# Inheriting a house that isn't your parents...



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

I thought I would share this story I heard from a friend of a friend today.

Basically, his family had financial problems, and a family member gave them some $ to buy a home a long time ago, but the home was bought in the family members name, not his parents.

Has been like this for decades, his parents make all payments, and do the maintenance. But nobody talks about it, my guess it they are kind of embarrassed.

So when his parents pass....what happens to the house? IMO he can't inherit it, as on paper it doesn't belong to his parents. And the family member who has it in their name moved from the country, and has since passed, and their children are not in the country either and are estranged from the family anyways.

He would obviously like to inherit it.

I told him that it may not even be worth it to deal with a lawyer to get it. He should not plan on getting it, but that he should talk with a lawyer, I am assuming he would have to prove the parents made all payments to carry it. Which I am guessing would not be easy.

And thoughts/experiences with this?


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

The only thing close to this I heard of was from my housekeeper a couple years ago.Her sister had a friend buy a house for her in his name only and she paid all the bills plus gave him $10,000 for his trouble.Move forward 10 years and the guy gave her the 10k back and told her to get out of his house.She did not have a leg to stand on as all these years she gave him cash to make the mortgage payments.
For the situation above definitely need to get a lawyer involved to determine legal rights ,probably need something from the country the person died in to confirm the death and then to see if they had a will.Be prepared when they start digging and asking for help with the paperwork the children may be interested in a cut.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I think something is missing here.

If the home is owned by someone who is deceased.....and the parents are making mortgage payments......who renews the mortgage?

I would imagine the home belongs to the estate of the original owner, and the executor of his will should have gathered all his assets......not only for distribution to the heirs, but also for the purpose of probate and taxation in Canada.

The parents living in the house should contact the family to get the contact information for the executor of the will.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

marina628 said:


> The only thing close to this I heard of was from my housekeeper a couple years ago.Her sister had a friend buy a house for her in his name only and she paid all the bills plus gave him $10,000 for his trouble.


Why would someone do this?


----------



## heyjude (May 16, 2009)

Such arrangements never come to any good. Effectively, the occupants are paying rent. Without their names on the title, how can they have any claim on the ownership of the house?


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

There is a cost in life in being stupid. Nothing anyone can do will ever change this. Always thought that low IQ people should get some form of tax credit to try to even things up a little. Unfortuneatly, they probably wouldn't even know they were eligible for it, at tax time.

Anyway, obviously the people that started this mistake are dead so I suppose it didn't cost them what it should have but assuming they would have wanted their child to inherit the result of their hard work and effort, then yes, there was a big cost.


----------



## Spudd (Oct 11, 2011)

OptsyEagle said:


> Always thought that low IQ people should get some form of tax credit to try to even things up a little. Unfortuneatly, they probably wouldn't even know they were eligible for it, at tax time.


Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Cal said:


> I thought I would share this story I heard from a friend of a friend today.
> 
> So when his parents pass....what happens to the house? IMO he can't inherit it, as on paper it doesn't belong to his parents. And the family member who has it in their name moved from the country, and has since passed, and their *children are not in the country either and are estranged from the family anyways.
> *
> ...


This is a messy estate situation. 
If the deceased person that bought the house (where his parents are living and making mortgage payments) and the deceased person did not mention them
in his will, it will require a lawyer and probate court to determine who is eligible to transfer the title. 

If the property is the only estate that the deceased person owned in Canada, (and the deceased persons name is on the deed title, and there they did not have a will
filed here in Canada, but moved out of the country and died outside of Canada, then any relatives that deceased person has in another country, 
could actually lay claim to his estate... IF they find out that the deceased person had some kind of residual estate here in Canada. 

This has to go through probate court, I believe, to determine how to dispense with the stranded estate.

Another reason it is a good idea to have a will made out at any time in your life.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Heh, interesting. This exact situation happened in family actually.

My grandfather owned a small home in Europe. When they emmigrated to Canada some 45 years ago, he let his Aunt stay in the home with the agreement she could stay for the rest of her life.

2 years ago, now in her 90s, she had to move to a nursing home, and my grandfather (my dad actually, since my grandfather isn't very with it) sold the house.
I have no idea if the Aunt had any children that were expecting to get the house and were in for an unpleasant suprise. I haven't even thought of it. Perhaps there was?


I suppose the only question is, do the estranged children know about the arrangement? If they don't, they likely never will unless you tell them. If they do, they may just be being kind individuals and letting your friend's parents stay until they pass away. Like in my family, if my grandfather never told my dad about it, I have no idea how our half of the family would ever find out about the property.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

for a pie who loves mysterious & romantic stories, these - cal's story, marina's story - are marvellous.

what a legal mess. I'm left wondering, though, whether cal's friends' parents - who paid all the house costs for so many years - did not develop some sort of users' or settlers' rights.

there's a story like this in my family. It had to do with land use. Half a century ago, cousin bought beautiful storybook property on the side of a lake. He hired the most prominent local surveyor, a professional arpenteur as we call them. He hired an excellent notary. The land was surveyed & staked. There were no issues. The notary drew up pristine purchase documents.

cuz paid cash & built a beautiful house with a marina for boats, right on the water. 

29 years passed. The law of our land says that occupants who live on or in a property for 30 years or more gain vested ownership rights, even if they never bought said property. As far as i understand things, these "rights" may be somewhat fuzzy but they certainly do exist.

in the 29th year, an extremely wealthy American family that had a country place over on the other side of the big lake suddenly announced themselves, via their lawyer. It turned out that the long-ago arpenteur, who had since passed away, had made a terrible mistake. The land had actually belonged to the Americans after all. The original surveying had been faulty.

well, it was a huge story. There were other properties along the lakeshore that were in the same boat. They had also hired land surveyors & notaries with prestigious reputations, they had believed that their titles were clear, they had bought & paid, but now it turned out that their land belonged to the ultra-rich American tourists.

eventually, when the dust settled & everybody had recovered from their cardiac arrests, ulcers & other manifestations of extreme stress, all the owners of the lakeside houses ended up with clear 100% ownership. The rich Americans got paid off to go away & stfu, but they weren't paid near as much as they had first demanded.

that's how i learned that long-term occupancy does grant some settlers' rights.


----------



## donald (Apr 18, 2011)

4pillars-prob a fabricated sob story to the boss mrs marina!that is just as likely!ahem her ''families'' woe's(everybody be looking for something in this world)esp if house keeper knows kind marina is a millionaire.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> there's a story like this in my family. It had to do with land use. Half a century ago, cousin bought beautiful storybook property on the side of a lake. He hired the most prominent local surveyor, a professional arpenteur as we call them. He hired an excellent notary. The land was surveyed & marked. There were no issues. The notary drew up pristine purchase documents.
> 
> cuz paid cash & built a beautiful house with a marina for boats, right on the water.
> 
> 29 years passed. *The law of our land says that occupants who live on or in a property for 30 years or more gain vested ownership rights, even if they never bought said property*. As far as i understand things, these "rights" may be somewhat fuzzy but they certainly do exist.


The Land titles in the US and Canada are different. In Ontario the Land Titles Act defines the rules...



