents are now deceased and the will specifies that the house will be left to all children jointly.

    What rights, if any, does the adult child living in the house have at this point? If a majority of the siblings wish to sell the property, can they do so?


Comments

  • #2
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Redsoxfan wrote: »
    What rights, if any, does the adult child living in the house have at this point?

    Loads. But none in relation to the ownership of the house.

    Redsoxfan wrote: »
    If a majority of the siblings wish to sell the property, can they do so?

    I have no idea what any one or any combination of the siblings can do to ensure they get their share of the value of the property - but they are entitled to get their share.

    In short, if the house has been left to all of them in a valid will, then all of them own a share. The fact that one of them has been living there is irrelevant.


  • #3
    Redsoxfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,431 ✭✭✭Redsoxfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Loads. But none in relation to the ownership of the house.

    To clarify, I guess that is all I am asking. But, even if they don't have ownership rights, would they have any right to remain living in the house as a tenant of the other siblings?


  • #4
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Redsoxfan wrote: »
    To clarify, I guess that is all I am asking. But, even if they don't have ownership rights, would they have any right to remain living in the house as a tenant of the other siblings?

    If the other siblings agreed, they would.

    I've known something like this happen to two people, one in the 1990s and the other a couple of years ago. In fact the situation was even sharper from their points of view. In both cases, the individuals were living with aging parents, after their siblings had moved out, until the parents died. In both cases, the wills left the houses to one of the siblings who had left home and did not leave a share to the people who had lived with their parents. In both cases, the individuals had to get themselves out into alternative accommodation.


  • #5
    WayneScott
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭WayneScott


    Deleted User wrote: »
    If the other siblings agreed, they would.

    I've known something like this happen to two people, one in the 1990s and the other a couple of years ago. In fact the situation was even sharper from their points of view. In both cases, the individuals were living with aging parents, after their siblings had moved out, until the parents died. In both cases, the wills left the houses to one of the siblings who had left home and did not leave a share to the people who had lived with their parents. In both cases, the individuals had to get themselves out into alternative accommodation.
    Coiuld they not have challenged it as, I do not know the legal term, not taking them into consideration?


  • #6
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Santa Cruz


    Unless the family members agree otherwise each member is entitled to get their share of the house. This can be enforced by a court action if necessary.
    The adult child occupier did not pay any rent, was not a carer and would have no claim to say that he was treated unfairly by his parents in the making of the will.
    The wishes of the deceased as expressed in the will should be adhered to. In the absence of any other considerations I would advise the following options,
    1. If the others agree the occupying adult child can purchase their shares for an agreed sum and continue to live there
    2. Sell the property and divide the proceeds equally

    If the occupying adult child wishes to go to court to get ownership be prepared to lose and be responsible for all legal costs.

    p.s. A majority of the family is not needed to sell the house. That is not the point. Each individual is entitled to their fair share. If the majority do not want to sell the house it cannot be sold but they will then have to make provision for the person who wants their share. This can be agreed mutually or can be enforced by legal action, costs of which will be borne by the loser in the action.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    WayneScott
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 242 ✭✭WayneScott


    Does this apply

    If the testator failed to make proper provision for any children in the will, a child (of any age) may bring an application under section 117 of the Succession Act within six months from the first taking out of representation
    If the testator failed to make proper provision for any children in the will, a child (of any age) may bring an application under section 117 of the Succession Act within six months from the first taking out of representation. - See more at: http://www.lawyer.ie/probatewills/how-to-make-a-valid-will#sthash.xFh6CaIz.dpufIf the testator failed to make proper provision for any children in the will, a child (of any age) may bring an application under section 117 of the Succession Act within six months from the first taking out of representation. - See more at: http://www.lawyer.ie/probatewills/how-to-make-a-valid-will#sthash.xFh6CaIz.dpuf


  • #8
    Santa Cruz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,126 ✭✭✭Santa Cruz


    The testator has made proper provision. Indeed it could be argued that by residing rent free for a number of years the adult child had benefitted enormously in comparison to the other children.
    He has not given any indication that he contributed to the maintenance of the house by paying insurance, refurbishment costs or any other property related expenses.

    On the facts presented to us I cannot see any court siding with the adult child who thinks he has a right to a greater share of the property. If anything the court will see it as a straightforward property grab


  • #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    WayneScott wrote: »
    Coiuld they not have challenged it as, I do not know the legal term, not taking them into consideration?

    Sorry, I missed this for a few days. In both cases the individuals sought legal advice and were advised that a challenge would almost certainly fail. Section 117 of the Succession Act is designed primarily (though not exclusively) to protect children whose age or circumstances mean that they should expect support from their parent or parents. For example, if a parent made a will but didn't make provision for a son or daughter who was under age, or who had a mental or physical disability, a challenge by that son/daughter might succeed. In both cases the people were adults and working, and capable of providing for themselves.


Advertisement