Does living with your parents as an adult mean you are entitled to inherit the family home?

As housing prices continue to increase, it is becoming more common for children to remain living at home with their parents during their adult life.

Occasionally (or regularly, as the case may be!) family members fall out and, in some cases, this can be life-changing when it comes to the inheritance of family assets, including the family home.

In England, testators have testamentary freedom, meaning that you can choose who inherits your belongings when you die.

However, there are certain scenarios in which making a promise in relation to your property and later changing your mind could leave you or your estate exposed to claims.

Don’t make promises you cannot (or might not want) to keep

In a recent case, a London financier lost a £2.6 million claim against his mother, in which he attempted to bring a claim for two-thirds of the value of his mother’s Chelsea townhouse.

The claimant had lived with his mother (the defendant) in the property for over 20 years and for most of his adult life. The claimant claimed his mother had indicated that her intention was to leave the claimant two-thirds of the interest in the property, with the remaining third to be split between her two other sons.

However, after a particularly nasty argument, in which the court heard that the claimant accused his mother of being “evil” and “wicked” and his mother accused him of “wanting her dead so he could have the property”, the claimant’s mother kicked him out of the house. The claimant then sued his own mother for the interest in the property he believed he was entitled to.

Claim in proprietary estoppel 

The claimant brought a claim in proprietary estoppel, arguing that he had structured his life around a promise that he would receive two-thirds of the property and that he had done so to his detriment.

To be successful in bringing a claim in proprietary estoppel, a claimant must be able to establish:

1. The property owner made a promise or statement that the claimant would acquire a right or interest in the property.
2. The claimant reasonably relied on that promise or statement.
3. The claimant suffered a loss or disadvantage because of their reliance on that promise or statement.
4. It would be unfair or unconscionable for the property owner to go back on that promise.

In this case, the claim failed on the basis that the court found the claimant was not given the assurances he sought to rely on and consequently had not conducted his life on the basis of those assurances. The court also found that he had not suffered a detriment by living in the family home. In fact, the court determined that the claimant had benefitted from living in a desirable part of London for over 20 years at a modest cost, which allowed him to pursue his finance career in London.

Parting thoughts

Family relationships can be tumultuous, and the distribution of your assets before or after you die can, unsurprisingly, lead to inter-family conflict and disputes.

Before making promises to family members or those who financially depend on you, in relation to your property, it is worth taking advice on the potential implications of those promises and how best to record your intentions.  

Similarly, if you are in the process of making a will, it is important to consider the risk of any claims that could be brought by those who think they are entitled to some of (or all) of your assets – even if they might be wrong!

Alternatively, if you are a beneficiary of a will and you feel that a promise made to you has been broken or you have any concerns that your legitimate needs may not have been met, please contact Georgia Barber at [email protected].