> state of first registered owner with possessory title
> 
> 47. (1) The registration of a person as first registered owner with a possessory title only does not affect or prejudice the enforcement of any estate, right or interest adverse to or in derogation of the title of the first registered owner, and subsisting or capable of arising at the time of registration of such owner, but otherwise has the same effect as registration of a person with an absolute title. R.S.O. 1990, c. L.5, s. 47 (1).
> 
> ...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

peterk said:


> I suppose the only question is, do the estranged children know about the arrangement? If they don't, they likely never will unless you tell them. If they do, they may just be being kind individuals and letting your friend's parents stay until they pass away. Like in my family, if my grandfather never told my dad about it, I have no idea how our half of the family would ever find out about the property.


If the person that owned property in Canada, moved to another country, and during his living years communicated with any of his relatives in "the old country", then they might know that he may have had some kind of estate here in Canada.

All they have to do is hire a lawyer in their country that would search for land titles here in Canada, using the deceased person's first and last name. Today it is a lot easier to search land titles as pretty much everything has been converted in the land titles offices across Canada to facilitate electronic searching by internet.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

peterk said:


> Heh, interesting. This exact situation happened in family actually.
> 
> My grandfather owned a small home in Europe. When they emmigrated to Canada some 45 years ago, he let his Aunt stay in the home with the agreement she could stay for the rest of her life.
> 
> ...



just a thought ... i imagine this was your grandfather's sister, not grandfather's aunt (judging from everybody's ages.)

therefore the lady who occupied the house was your dad's aunt ... if she had any children, they would be your cousins.

obviously your grandfather & father kept title, since your dad had no problem selling the house. But the lover of romantic & mysterious stories in me wonders whether it might be fun to find the cousins, if they do exist, perhaps even some day visit them in order to see the auld place where the grandfather grew up ...


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

carverman said:


> The Land titles in the US and Canada are different. In Ontario the Land Titles Act defines the rules...



carver i'm not talking about ontario


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There was a time, probably when a lot of our old English laws were originally drawn up, that land and homes were cheap enough that people simply gave away ownership and didn't bother much with the proper paperwork.......as the cost of legal fees may have been more than the property was worth.

Hence we have laws with "squatter rights"...........still floating around on the law books.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The bottom line in the OP question though.........is that the "parents" never owned the property. It was never legally formulated they should ever own the property. There is nothing to prove the owner intended the parents to own the property, and it is very doubtful a judge would award them the property without a convincing argument and trail of paperwork that proved they had a right to it.

The house would go to any heirs........mentioned in the will or not.

If I was the parents..........I would simply continue to live in it, until receiving legal notification to do otherwise.

Contacting the heirs or the executor is likely going to trigger a sale of the property.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> The bottom line in the OP question though.........is that the "parents" never owned the property. It was never legally formulated they should ever own the property. There is nothing to prove the owner intended the parents to own the property, and it is very doubtful a judge would award them the property without a convincing argument and trail of paperwork that proved they had a right to it.
> 
> The house would go to any heirs........mentioned in the will or not.
> 
> ...


Yes.this would be my opinion as well. Without legal title, they may still pay the property taxes and maybe even the mortgage to a trust? which pays the mortgage (if any). As far as property taxes, the city would have the registered owner on title at the address when they demand the property taxes. 

If the people living now have some arrangement with the city to pay the property taxes,
then the taxes will be paid up annually..other wise, the property will go into tax default after 3 years and the city may be even able to sell it for tax arrears...even more messy!


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> There was a time, probably when a lot of our old English laws were originally drawn up, that land and homes were cheap enough that people simply gave away ownership and didn't bother much with the proper paperwork.......as the cost of legal fees may have been more than the property was worth.
> 
> Hence we have laws with "squatter rights"...........still floating around on the law books.



sags this is quebec; it's the french civil code; it's based upon centuries - indeed millennia - of truly fanatical french obsession with land rights in la vieille france


----------



## Retired Peasant (Apr 22, 2013)

carverman said:


> The Land titles in the US and Canada are different. In Ontario the Land Titles Act defines the rules...


It depends on whether the property is registered under the Land Titles Act or the older Registry Act. They are slowly moving to the Land Titles Act, but there are still many properties registered under the Registry Act.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

My advice to your friend's friend would be to gather up as many documents as possible related to the home, organize them in chronological order, and then seek some advice from a lawyer who specializes in real estate and family law. Get an opinion, some direction, and perhaps some options. It is the ONLY way he/she will start to get a handle on this.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> just a thought ... i imagine this was your grandfather's sister, not grandfather's aunt (judging from everybody's ages.)
> 
> therefore the lady who occupied the house was your dad's aunt ... if she had any children, they would be your cousins.
> 
> obviously your grandfather & father kept title, since your dad had no problem selling the house. But the lover of romantic & mysterious stories in me wonders whether it might be fun to find the cousins, if they do exist, perhaps even some day visit them in order to see the auld place where the grandfather grew up ...


Interesting that you mention that, because that's exactly what I thought when I heard this story. But (I believe) all my Grandpa's sisters have passed away many years ago. If it was my dad's aunt living in the house, I'm sure I would have heard about her and and we'd have more family contact.

I think the aunt is in her 90s, grandpa in his 80s, and dad his 50s. 

Your question has made me doubt my memory though haha. I think I'll have to ask my dad for more details about that situation when I talk with him next.

When I initially heard of this weird arrangement my first thought was "Can we keep it? I could use a nice little summer home in the south of Europe." :biggrin:


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

^ Actually, it could have been my grandpa's cousin... that would also explain our lack of knowledge of the property (even my dad only found out about it ~10 years ago) and the age differences. I will inquire.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Is this a teaching example for why you don't mess around with titles? We get a lot of questions about people trying to outfox the taxman by putting children on their title or their financial accounts. I think the only people who come out ahead are the lawyers...


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

If the friend's parents want to force the issue:
Stop paying the mortgage and taxes;
When mortgage company and municipality come calling, give them the last known address of the deceased owner;
If no one claims ownership, mortgage company or municipality will seize property and sell it;
Parents can then try to buy the property.

This assumes that:
a) They haven't signed any papers making them liable for the mortgage; and,
b) They are prepared to run the risk of being evicted.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Four Pillars said:


> Why would someone do this?


It was a mobile home about 50k and she could not get the credit .When the place was paid off and she wanted to do title transfer etc it seems he had a change of heart about it .I believe it because they are just that stupid lol


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

donald said:


> 4pillars-prob a fabricated sob story to the boss mrs marina!that is just as likely!ahem her ''families'' woe's(everybody be looking for something in this world)esp if house keeper knows kind marina is a millionaire.


My housekeeper/PSW has been with me close to 10 years now , very hard working lady and she has another job as well .Never asked us for anything extra and if we order a $5.00 sub she always tries to pay her way.Very nice hard working lady who was just sharing with me how stupid her sister was about the situation.Sister moved out and think that was the end of it.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

My guess is since this has been going on for ages there probably is no mortgage so I suppose OP can move in when his parents pass and pray things keep going on indefinitely.You will not be able to sell without paper work.Back home in Newfoundland many people built homes years ago without having proper title to the land but I believe after 50 years the land was given over.There was an issue with a fish plant back there in last decade ,people who owned land and house next to it sold and the new buyer realized the fish plant access was on his land.He got something like $200,000 from the fish plant for a small strip of land they had used for last 30 years or more .My uncle right now owns the access to a cousin's house ,they want to sell and uncle wants a crazy amount of money for the bit of land.Load of crazy stories like this back home so nothing in this thread surprises me but I bet no mortgages and no banks or lawyers were ever involved.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Ok, to clarify, fill in a few things that I do know....


sags - there is no mortgage to renew, yes the parents probably should contact the family, I don't think this property was mentioned in the deceased family members will, otherwise the estate, heirs would have come calling by now. It sounds like the parents want everything to stay status quo, then when they pass leave it in the sons hands (who is the guy I was talking to) to deal with, which is probably exactly why he has concern.

hey jude - agreed, agreements like the one mentioned never end well

carverman - I will update when I speak with him next, but a lawyer and probate court appear to be in his future if he tries to become the owner on title, when his parents pass on

OGG - I think they want to continue to stay as is, it is the son who has the concern for his eventual issue


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Cal said:


> I thought I would share this story I heard from a friend of a friend today.
> 
> Basically, his family had financial problems, and a family member gave them some $ to buy a home a long time ago, but the home was bought in the family members name, not his parents.
> 
> ...


