The family disputes over inheritance and housing tend to worsen when one of the children becomes the main caregiver for their elderly parents. That’s what happened to a Canadian family, where two sisters ended up taking their brother to court after he took over the house from their mother, a 106-year-old woman who suffered from dementia.
For years, the man lived with his mother and was responsible for taking care of her, managing her finances and managing the family home. Meanwhile, his sisters had made their lives outside the family home. According to information published by Hull & Hull LLPin 2016, when the woman was 98 years old and already had cognitive problems, she signed a document through which He gave his part of the house to his son, making him the sole owner of the house.
Some heiresses recover a rented apartment after the vulnerable tenant continued to occupy it with the contract expired: Justice confirms that it was not necessary for all the owners to claim the home
Confirmed by law: accepting an inheritance can also force you to pay the debts of the deceased
As time passed, the sisters began to suspect that their mother may never have truly understood what she had signed, especially after discovering that there was barely any money left to cover her care and that their brother had withdrawn additional funds from the family bank accounts. He himself admitted owing $32,000 to the inheritance, something that ended up further aggravating the family conflict and ended up taking the case to court.
The sisters reported that their mother suffered from dementia
During the trial, several medical experts testified to determine whether the woman really understood the consequences of giving the home to her son.
A geriatric psychiatrist said the elderly woman’s dementia was too advanced in 2016 to fully understand the scope of the operation. Another specialist, however, considered that there was no conclusive evidence of mental incapacity.
Finally, the court gave greater credibility to the psychiatrist and concluded that the woman probably did not understand what she was doing when she transferred her share of the house.
In addition, the daughters also reported that their brother controlled practically all aspects of their mother’s life: he lived with her, managed her finances, and made decisions about her daily care.
The Justice annulled the transfer of the home
The court considered that there was a possible situation of undue influence on the part of the son, which required proving that the elderly woman’s decision had been completely free and independent.
However, the judges concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the woman had received independent legal advice or that she truly understood the transaction she was signing.
For this reason, the Court annulled the transfer of the home and ordered that the property return to the previous situation, shared between the mother and the son.
The case was further complicated because the man later died and, before dying, had transferred the home to his wife. In addition, the house had a million-dollar mortgage tied to legal fees, which the court also ordered to cancel.