Right of residence

john mayo 10

My wife was left the family home a number of years ago. He brother was given all the land plus right of residence in the house until he moves out. Problem now is he is refusing my wife enter to the house claiming she is invading his privacy. All she was doing was trying to keep the place tidy as he's not to fond of keeping the place tidy. He now has the front door jammed so she can't enter. What does she do. Her plan is to eventually sell the house when he moves out. The sooner the better if you ask me. Surely she has a right to enter her own house. If I go up I will land him on top of his head out on the street but what will that achieve. What to do.?

Atlantic Dawn

His legal position would be as if he was renting the home from your wife, she should ask his permission to inspect the home at a date which is reasonable, other than that she has no right to invade his privacy while he is a resident.

coylemj

john mayo 10 wrote: »

My wife was left the family home a number of years ago. He brother was given all the land plus right of residence in the house until he moves out.

He has zero incentive to move out, why would he? She will have to pay him to move out and (in a legal document) surrender his right to live in the house.

Does the house have frontage to a public road or do you have to cross the land to access it? Because if it's on the farm with no frontage, it might not be worth her while buying him out if he can cause more trouble in the future with the issue of access.

john mayo 10

The house is in a town and the land is about 3 miles away.

kravmaga

May I ask you OP, what is or was the relationship like with your wife and her brother, sounds to me from his behaviour that it may be tense.

I would go to a Solicitor to get legal advice on the matter, things could get very messy in the future as already sounds like the relationship is very strained between them.

john mayo 10

They had a good relationship until lately. Any issues he had he always came to her and she always did her best to sort it out. This is the way he repays her.

kravmaga

I understand , I would still get legal advice on the matter from a solicitor.

Even the best of relationships can get strained , especially if there is a property involved.

ganmo

john mayo 10 wrote: »

They had a good relationship until lately. Any issues he had he always came to her and she always did her best to sort it out. This is the way he repays her.

She decked up, he is not in the wrong.
Think of it like your neighbour coming into your house and tidying up because they can see a mess through the window

john mayo 10

She only went in to tidy up the mess he has the house in. In all fairness she owns the house

GerardKeating

john mayo 10 wrote: »

She only went in to tidy up the mess he has the house in. In all fairness she owns the house

But the same rules apply in any landlord/tennent situation, one needs permission in advance to enter the dewling.

the_pen_turner

john mayo 10 wrote: »

She only went in to tidy up the mess he has the house in. In all fairness she owns the house

It's his mess in his home. She owns the house but has no say over his home once he doesn't wreck it

john mayo 10

So basically he has more rights than she has. She pays house insurance, LPT etc and owns the house yet cannot enter. He can do as he please regarding the house so.

coylemj

john mayo 10 wrote: »

So basically he has more rights than she has. She pays house insurance, LPT etc and owns the house yet cannot enter. He can do as he please regarding the house so.

It's not a case of one person having 'more rights' than the other. The right of residence includes the right to privacy. Which means she has no right to enter the house any time she chooses to. His right to reside in the house would be worthless if she could harass him by constantly barging in on him day and night without notice or permission.

john mayo 10

I get that alright. But surely they must be some law regarding the upkeep of the house. He will let it deteriote by not painting, cleaning etc. She will be left with a house needing serious money to clean, repair. That is if he evermoves out

alias no.9

You need proper legal advice here. Has he been granted exclusive occupancy or is it a case that he just gets to continue to live there but not have exclusive occupancy, that your wife could conceivably move in too or even let some of the rooms in the house? The 'until he moves out' bit says its not a lifetime tenancy and there was an expectation that this would be temporary, that the parents just didn't want him on the streets while he gets his **** together.

Marcusm

john mayo 10 wrote: »

I get that alright. But surely they must be some law regarding the upkeep of the house. He will let it deteriote by not painting, cleaning etc. She will be left with a house needing serious money to clean, repair. That is if he evermoves out

It will depend on the specifics of what was granted to him in the will. If he is not under a positive obligation to maintain, clean or insure the house then I doubt that it could be imposed on him. Your wife, however, has interfered with his right to exclusive enjoyment of the property while his right continues to exist.

ganmo

ganmo wrote: »

She decked up, he is not in the wrong.
Think of it like your neighbour coming into your house and tidying up because they can see a mess through the window

Does your neighbor own your house?