I have to assume there is no mortgage on the property because the only person who could have renewed a mortgage is dead. So, as long as someone pays the taxes they can stay in the house. Even insurance is not necessary if there is no mortgage.

The family can stay in the house or transfer their "rights" (whatever they may be) with a quit claim deed. But who actually owns the property, is a good question.

Wonder what would happen if they stopped paying taxes, then bought it for back taxes when it went on sale?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

marina628 said:


> There was an issue with a fish plant back there in last decade ,people who owned land and house next to it sold and the new buyer realized the fish plant access was on his land.He got something like $200,000 from the fish plant for a small strip of land they had used for last 30 years or more .*My uncle right now owns the access to a cousin's house ,they want to sell *and uncle wants a crazy amount of money for the bit of land.Load of crazy stories like this back home so nothing in this thread surprises me but I bet no mortgages and no banks or lawyers were ever involved.


That's a good fish story. :biggrin: Instead of kissin' the cod, uncle can be kissing a lot of green stuff at some point. 
Unresolved access to property can always be a major issue sometime down the line,


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Cal;231550
[QUOTE said:


> there is no mortgage to renew, yes the parents probably should contact the family, I don't think this property was mentioned in the deceased family members will, otherwise the estate, heirs would have come calling by now. It sounds like the parents want everything to stay status quo, then when they pass leave it in the sons hands (who is the guy I was talking to) to deal with, which is probably exactly why he has concern.





> I think they want to continue to stay as is, it is the son who has the concern for his eventual issue


While there may be no mortgage on the property, *somebody still has to pay property taxes.* 

The lot will be registered in the tax rolls in somebody's name. If the deceased person gave it to the parents as a gift legally through a lawyer many years ago,
the parents would be registered as property owners in the cities tax rolls for property tax purposes, (if they are actually paying the taxes)...somebody has to be paying the
taxes, otherwise the property would have been seized after 3 years I think for tax arrears by the city through the courts. 

So if the yearly property tax statement is in the parent's name, then they are considered to be the owners of the property, since the city tax roll information is tied to the land registry office legal description of the property. 

For a small fee, one can go down to the appropriate county land registry office and do a title search on the address.

This will then determine what course of action is required to proceed with the property, and who should be doing it.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

if by some stroke of luck the parents are registered on the tax rolls as the property tax payers, it might be easier to establish ownership.

but supposing their names are not so registered. Usually when a bill payer can present a bill stub at a bank or through the mail, or else correctly identifiy the pertinent payee account number in some other fashion, the payee will accept the money even though the payer is paying from an account that is under a different name.

suppose tax records are in the name of defunct relative, while local occupants have been paying the property taxes all these years, out of bank accounts under different names.

what's to stop this from continuing, if & when the son ... ok he doesn't "inherit" but shall we say he "accedes" to the status of House Occupant & Principal Bill Payer?

let's face it, it's the real estate deal of the century. Occupants & their descendents get to live eternally, world without end, in a house they never had to pay for & buy.

no, scratch that about real estate deal of the century. It's the movie script of the century. How is it all going to end?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> i
> but supposing their names are not so registered. Usually when a bill payer can present a bill stub at a bank or through the mail, or else correctly identify the pertinent payee account number in some other fashion, the payee will accept the money even though the payer is paying from an account that is under a different name.
> 
> suppose tax records are in the name of defunct relative, while local occupants have been paying the property taxes all these years, out of bank accounts under different names.


:biggrin:
We are discussing hypothetical circumstances here. Somebody has to be paying the taxes and somebody has to be getting a statement for the tax bill from the city every year.
It really doesn't matter who lives in the house and pays the electrical, water and sewer and heating costs..those bills can be paid by a tenant or somebody just living on the property.,
The tax roll is the key to who owns the property, since the the city/county/township will be collecting taxes every year and sending the tax statement to who ever is on their
books as a registered property owner...well at least in most provinces.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Or this scenario is like that one that hit the news recently, in which a woman had died but because her property taxes were paid by autopay and there was money in the bank, no one noticed...for six years. 

http://consumerist.com/2014/03/10/n...or-6-years-because-her-bills-were-on-autopay/


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

> If the woman is the homeowner,, she would be 49 now. It does not appear to be a suicide because the vehicle’s key was in the on position and she was in the back seat.


Ok, a bit off topic here M.G...but if the ignition key was on and she was in the back seat..she wasn't just having a little snooze in an enclosed garage...carbon monoxide..



> The phone kept ringing and ringing…presumably still connected because it was on autopay.


LoL! You would think that after 6 years?, someone would have found the remains based on the odor coming from the garage.

Maybe she should have subscribed to one of those seniors monitoriing devices on autopay too..but that is if she was interested in living. 
Probably she was too lonely because she thought no one cared and decided one day to end it all...and not having any friends or family..this is what could happen.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

carverman said:


> The tax roll is the key to who owns the property, since the the city/county/township will be collecting taxes every year and sending the tax statement to who ever is on their
> books as a registered property owner...well at least in most provinces.




yes exactly. The tax roll could say the property belongs to josef zipirovsky. The bills are duly sent to mister zipirovsky's address, which is our storyboard property.

taxes are duly paid by house occupant charles black out of his, black's, bank account.

the muni is never going to phone up & say Good boy! we're impressed how you're always paying your property taxes on time! very nice! now. prove. to. us. that. you. really. are. josef. zipirovsky.

no, the muni is just going to keep on taking the money, as long as Charlie Black keeps on sending the $$ via the ether along with the correct stubs & account details.

charlie might even pass away & his place might be taken by Bill Black, his son. But the muni is not going to notice that the name of the bill payor has changed, as long as the stubs & account details get presented correctly. The muni is just going to continue accepting the dollars streaming into its accounts via the ether, imho.

it occurs to me that, for this to work, the lawful owner of the house has to have moved out of the country without even signing off with the CRA. There cannot be any evidence of death or departure ...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> The tax roll could say the property belongs to josef zipirovsky. The bills are duly sent to mister zipirovsky's address, which is our storyboard property.


This is starting to sound like a storybook on people that do not necessary own property but live in the property anyway and pay the bills:biggrin:



> taxes are duly paid by house occupant charles black out of his, black's, bank account.


If that was the arrangement with the municipality. On my property, the taxes come out of my bank acct on a monthly basis...I set it up that way. The city of Ottawa doesn't
care who pays the taxes on my property..as long as they get their m-u-ney.



> no, the muni is just going to keep on taking the money, as long as Charlie Black keeps on sending the $$ via the ether along with the correct stubs & account details.


