Quote Originally Posted by Vindec View Post
Thanks. I have found your advice very useful. However, I'm confused. You say the best plan is for spouses not to leave the house to each other. But isn't it a fact that 50% of the house is likely to be owned by a surviving spouse so it is logical for the remaining 50% to be left to the spouse.

Could there ever be a time when the surviving spouse is forced to sell the property in order to pay for the spouse's care costs or is your suggestion merely a way of ensuring the full value of the house is inherited by your children or whoever?
RSCD was suggesting a way round not losing a property to pay for care. Yes, it's logical (and easy to sort out) if a surviving spouse owns 100% of the property. If one partner dies, according to the terms of their will, children could inherit 50% in equal shares. Then it gets complicated. Even before the death of the surviving spouse, child A might want to sell, child B and C might want to live there. Exacerbated further if surviving spouse dies and only 2/3 children are executors of the will which may or may not entitle 3 (for example) children to the remaining 50%. 2 of the offspring can then decide the fate of the house. Depends on how the will is written. Houses have been known to be left empty (and who pays for maintenance?) whilst children wrangle over what to do with it. Family politics. One reason dad's house was sold. Keep it simple. No room for argument.
As for care costs. If the remaining spouse goes into care with children owning 50% of the property, I think, the property is protected but could be subject to deferred payment to pay for their care until the remaining spouses' assets decline to the minimum allowed. Easier to sell up IF part owners agree. RSCD ....is this correct?