With rising house prices, expensive rates of borrowing and an increase in single-person households, more and more adults are returning to their parents’ home or never leaving. Known as the ‘Boomerang Generation’.
However, what is the legal position for the ‘Boomerang child’ on their parents’ deaths?
Druces’ Private Wealth Department see this scenario arising in the administration of estates where there are multiple beneficiaries, and only one (adult) child who has been living in the family home at the time of the deceased’s death and then refuses to leave. A child being in occupation of a property and refusing to vacate can create several issues. Principally, if the child is refusing to leave, it makes it virtually impossible to sell the property, which is usually required as part of the estate administration. This is particularly where a property was owned by a couple, and both spouses have now died, and there are conflicting interests under the deceased’s Will, or the laws of intestacy.
The child will often not be maintaining the property to the standard expected, and in some cases may deliberately be damaging the property. The child may not be paying the utility bills, council tax and other expenses. Generally, a child in occupation of a property belonging to an estate is uncooperative, disruptive and often hostile, which makes the executors’ role difficult. Dealing with the situation is made worse by the fact the child will usually be a beneficiary of the parent’s estate.
The solution to this problem is to take the appropriate steps required to obtain vacant possession of the property. In the first instance, the executors should, either with or without the help of solicitors, seek to encourage the child to leave the property, perhaps through verbal negotiations or through more formal solicitor correspondence. If this course of action proves unsuccessful, consideration will then need to be given to the correct strategy to obtain vacant possession of the property.
Before being in a position to even consider commencing court proceedings, the child’s legal right to occupy the property needs to be brought to an end by serving legal notice on them. More often than not, the occupational status of the child will be informal and therefore the legal status of it unclear and open to argument. For example, if it is construed that the child has been benefiting from what is known as an annual periodic tenancy then they will need to be provided with a minimum of six months’ notice. Court proceedings cannot be commenced until this notice has expired.
Accordingly, obtaining legal advice at this stage is critical to ensure the correct notice is served and the correct strategy is implemented. If it is not, then any possibility of obtaining an order from the Court for the child to give up possession will be unsuccessful and will not only cause delay but significantly wasted costs. Druces’ Property Litigation Department in conjunction with the Private Wealth Department can assist with these disputes for you both from providing advice at the outset to serving notices, obtaining the possession order from the Court and enforcing the order (if required).
In the alternative, if you are that ‘Boomerang child’ and are not being disruptive, hostile or difficult and believe you have a genuine right to remain in the property and believe that the executors are not carrying out their roles and duties properly, you may be right. The law applicable to this area is nuanced and every scenario is different. Careful consideration of the rights of the beneficiaries of the estate, and agreements in place with the deceased before they died, will need to be assessed so that advice can be given on the law applicable to the particular scenario.
If you are an executor, or the aggrieved beneficiary, and the above problem sounds familiar to you, please contact either Zoe Norton, Hollie Travers or Charles Grossman, to discuss how we may be able to assist.
Please note, this summary does not constitute legal advice but is intended as general guidance only.