Same with any other auto-withdrawal payments...the gas bills, the electric bills, the butcher the baker and the candlestick maker...rub-a-dub-dub 



> charlie might even pass away & his place might be taken by Bill Black, his son. But the muni is not going to notice that the name of the bill payor has changed, as long as the stubs & account details get presented correctly. The muni is just going to continue accepting the dollars streaming into its accounts via the ether, imho.


Well it all depends on whether Charlie had a will and appointed an executor to his will (which also could be his son Bill)...in order to wrap up the estate and release any money in the accounts, the
bank have to be notified and the money is frozen, I believe until the estate is settled...unless the son (Bill) has power of attorney to look after Charlies bank accounts, in which case the
tax payments will continue until the municipality is notified.


> it occurs to me that, for this to work, the lawful owner of the house has to have moved out of the country without even signing off with the CRA. T*here cannot be any evidence of death or departure *...


If the lawfull owner filed income taxes with CRA and then stopped filing because he left the country, it becomes messy. AFAIK, if the death is in Canada, CRA has to be notified of the death of
the taxpayer and someone (executor or lawyer) has to file his/her taxes in for the last living year..AND CRA would want to see a copy of the death certificate (supplied by the coroner and
the funeral home..unless the person is missing and presumed dead..for a few years..then I don't know what happens in that case.

In any case..regardless of who is paying the property taxes by installement etc, the tax demand/statement is sent to the address of the property and in the name of the registered owner
of the municipality..AFAIK.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Yep, the parents pay the property taxes that are billed in the deceased persons name. I have no clue how it is paid though, if it is a cheque coming from the parents, or if they pay in cash and just walk in with the bill or what. The deceased passed away in the other country.

Glad I posted, it sounded all very curious to me. Kind of a sucky situation all round though for him.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Cal said:


> Yep, the parents pay the property taxes that are billed in the deceased persons name. I have no clue how it is paid though, if it is a cheque coming from the parents, or if they pay in cash and just walk in with the bill or what. The deceased passed away in the other country.


So it appears that the property that the parents are living in is in the deceased person's name... back to the messy situation with title.. UNLESS the deceased person has left some kind of paper (will?)
that bequeaths the property to the parents upon his death. 

The parents could buy the property legally from the deceased person estate at FMV, if there is a registered death and estate associated with that death, assuming no heirs or debts he left behind. Otherwise this may be a case for a lawyer and probate court, once the parents want to pass on that property they live in (and pay taxes) on to the son. I would think. 
I thinks the parents should be seeking advice of a lawyer, ASAP, if they think they have any rights to ownership.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

Cal said:


> So when his parents pass....what happens to the house? IMO he can't inherit it, as on paper it doesn't belong to his parents. And the family member who has it in their name moved from the country, and has since passed, and their children are not in the country either and are estranged from the family anyways.


.

Did the family member who had title of the house have a Will? Did they leave the property to their kids? In the absence of a Will there is something called the Law of Intestacy.



> In Canada, if you die without a Will you are considered to have died "intestate." Simply put, this means that your provincial government decides how your assets will be divided—and not you


.

With no surviving spouse the property would normally go to the children. It would appear that your friend would be SOL. However, as your friend is in possession of the house and his parents pay all the bills and maintain the property it would be up to the the children of the deceased title holders to prove ownership - Possession is nine-tenths of the law:encouragement: 

Seek legal counsel!


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

how could parents buy the house at FMV from "the estate?"

there's no "estate" in canada. "The estate" was situated in another country & the 99% probability is that it was wound up long ago.

plus we've been told there *are* heirs. In that other country. They may be lost to the friend's parents, but they're no doubt alive.

a pair of skilful lawyers - particularly the lawyer who has to be hired in that other country - could perhaps persuade the true heirs to renounce to one-half of their unknown windfall inheritance, given the fact that it is so messy & encumbered with problems, in return for a payment of half the fair market value. It's the present canadian occupants who would have to make the payment.

in effect, the principals in the story - the parents & son here, the heirs over there - would have to agree in advance to buy each other out.

even in this scenario, things could go wrong. What if the heirs over there decide to visit over here, what if they fall in love with the house & apply to emigrate to canada? what if they themselves demand to buy out any dollar interest the occupants might have in the property?

really, the narrative possibilities are endless. At this point we ought to throw in a beautiful demoiselle who's not a blood relative. One of those leggy east european/scandinavian women that folks are enthusing about over on the crimea thread.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

PS there's no point consulting just any old canadian lawyer, other than to find out if long-term occupancy including paying all the property tax bills does eventually produce some vested ownership rights.

the legal owners of the house left canada permanently & died in another country. Their estate & their heirs - the eye of the hurricane - are located in that other country. Ideally the occupants of the canadian house should look for a multinational law firm with a branch office in that other country.

it might even be possible to find a solicitor who is a bar association member in both countries! US multinational law firm Baker & McKenzie, where IMF head Christine Lagarde was formerly a managing partner, has offices in something like 800 different nations i believe!

alas the catch is that their hourly fees are astronomical


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> At this point we ought to throw in a beautiful demoiselle who's not a blood relative. One of those leggy east european/scandinavian women


Geez. The benefits to these squatters just seems endless! :biggrin:

Speaking of squatting. I would think it quite possible that squatters rights apply in this situation; assuming the (European?) relatives passed away a number of year ago...

When the proper owners died, either the house in Canada was mentioned in the will or it was unknown.

If it was unknown, then it seems the Canadian occupants and their progeny can continue occupying and paying taxes on the residence indefinitely, as has been point out above.

If it was in the will, then the rightful heirs have neglected to claim the property (they haven't made themselves known to the occupants, nor paid taxes to the municipality). That seems like a squatter situation to me. It would be a hard argument for the heirs to come back after a number of years and claim they didn't know the property was occupied (if they could prove that then squatters rights wouldn't apply), since one would wonder how a reasonable person could assume that the property taxes were being paid magically by themselves. 

Of course, with the heirs being out of the country (and possibly not even Canadian?) an argument could be made in their favour that they were unawares of Canadian laws and how taxes worked over here.


This problem must have come up at some point in the past within Canadian law... I'm sure there is a precedent that a knowledgeable lawyer could find.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Unless the parents were legally bequeathed the house, the house belongs to the surviving family of he original owner.

The only way to obtain legal ownership of the home, would be to purchase it from the heirs.

I think Humble has the best idea............contact the heirs and make them an offer to purchase the home.

The "son" should be able to find any remaining family members in this age of Google and the internet.

He doesn't need a lawyer to do that.

It does seem odd that the executor or remaining family would not have notified Canadian authorities of the owner's death.

Is it possible that someone is still collecting CPP or OAS in a foreign country..........by not advising the government of the death?

It brings up the question...........does that happen.........where people return to the "old country" and continue to collect benefits long after they are dead?

Not saying it is happening here...........but I wonder how the government would ever know when to stop payments.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> how could parents buy the house at FMV from "the estate?"
> there's no "estate" in canada. "The estate" was situated in another country & the 99% probability is that it was wound up long ago.


Just because there may be no will here in Canada, doesn't mean that the deceased person (depending how long he was living in the "old country"
wouldn't have made some kind of declaration on his death bed,\ naming some relation sole heir of his possessions (including property) in Canada. This can get messy if the lawyer(s)
from the old country (lets say the Ukraine) start a search on what the deceased person may still legally own here in Canada. If there are heirs and it is legally proven that they have
title to the property, they can offer to sell it to the parents...at some price, even FMV. 



