Life Estate -> One Different Owner

[nextwife]

1. mom buys house outright 2. puts house in sister's name because she thought it would be best. 3. everyone undestood that the house was unofficially mom's. 4. mom and sister had a fight. 5. mom wants house back in her name and sister says no. 6. then on day sister says okay. 7. mom and sister sign the life estate and mom says she did not know what she was signing. 8. son comes into the picture.

Sis has no obligation, legally, to deed what is now HER house to anybody. If mom didn't want her to have it, she should have thought about that BEFORE putting the house in sis's name.

Under WHAT theory of law did mom think it is "BEST" to give away her house? It is NOT her house anymore- she only retains the right to live there.

Gee, heaven fordid people seek the services of an estate planning professional, or thoroughly research the implications themselves BEFORE they do this stuff.

 

[tranquility]

You (OP) keep saying things everyone already understands. The sister has all rights to the house except for possession, and she will get that when mom dies.

Now, if you want to play law school, you could fit the facts into a resulting or constructive trust. To win at this you will need to see an attorney, pay him lots and lots of money and hope everyone says precisely what you hope they will say. Even then, it is not a guarantee as this is just not the usual situation the theory is used for.

If you could after years in court and much expense get here, what was the purpose of the trust? Clearly, the purpose was not to hold for son as it would have been better for son to put things in his name. Could the purpose have been a fradulent one? I don't know, but I do know that if you can prove up a trust the result will not be the property belongs to the son. The property will be in trust to be used for the purpose of the trust at the time of its "creation".

Fancy law, for sure. A loser for anyone but sister, almost for sure.

 

[Ohiogal]

sister won't release and control unless she is given money. of course mom doesn't think that is fair. sister is adament. so mom is going to take out a mortgage to get control of the house again, that is really hers anyway.

Actually that won't work. Mom will not be able to take out a mortgage to get control of the house. Sister does not have to relinquish ownership -- after all she does own the house. Most mortgage companies will NOT allow someone to take a mortgage on a house that they only have a life estate on.

 

[FlyingRon]

Actually that won't work. Mom will not be able to take out a mortgage to get control of the house. Sister does not have to relinquish ownership -- after all she does own the house. Most mortgage companies will NOT allow someone to take a mortgage on a house that they only have a life estate on.

Oh crikes, it can be done. People do it all the time to purchase houses. The mortgage is approved assuming that the possession of the house is going to be transfered. An escrow/title agent makes sure that the execution of the mortgage (deed of trust), and the transfer of the deed, and the money to the seller etc... all happens "as one step."

 

[FlyingRon]

Of course, mom better have an income or she won't qualify for a mortgage anyhow.

 

[nextwife]

And sis has to agree to have a mortgage placed on her house.

Besides, I still don't get why you would even WANT your mom saddled with mortgage payments at this point in her life, even if you could work it all out!

 

[Ohiogal]

Oh crikes, it can be done. People do it all the time to purchase houses. The mortgage is approved assuming that the possession of the house is going to be transfered. An escrow/title agent makes sure that the execution of the mortgage (deed of trust), and the transfer of the deed, and the money to the seller etc... all happens "as one step."

A mortgage will NOT give mom control of the home. She would need sis to transferr via deed to give mom ownership. And sis does not have to do that but she would have to concede to having the mortgage put on HER property.

 

[FlyingRon]

A mortgage will NOT give mom control of the home. She would need sis to transferr via deed to give mom ownership. And sis does not have to do that but she would have to concede to having the mortgage put on HER property.

I never said it did.

The argument was as followed...follow along and pay attention.

1. Owner (sis) wants money before she'll deed the house back. Essentially, she's offering to sell the house to mom.

2. Mom doesn't have the cash but wants to take out a mortgage.

Mom goes to the bank and gets an acquisition loan on this house just like she was buying any other. The bank will get an appraisal, review Mom's credit and earning potential, etc... If all is well then they will through the escrow process pay Sis and in exchange get the deed transfered and the mortgage recorded.

 

[gregmarietta]

Mom did a Deed To Secure Debt from the sister at one time. It looks like a good transfer deed. What would this to if it were filed. It doesn't state any terms. Could this give the Mom ownership just by filing the document?

 

[FlyingRon]

What do you mean it has no terms?

What do you mean your "mother did it?"

If you mean she signed a security deed, it's immaterial to this. If she did it before the unconditional deed, then the unconditional deed wipes it out. If she did it afterwards, it's not valid because she had no ownership in the property to transfer.

If you're saying the sister signed the security deed. Then if done after the mother deeded to sis, then it does convey rights back to mom...except that all sis needs to is satisfy the "terms" of the deed. Essentially a security deed is just a funky form of a mortgage.

 

[gregmarietta]

it reads, "in consideration of $10 the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, sister of georgia party of the first part hereinafter called grantor, has this day bargained and sold and do hereby transfer and convery unto MOM and her successors hereinafter called grantee the following property"