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

It will depend on the specifics of what was granted to him in the will. If he is not under a positive obligation to maintain, clean or insure the house then I doubt that it could be imposed on him. Your wife, however, has interfered with his right to exclusive enjoyment of the property while his right continues to exist.

Does he have exclusive enjoyment though? Right to residence but unless it's stated that it's sole residence, can't she also move in?

Marcusm

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Does he have exclusive enjoyment though? Right to residence but unless it's stated that it's sole residence, can't she also move in?

Did you read my opening statement; it will absolutely depend on what is in the will. Her moving in and her interfering with his occupation are two different things. He sounds like a difficult sibling (I also have one whom I house), if it’s not handled correctly legal costs might exceed the value of the property.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

Did you read my opening statement; it will absolutely depend on what is in the will. Her moving in and her interfering with his occupation are two different things. He sounds like a difficult sibling (I also have one whom I house), if it’s not handled correctly legal costs might exceed the value of the property.

I did. You mentioned the specifics of the will regarding his obligations to clean and maintain.

You then made a definitive statement that she was interfering with his rights.

JustAThought

There was a really interesting thread on this right to residence theme recently on boards - it started with an interesting oroperty ad in Drumcindra/Dublin with a lifetime right to residency tenant - lots of legal bits added. Might be worth a google & certainly a re-read of the will. From what I gather if he has exclusive right to residence she is f*****d unless she appeases him and stops fussing about. If he does not have exclusive right to residency then she had better spend a night or two a week /month there and be dropping in but not interfering with him - or she may end up in trouble.

Peregrinus

If he has an exclusive right of residence - and the OP doesn't say whether it is exclusive or not, but let's assume it is - then, even if not explicitly stated in the will that would generally carry with it an obligation to carry out ordinary maintenance so as to prevent the house deteriorating.

This is not the same as keeping the house tidy. He can live as untidily as he likes. But he would be expected, eg., to keep the windows and roof in repair, keep the house weatherproof, replace broken fixtures and fittings as required, repaint from time to time or do routine plumbing or electrical work as required to maintaint the condition of the house, etc, etc.The reason this is taken to be his responsibility is that (a) it must be done, and (b) as he is in exclusive occupation, he is the only person in a position to do it.

Enforcement is a problem, however. Given his exclusive rights, the owner is not entitled to enter the house whenever she likes to check on the maintenance; she needs to get his agreement. In practice this means that she needs tor remain on good terms with him and to respects his rights, which means (1) she should not comment on tidiness or lack of tidiness; it is none of her business; and (2) she should not have attempted to effect an entry without his prior agreement.

So she needs to do some fence-mending. Not everybody is, um, tempermentally suited to doing necessary fence-mending, and not everybody is tempermentally suited to accepting fence-mending when offered. Obviously I know nothing about the individuals in this case.

This isn't really very satisfactory. Unless relationships are very good and there is a high degree of trust, enforcment of maintenance obligations is difficult. And the fact is that houses which are subject to life interests, exclusive rights of residence, etc, do tend to deteriorate. Dividing the rights of ownership in this way is generally not good for the properties concerned.

In this case, the problem is compounded by the fact that, per the OP, the right of residence is not expressed to be for life but "until he moves out". That's, um, badly thought-through. The guy can live rent-free in the house for as long as he wants but, to move out, he'll either have to rent a house or buy or build one. So, on the one hand, free accommodation for as long as he wants; on the other, very expensive accommodation. Gosh, what a difficult choice to make.

So, he has a compelling financial incentive to stay in the house for as long as he can but, on the other hand, a compelling financial incentive to spend as little as possible maintaining the house (because that's "dead money"; he gets zero benefit for his expenditure once he leaves - the benefit of his spending on maintenance largely accrues to his sister).

Still, those were the decisions made by the testator. There's not much the owner of the house can do about them now. She's probably love to have inherited a house with vacant possession, but she didn't.

Her best course is to accept the limited nature of the inheritance she has received, and to work out how to maximise its value. Which, as pointed out, crucially depends on staying on good terms with her brother, so she needs to start repair work there immediately. The other course is court action with a view to getting the house sold and the proceeds divided between them (with a share going to the brother to compensate him for the early termination of his right of residence in the house) but it's not obvious from the OP that she has any legal basis for seeking the termination of the arrangements established by the testator.