> plus we've been told there *are* heirs. In that other country. They may be lost to the friend's parents, but they're no doubt alive.
> a pair of skilful lawyers - particularly the lawyer who has to be hired in that other country - could perhaps persuade the true heirs to renounce to one-half of their unknown windfall inheritance, given the fact that it is so messy & encumbered with problems, in return for a payment of half the fair market value. It's the present canadian occupants who would have to make the payment.


That would seem to be the appropriate thing to do..but if there is no communication or any kind of friendship between the "heirs" of his estate, money talks in these times..and I would somehow
doubt that they would be willing to sell at "half price". 



> even in this scenario, things could go wrong. What if the heirs over there decide to visit over here, what if they fall in love with the house & apply to emigrate to canada? what if they themselves demand to buy out any dollar interest the occupants might have in the property?


Very messy..as already mentioned, the parents need to seek a lawyer ASAP to determine what rights they have (if any) to the said property. 



> At this point we ought to throw in a beautiful demoiselle who's not a blood relative. One of those leggy east european/scandinavian women that folks are enthusing about over on the crimea thread.


Ah yes..those Russian/Ukrainian young blonde women who want to escape the economic/political bad times over there. I'm sure they would seize any opportunity to escape to Canada. :biggrin:


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> Unless the parents were legally bequeathed the house, the house belongs to the surviving family of he original owner.
> 
> The only way to obtain legal ownership of the home, would be to purchase it from the heirs.


+1 ^



> It does seem odd that the executor or remaining family would not have notified Canadian authorities of the owner's death.
> Is it possible that someone is still collecting CPP or OAS in a foreign country..........by not advising the government of the death?


Perhaps, if it is a former eastern bloc country..but if the deceased was collecting CPP/OAS, where was/is the money deposited?...and who is filling out his
annual tax returns? 
If indeed the deceased was and "still is" collecting gov't pensions, then it will be even more messy once CRA tracks down who is actually
using the money and where it is being deposited..or checks cashed. 

As a pensioner, I know that I could live in some other country and advise my CPP/OAS to be sent there, but I would still have to file yearly tax returns with the T4Ps,
that they would send me. On the tax form first page is a declaration that the taxpayer has died. Taxman wants his cut. 



> It brings up the question...........does that happen.........where people return to the "old country" and continue to collect benefits long after they are dead?
> Not saying it is happening here...........but I wonder how the government would ever know when to stop payments.


My friend, who's mother died, was the executor of mother's estate. She had to send CRA/CPP/OAS copies of the mother's death certificate to stop the pension payments.
Not sure if there was any pension money that CRA required to be returned as the pension payments should stop in the next month after death.

If somebody is still collecting these pensions on the deceased "behalf" and not notifying the appropriate gov't branches, it could be considered fraud.
And somebody (usually the executor) can file with CPP for the death benefit (up to $2500).


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

carverman said:


> If there are heirs [in the other country] and it is legally proven that they have
> title to the property, they can offer to sell it to the parents...at some price, even FMV.
> 
> That would seem to be the appropriate thing to do..but if there is no communication or any kind of friendship between the "heirs" of his estate, money talks in these times..and I would somehow doubt that they would be willing to sell at "half price".
> ...



carve the reason i thought of the half-price median point is that i don't see how title to the house could be clear after all those many years of proper & painstaking maintenance & cost-paying by the parents.

after all, if the house has any value today, it's because the parents have always been faithfully keeping it up, right?

even if the parents' legal claim to the house would be weak, nevertheless the fact that they could make such a claim - & it would be messy - ought to be enough to convince any true heirs alive in the other country that they are never going to get the entire pie.

so a wisdom-of-solomon solution would be a half-way measure. In order to get the problem solved relatively quickly, because probably neither side would be willing to pay for years & years of lawyers' wrangling.

i still think we should work a demoiselle into the story somehow. I wasn't thinking of an immigration gate-crasher, i was thinking more of a true romantic princess. Somebody has to fall in love so they can all live happily ever after.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

The couple died intestate in Canada. Wills of other countries generally have no effect in Canada. The executor needs to take steps to have the foreign will recognized in Canada (i.e. Canadian Probate) and then resolved according to the desires of the original testator.
http://www.titleresearch.com/Resources/FAQ---Dealing-with-inheritance-from-abroad


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> carve the reason i thought of the half-price median point is that i don't see how title to the house could be clear after all those many years of proper & painstaking maintenance & cost-paying by the parents.
> 
> after all, if the house has any value today, it's because the parents have always been faithfully keeping it up, right?


Regardless of the parents willingness to upkeep the home (new roof.furnace/etc) and paying the mortgage/taxes, they still do not have clear title to ownership of the property. 
So even if they pay the taxes to continue living there..they are basically "renting" the property without a lease, I would think. 

Lets take a hypothetical case. You have a house that you want someone to look after for you for X years.
In exchange for paying the taxes, utilities and any upkeep, they can live "rent free". Does that make them the legal owner(s) of the property after X years?.. I don't think so. 

I don't know how squatters rights apply to registered real estate in Canada. I suppose you could build a cabin on crown land and if you managed to live there for a few years undetected, and the gov't tried to kick you off your little piece of their land..you may have a case, but it all depends on the circumstances. 



> even if the parents' legal claim to the house would be weak, nevertheless the fact that they could make such a claim - & it would be messy - ought to be enough to convince any true heirs alive in the other country that they are never going to get the entire pie.


That would be up to the lawyers and courts (probate) to decide, and from the fees and taxes today..a very expensive solution. Depending on the appraised value of the deceased
estate in Canada..it could get quite expensive!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

kcowan said:


> The couple died intestate in Canada. Wills of other countries generally have no effect in Canada. The executor needs to take steps to have the foreign will recognized in Canada (i.e. Canadian Probate) and then resolved according to the desires of the original testator.
> http://www.titleresearch.com/Resources/FAQ---Dealing-with-inheritance-from-abroad


Good link kcowan. Overseas probate and lawyers from both countries will need to get involved. It seems like it's going to get expensive.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

carverman said:


> I don't know how squatters rights apply to registered real estate in Canada.


that's it, we don't know. So parties here should not make black & white pronouncements each:

certainly under the civil code of quebec, the house occupants in this story - who we are told have always conducted themselves in good faith while maintaining the property correctly in a clear case of abandonment - would have earned some rights of ownership.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

it just came to me in a flash ... the brilliant lawyer who will be able to resolve everything ... will be the beautiful demoiselle :biggrin:


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

I'm beginning to understand why the parents want to leave well enough alone. It's the son who wants to open this can of worms. He should probably leave it until his parents no longer have a use for the house. Then he can pay the legal costs of tryng to establish ownership.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Wonder if the parents have proof they ever repaid the relative.On paper it will look like they were allowed to move in a live as tenants and for that reason probably better to leave it alone.Does anyone have money to pay out the kids?Unless you have money in hand to make a deal I would do nothing .Parents could probably tally up all the cash they paid over the years and try to register a lien on the house in case this goes badly .Lucky me will be having Dinner Tommorow night with a friend who is a Real Estate Lawyer maybe I will let him read this thread ha


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

It could also be that the estate is not settled yet.

