Lasting Powers of Attorney – Why it Makes Sense to Appoint a Professional

5th April 2022 By

Many people very sensibly confer lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) on others so that their affairs can be properly managed in the event that they lose the ability to do so themselves. However, as a High Court ruling underlined, it often makes good sense to appoint a professional, rather than a loved one, as your attorney.

The case concerned a woman who, by her will, bequeathed her home equally to her four children. About two years prior to her death, aged 93, an LPA was registered in favour of her daughter. The daughter subsequently used the power conferred on her by the LPA to purportedly transfer the property, which was formerly owned solely by her mother, into her and her mother’s joint names, as tenants in common.

The result of the transfer was that, when the mother died, her daughter’s half share of the property fell outside her estate. That in turn meant that the inheritance of her other three children was significantly reduced. Acting as executor of her estate, her son challenged the transfer on the basis that the daughter had no power or authority to make it.

Upholding his claim, the Court noted that the half share in the property was a gift to the daughter. Section 12 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 requires that an LPA may generally only be used to make gifts of reasonable value to charity or to loved ones or other connections on customary occasions, such as birthdays or anniversaries. Gifts that do not fall within those exceptions must be authorised by the Court of Protection.

Such authority having neither been sought nor granted, the High Court concluded that the transfer was void. The registration of the daughter’s half share in the property was therefore a mistake on the face of the Land Register. The Court ordered that the Register be rectified to the effect that the mother remained the property’s sole owner at the date of her death.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Award That Requires Borrowing Made Into Court Order

17th May, 2024 By

Disagreements between separating couples all too often result in litigation that substantially reduces the assets available to them, as was illustrated by a case that recently reached the High Court. At issue was whether awards made by arbitrators in financial remedy proceedings can be made into court orders even if that would require one of the parties to borrow money. The couple had previously had a relationship lasting a few years before resuming their relationship in 2015. They had two children before separating again in 2019. Following their separation, the...

Inheritance Disputes – Costs Risks Can Be Reduced

15th May, 2024 By

Arguments about what someone promised before their death can lead to significant legal costs. However, if faced with a claim against the estate, there may be steps the beneficiaries or executors can take to reduce the risks, as a recent High Court case illustrated. A man had left a farmhouse and agricultural land in Cornwall to his wife, with whom he had also jointly owned a neighbouring area of land. After his death, one of the couple's daughters and her husband claimed that he had told them he wanted them...

Share Rounding Error Does Not Prevent CGT Relief

13th May, 2024 By

There are often very specific rules that must be complied with in order to claim tax reliefs, but if a small mistake arises, the courts may be able to provide assistance. In a recent case, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that an investor was entitled to Entrepreneurs' Relief on the disposal of his shares in a company, despite owning one share fewer than he needed to qualify for it. The investor had agreed to purchase 5 per cent of the shares in the company for £500,000. He wished to own...

Wife Entitled to Maintenance Until Sale of Family Home

10th May, 2024 By

When divorcing couples disagree on how assets should be divided, the courts will seek to arrive at a fair outcome for both parties. In deciding how the proceeds of sale of a former couple's home should be apportioned, the Family Court agreed with the wife that she should receive maintenance payments until the sale took place. The couple had married in 2006. Following a brief separation, they had reconciled for two years before finally separating in 2022. The husband and wife both contended that they should be entitled to about...