Mother’s wishes count for nothing
Q. I have lived in my mother’s house for the last 30 years, and for the last nine have looked after her during her terminal illness. My mother promised me that she would leave the house to me, and on this basis I gave up my job and began caring her. Following her death, I was shocked to find that she did not make a will, and my siblings are now asking me to move out as soon as possible so they can sell the house. Do I have any right to stay in the house, and could this have been avoided if my mum had made a will?
A. If your mother had made a will leaving you the house that would have been the end of the story. Since there is no will your mother’s estate is divided under the intestacy rules, meaning that you and your siblings all receive an equal share. There is a legal doctrine called proprietary estoppel. Under this doctrine if assurances are given by someone and another person acts on those assurances to his/her detriment, the promisor is “estopped” from going back on his/her promise. You may be able to argue that this is a case where estoppel applies and that the intestacy rules should be overridden in your favour so as, for instance, to permit you to carry on occupying the house for the rest of your life. You should consult a solicitor specialising in this area of law.

---

Debt resurfaces
Q. We have recently paid off our mortgage, and when we received the deeds I was told there was a caution registered against the property in 2002 after the Halifax obtained judgement against my husband. The amount is for £4,500. What would be the position if we sold the property? Can we pay off the debt now?
A. Yes, and the sooner the better since the debt will be accruing interest. If you were to sell the property the debt would be paid off from the proceeds of the sale. Your husband should be aware of the court action which led to the caution being registered against your property. Contact the Halifax for clarification and for details of how to settle the debt.

---

New developments
Q. I owned a bungalow with two acres of land. In 1996 I sold the land and made an agreement that if it was developed for housing I would receive 50 per cent of the net profit. Two years later I sold the bungalow. Last year the builder paid me to end our agreement, but the new owners of the bungalow say there’s a covenant in their title deeds which says the builder must pay them to end the agreement, not me.
A. Without seeing the documents it’s difficult to say who should receive the builder’s money. It would be normal for an obligation to pay monies like this one to be personal to the original owner, rather than to successors in title. However, if the benefit of the agreement with the builder has, as part of the sale of the bungalow, been transferred to the current owners it may well be that the builders (provided they were notified of the transfer) are liable to pay the money to the new owners. You should leave it to the new owners to argue it out with the builder and hang on to the money in the meantime.

---

File in the shredder
Q. I bought my flat in 2000 and put it on the market in 2004 after being made redundant. Three buyers pulled out on the advice of their solicitors because there were no mutual repairing obligations in the lease. I’ve been in touch with the Legal Complaints Service and the ombudsman but they say there is no evidence to support my claim since the conveyancing solicitor has destroyed my file “in line with policy”. Four years on I am no nearer resolving this.
A. You have a potential claim for compensation under the Limitation Act for six years from the date the problem came to light. The fact that the “evidence” has been shredded will not necessarily hinder your case if you can show that the solicitors acted for you in the purchase of the flat where the lease is sub standard. See a different solicitor.

---