Some estates take decades to finalize.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

marina628 said:


> It was a mobile home about 50k and she could not get the credit .When the place was paid off and she wanted to do title transfer etc it seems he had a change of heart about it .I believe it because they are just that stupid lol


If it is a mobile home that changes things. A mobile home is a chattel not real estate. They could have it towed to another lot if they had to. So, we must be talking about the land the mobile home rests on?

Once again if they just paid the taxes every year, they can live there cheap. They could transfer their rights (such as they are) by quit claim deed and the new owner continue paying the taxes.

Or, they could stop paying taxes, and move the mobile home and all other personal property when it goes under tax sale. Buy the property for taxes and move everything back.

You do not say where the property is, but if it is off the beaten track it could be that hiring lawyers and getting legal title from relatives in another country, could cost more than the place is worth.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

wondering why some - carverman for example - are professing such touching faith in the wisdom of the courts & any final decision they might make.

the way i see it, the objective should be to negotiate a solution that will keep the entire matter *out* of the courts.

courts are the last, worst resort. It's to avoid courts that we have arbitration procedures. A negotiated settlement is always preferable imho.

courts can be asked to approve & rubberstamp a sensible solution worked out by the interested parties. But if courts are invited to investigate & decide themselves, the matter is going to be stuck in hearings for 20 years, the lawyers are going to vacuum up everybody's entire life savings, the final decision might be so idiotic that it would have to be appealed.

there are plenty of reasons why a quicker, easier split-it-50-50 offer might work. Because i doubt that the heir descendents - in the other country - will obtain an easy victory if they would ever want to establish their ownership of the canadian house at this extreme late date, given the long history of stable occupancy by the canadian parents.

it doesn't seem right to call the parents "squatters." One has more the impression they were conscientious citizens paying all bills in the place & stead of the legal owners, their relatives who had abandoned the property.

there are reasons why existence of a house in canada might have been obliterated in any will that the testators - the house owners of record - may have drawn up in the other country, where they passed away. There are reasons why such a house might also have been obliterated from any inventory of estate assets.

just as one example: some countries have strict currency control laws or laws preventing foreign ownership of assets or both ... we don't even know what country it is so we don't know what restrictions might have applied at the time of the testators' deaths.

if the testators (the house owners) died long ago, the canadian house could have had such a low value that a decision was made to abandon its identity rather than encumber the estate with a non-conforming, possibly illegal, asset.

Marina is also asking whether the occupying parents, here in canada, actually did send payments to the house owners, in order to re-pay the debt. Possibly a trail of such payments might have been another reason why the overseas house owners and/or their lawyers chose to snuff out & not recognize the canadian asset. 

after all, if the overseas owners were somehow secretly paid, what more could they have wanted from a possibly restricted property that they were not supposed to be owning in the first place?

i think a wise insight is provided by peterk upthread. He says this is likely not the first time such a thing has happened in canada. A good lawyer could search for precedents.

me i'm convinced of 2 things:

1) don't assume right off the bat that the remote overseas cousins are entitled, either legally or morally, to be paid 100% the FMV of the property;

2) storyboard is begging for a smart, tall, leggy, blonde, ukrainian, bombshell female attorney.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If we change the term from "squatters" to "caretakers"...........anyone claiming to own the house would owe the caretakers their fee for maintaining the place and paying all the necessary bills...........plus accumulated compounding interest for all those years.

The "heirs" will be lucky if they don't have to give the parents additional cash...........as well as the house.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

sags said:


> If we change the term from "squatters" to "caretakers"...........anyone claiming to own the house would owe the caretakers their fee for maintaining the place and paying all the necessary bills...........plus accumulated compounding interest for all those years.
> 
> The "heirs" will be lucky if they don't have to give the parents additional cash...........as well as the house.


Caretakers get very little if they are living in the home in lieu of rent ,certainly not owning the house plus some cash.Curious where is this property and what is it worth?


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

Was thinking this would be a big mess if something ever happened like a huge insurance claim ,they would definitely be looking for the owner.You sure there isn't a body in the basement?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Sooner or later the house is going to need a new roof, furnace, painting, or something else..........then what?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> Sooner or later the house is going to need a new roof, furnace, painting, or something else..........then what?



i imagine it has. Needed a new roof, furnace, insurance, etc. I imagine the parents paid.

we're going to have to give up this story. Cal isn't playing nice. No further word. But it's been fun.

the moral of the story is Don't Mess With Those Blonde, Leggy, Gorgeous East European Women.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> I'm beginning to understand why the parents want to leave well enough alone. It's the son who wants to open this can of worms. He should probably leave it until his parents no longer have a use for the house. *Then he can pay the legal costs of tryng to establish ownership.*


Or just move in, change over the tax payments to the municipality, so they can deduct tax installments from his account He could change over the hydro and water account (small service fee) and call the gas company to set up a new account and leave things as they are. 

Maybe transfer of ownership may not get established by the distant relativesfor a long time, because if the deceased had a will, you would think that any relatives overseas would have been notified
by now. The other thing is... that if the property taxes are not paid for 3 years, the muncipality can seize the property and put it up for sale for back taxes owing (+ interest).
If he knew that would happen he could always offer to buy it from the municipality or city at their going rate.


Here is a Toronto web site that they can start action to seize a property , after taxes have been in arrears over three years. Other muncipalities may have similar sites now.
However, you probably have to be fast and fight off the real estate agents and property flippers to get it and if seized for tax arrears, the city will try to sell it at public
auction to the highest bidder approaching FMV. 

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=63b0ff0e43db1410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

marina628 said:


> Was thinking this would be a big mess if something ever happened like a huge insurance claim ,they would definitely be looking for the owner.You sure there isn't a body in the basement?


Fire insurance..interesting question here. It's a lot easier if there is no mortgage company with fire insurance policies.

You can just call a number of insurance companies and get quotes, pick one, they will send you a policy with the payment schedule and that's all there is..to getting one. 

Now should you have a total loss fire...not sure if who owns the property comes into play with the insurance company. 
Tenants are probably not allowed to rebuild on their own, so the property owner would have to be sought out by the insurance company.
Possibly another messy situation..if that ever should happen in this case.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> wondering why some - carverman for example - are professing such touching faith in the wisdom of the courts & any final decision they might make.
> the way i see it, the objective should be to negotiate a solution that will keep the entire matter *out* of the courts.
> courts are the last, worst resort. It's to avoid courts that we have arbitration procedures. A negotiated settlement is always preferable imho.


Ok, we are deviating here from your above quote..but just to illustrate a point here..
Trust me H.P..as someone who has been through the legal wringer called divorce in this country...it doesn't take 20 years to resolve the situation..but in my case it took about 3 years
due to stalling by the lawyers,,who try to suck up a much of your life savings as possible in the process. Negotiations by the lawyers didn't help.
In my case, it was pigheaded stupidity on the part of someone that I formerly trusted that wanted to go all the way with her lawyer aiming for my financial ruin..and she did. 

Back to this topic..
We are discussing points on this topic that we barely know anything..and we keep adding to it by a lot of speculation on things about this case we don't know. :rolleyes2:

Probate courts can resolve this issue in less than "20 years", usually in 12-24 months. But it's the legal costs that will be expensive, if overseas contacts have to be established first.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

carverman said:


> We are discussing points on this topic that we barely know anything..and we keep adding to it by a lot of speculation on things about this case we don't know. :rolleyes2:



excellent suggestion !! :rolleyes2:

why don't u follow it & let the topic go !!! :rolleyes2: :rolleyes2:


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

I will add even though I hadn't before. Sorry to keep it going.

My advice would be leave it as it is. Don't change what isn't broken. The parents need a place to live they have a place to live, don't mess with that.

When they are close to passing , the son could pursue it then if he chooses. If I were the son and wanted to inherent the place, then after the parents pass away I would move in and continue what ever the parents did. He may not own it, but he will have a lease free place to live. Continue on for how ever many generations, until someone saids something


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Cal said:


> ... So when his parents pass....what happens to the house? IMO he can't inherit it, as on paper it doesn't belong to his parents. ...


After all the meandering discussion, OP (Cal) is dead right. Parents can't bequeath property they don't own; and son can't inherit something they never owned. All the rest is discussion about the cost and advisability of opening this can of worms to try to claim ownership rights. Frankly, the son has no legal rights in the matter at present. It may be worthwhile for the parents to get a legal opinion, but the opinion may well be "let sleeping dogs lie unless you can afford the risk of being dispossessed, plus all our legal costs".

PS: I basically agree with PluggingAlong's advice.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

OhGreatGuru said:


> Frankly, the son has no legal rights in the matter at present. It may be worthwhile for the parents to get a legal opinion,* but the opinion may well be "let sleeping dogs lie unless you can afford the risk of being dispossessed,* plus all our legal costs".
> 
> PS: I basically agree with PluggingAlong's advice.


Well..in the end..that's what I was suggesting too. ..sigh!..nobody listens to "carve".:biggrin:


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

carverman said:


> Fire insurance..interesting question here. It's a lot easier if there is no mortgage company with fire insurance policies.
> 
> You can just call a number of insurance companies and get quotes, pick one, they will send you a policy with the payment schedule and that's all there is..to getting one.
> 
> ...


I was thinking about fire loss ,know somebody who went through it and they will deal with home owner only or POA ,adjusters would eventually need a signature .Or what if a drunk guy drives through the living room?I think they are very fortunate this has been going on so long and no issues.I suspect the parents know the outcome and just want to leave it alone , son probably should do the same if he wants to move in there.If he is hoping to cash out then leave it as it is for the parents sake then seek out the legal solution.
My friend the lawyer is here today and he said his opinion is they should seek out the heirs and explain they have lived in home and maintained it for decades but there is some paperwork that needs to be resolved.It would need to involve lawyers in the country he/she died and a lawyer in Canada and likely a meeting in front of a judge here to change the ownership .Land transfer fees have to be paid probably FMV but he said if the parents cannot prove there was a private deal and they did indeed pay for the home this would become property of his/her estate and need to go through probate.So for that reason it seems Humble had the best option to propose they do a 50/50 split .He also feels they should do some soft inquiries(such as credit check) to see if Service Canada is aware of the Death and if there are any benefits being paid.If there is any payments being made and he has died all these years ,CRA could be the true owner of the house.
Neil found this thread interesting and said he will discuss it during the week with a lawyer he knows that does International Estate issue.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

OhGreatGuru said:


> I'm beginning to understand why the parents want to leave well enough alone. It's the son who wants to open this can of worms. He should probably leave it until his parents no longer have a use for the house. Then he can pay the legal costs of trying to establish ownership.


The son doesn't want to open the can of worms, but it appears he feels he will eventually be the one left to deal with it all. I am doubtful anything will happen until his parents pass.

I think he understands that this is going to get expensive for him. Although I have not spoken to him since about it.

My guess is he will probably consult with a lawyer, but do nothing until he has to. I am doubtful he would want to open a can of worms that could potentially get his parents evicted. That would make a messier situation worse.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> storyboard is begging for a smart, tall, leggy, blonde, ukrainian, bombshell female attorney.


In that case I will offer to go to the lawyers with him as well. :encouragement:


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

I think it would get worst if parents die as well and not document the deal on the house.You could also interpret it as a gift from the relative but you have to wonder why he had the house put in his name if intention was for the relatives to own the house.'smart, tall, leggy, blonde, ukrainian, bombshell female attorney' I am 4 of these now we just need the tall Ukrainian bombshell Attorney so maybe a few of us together can put a winning team together lol


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

it occurs to me that if there is any merit to the long-term occupancy/squatters' rights argument, then this might have to be attached specifically to the long-term residence of the parents. 

i mean, it is they who have lived in the house & paid all the bills for like 38 years, maybe they have acquired some ownership rights.

but then if they pass away & son arrives to take up residence as a newcomer, how can he have any squatters' rights? can squatters' rights be inherited? if squatters' rights are not claimed or exercised during the lifetime of the squatters, can they be bequeathed to an offspring?

these are all questions for the STLBUB attorney. Where is this solicitor, now that we need her?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

marina628 said:


> to see if Service Canada is aware of the Death and if there are any benefits being paid.*If there is any payments being made and he has died all these years ,CRA could be the true owner of the house.*


Indeed..let sleeping dogs lie..and if somebody is collecting his benefits for years, then you are right. CRA "owns" the house, and will foreclose on the amount that the true property owner 
has collected in benefits (and not paid any taxes on these benefits collected legally or illegally as in case of death. With fraud penalties, interest on the amount owing on the benefits collected illegally, CRA can take legal action to put a lien on the property or even "foreclose" in extreme cases and kick out the tenants (if that is what they are), then the house goes up for tax sale at FMV. 

https://www.dioguardi.ca/blog/horro...here-are-ways-to-access-your-home-equity.html


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

marina628 said:


> I think it would get worst if parents die as well and not document the deal on the house.You could also interpret it as a gift from the relative but you have to wonder why he had the house put in his name if intention was for the relatives to own the house.'*smart, tall, leggy, blonde, ukrainian, bombshell female attorney'* I am 4 of these now we just need the *tall Ukrainian bombshell Attorney* so maybe a few of us together can put a winning team together lol


LOL! Lots of them in Ukraine. BTW, I am of 100% Ukrainian descent, but not born there. Born in Germany just after WWII..long story, won't go into it on this newsgroup. 

I've been following what is going on there in Ukraine (corruption like you can't believe making their currency practically worthless on the exchange market)..
so I'm sure that you can find a leggy "Tina Turner" private dancer/attorney willing to work for: 
"Deutsch Marks or Dollars..American Express will do nicely thank you...let me loosen up your collar...do you want to see me do the shimmy like this?...ah!"


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> it occurs to me that if there is any merit to the long-term occupancy/squatters' rights argument, then this might have to be attached specifically to the long-term residence of the parents.
> these are all questions for the STLBUB attorney. Where is this solicitor, now that we need her?


The persons in question could always contact...a female attorney in this link.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/business/ukraines-top-lawyers-can-be-worth-knowing-107824.html


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

please, no hairy male shanks, ukrainian or otherwise


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

This thread is so much fun to read 


marina628 said:


> You could also interpret it as a gift from the relative but you have to wonder why he had the house put in his name if intention was for the relatives to own the house.


Possibly because of the financial problems which lead to this situation in the first place. Whatever they were, it was probably best that they not have a house in their name.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

This is becoming a very interesting thread..lets see..what have we been able to establish by speculating about this story; I'll trade my carver's hat for a Sherlock Holmes hat and continue:

a)original (and maybe still is) owner of house left Canada to go back to visit "old country"...and presumed died there without coming back to settle his affairs
b) according to H.P., a long legged blonde Ukranian lawyer is suggested to handle the estate from over there...
c) present tenants (parents) are living in the house in some kind of living arrangement and paying the taxes and bills but have no legal title to property in question. 
d) relatives in the "old country" may not know that deceased owner of property had property or bank accounts in Canada..possible
e) Deceased person more than likely buried by relatives there in their family plot
f) depending on the age of the deceased person, he may have qualified for CPP..and OAS 

Unknowns subject to all kinds of speculation:
1. Whether the family in the old country gave CRA notification of the death and still collecting any gov't benefits for the deceased person
2. Whether the deceased person made out a will just before his death in the old country
3. What debts/taxes owing that the deceased person and the people living in the house may have
4. If the property in Canada was willed to the parents....or the relatives in the old country.

There..that should be enough fodder for continuing the speculation on this mysterious situation. 

BTW..I know of a Ukranian that was married in the Ukraine but NOT divorced, immigrated to Canada, lived and worked here for several years, met a another Ukrainian woman here in Canada, went on gov't pensions, owned a house here went back to visit his/her family. and ended up dying there as well. It was very messy situation, as both his wives still living, had claims against his estate.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

How many years ago did the original owner pass away?

Some estates.....if they are complicated or contested.........can take 20 years to finalize.

This estate took 28 years and went from $30,000,000 to $50,000 when finally distributed.

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/12/21/b...-roadside-murder-of-hanna-buxbaum-near-komoka


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

sags said:


> How many years ago did the original owner pass away?
> 
> Some estates.....if they are complicated or contested.........can take 20 years to finalize.
> 
> ...


Good one Sags. :biggrin: I remember that story that was featured on one of the CTV or CBC investigative news shows a "while" back.
So in 1986, Bauxbaum sold his chain of nursing homes for 22,000,000. and in 2007 died in jail at 67. Wonder what happened to all that money? 



> Court documents showed that on Buxbaum’s death, his personal estate stood at $93,808 and the law firm was owed more than $500,000 at one point.





> E*state lawyer Michael Menear said legal fees “overwhelmed any estate assets” but the Toronto firm of Weir Foulds was willing to accept $27,000.
> 
> “They were generous to agree with that,” Menear told Leach.*


Very nice of the lawyers to accept the $27,000.


----------



## marina628 (Dec 14, 2010)

So my friend at his law office had a chat with his colleagues and they settled on this final advise 'There may be an implied trust or some sort of argument that could be made. Your best bet would be to speak with a family law lawyer.'He added it is a crazy situation and best case is if the heirs and 'tenants' came to a uniform agreement .The kids can give a lawyer in Canada Power of Attorney so they can get all legal papers settled quickly to change ownership.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

marina628 said:


> but you have to wonder why he had the house put in his name if intention was for the relatives to own the house


That had to do with the parents original debt problems.

I am led to believe that the son, doesn't not think that the estranged deceased's children would be that easy to work a deal out with. Although trying to do so would probably be the right thing to do, considering they are family technically.

Kind of sounds like a John Grisham novel doesn't it.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Cal said:


> Kind of sounds like a John Grisham novel doesn't it.


The Testament.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

carverman said:


> I know of a Ukranian that was married in the Ukraine but NOT divorced, immigrated to Canada, lived and worked here for several years, met a another Ukrainian woman here in Canada, went on gov't pensions, owned a house here went back to visit his/her family. and ended up dying there as well. It was very messy situation, as *both his wives still living, had claims against his estate*.


Do you know how the case got settled?

Sounds like a case of abandonment by a bigamist, and probably not all that rare.

But if the man lived/worked here for so long as to have owned a house/had pensions, etc., why would the 1st wife, living thousands of KMs away, have rights to what he earned while separated from her, even if not legally separated? I can see if it's a case of a few years [the man establishing himself here first, etc.], but after possibly decades, can a woman still cry abandonment, ignorance [of husband being with someone else], and have claims to his [full] estate? I have assumed no children, which would change my thinking.

- Wife #2 would have had less chance of knowing she married a bigamist.
- Wife #1 could/should have suspected as much, but chose to remain legally married. 

My point is that wife #2 may have been the bigger victim of deception. Hence higher claims.

As for the story of the 'squatters', the Pandora's box will open sooner or later, and the winner most likely will be the gov. & lawyers.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> Do you know how the case got settled?
> 
> Sounds like a case of abandonment by a bigamist, and probably not all that rare.


I don't think it was intended bigamy, the war displaced a lot of people, especially those in the Baltic states as refugees. The Russians occupied the Ukraine after they defeated the Germans.
(some of the biggest battles between the Russians/Ukranians and the Germans took place there. Like a lot of refugees leaving relatives behind, a lot of these ethnic people ended up in
Germany working the mines and factories during the war. Many and probably most didn't want to go back to the Soviet prisons/gulags, so they got processed to immigrate to other countries.
Right after the war, the western authorities were too busy processing refugees, to start checking backgrounds on marital status. The immigration authorities just accepted what was verbally told to them.



> But if the man lived/worked here for so long as to have owned a house/had pensions, etc., why would the 1st wife, living thousands of KMs away, have rights to what he earned while separated from her, even if not legally separated? I can see if it's a case of a few years [the man establishing himself here first, etc.], but after possibly decades, can a woman still cry abandonment, ignorance [of husband being with someone else], and have claims to his [full] estate? I have assumed no children, which would change my thinking.


Don't know the full story on him..maybe he did have heirs to his estate in the old country. In any case, he went back and died there. Not sure if he had made a will out beforehand, probably
not, as wills were not common in Soviet Ukraine, as family just took over the possessions of the deceased as natural entitlement and nobody questioned it back then. There were no title
registrations there like there is in Canada.



> - Wife #2 would have had less chance of knowing she married a bigamist.
> - Wife #1 could/should have suspected as much, but chose to remain legally married.


Your guess is as good as mine. I saw him come over with his Ukranian/Canadian wife to my mother's house in the late 60s, when I was still living there. If wife #2 knew he wasn't officially divorced, she probably didn't care, because no one in Canada (other than him) knew about his first wife and the first wife didn't know what had happened to him, if he
didn't write until he went back. These things can happen when you have peasants as refugees coming to Canada after the war. 



> My point is that wife #2 may have been the bigger victim of deception. Hence higher claims.


I think it was a case that she lived with him in the same house, until he decided to go back. He probably told her the house was hers.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

^ I see. I had not realized the case was going so far back in time.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

Update:

Ok, so....apparently the properties are held 'in trust' that the son is concerned about. Although he has not seen any documentation.

Which on one hand makes me think he would have nothing to worry about, however, why wouldn't his parents just change the name to theirs at this point, and pay any captial gains....unless they still have their previous debt burdens that got them in the mess in the first place. He suspects this may still be the case too.

I told him to ask to see the documentation, as he can (and not offend anyone), now that it is somewhat being discussed with him by his family members.

What a mess, on paper, and in the sense that the family is not so open with each other about their situation.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Held in trust by whom and for whom?


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

^ My guess....there is no documentation. Will see what he says when I see him next, but I am doubtful that there is any documentation.

Then it would be each parties word against the other, supported by whatever paper trail could be produced from his parents accounts, who have a history of being bad with money. Good luck on that. Only the lawyers will come out of this one well.

Who knows how much was 'given' to buy the properties in the first place or if it they were purchased in name only or actually purchased in trust.

At least it seems the family is beginning to talk about it. That is a start.


----------

