Terms Of Will

It's already been done, and not by me. Seems to be a standard enough clause. And they can use it, they can and do still live there, just can't move anyone in. The questions isn't about splitting etc, that's not an issue, the question is specifically around not breaching the term of the will, i.e. they can't move anyone in and what, from a legal perspective, counts as living somewhere.

Thanks for that. That's about what I would have guessed myself. All of the above would apply and the 'staying over' seems to be limited to 2 (3 max) nights a week.

The point is to not immediately make one sibling homeless, because others want their share, while also protecting the other siblings interest.

This kind of attitude, is exactly why such clauses exist in the first place. Without going into any unnecessary further details, you don't have a friend in a similar situation, to be clear. Why someone would give up the house, is because they can't have a normally functioning life such as get married, have kids etc if they want to keep living there.

The clause is standard as added by solicitors, hardly likely they'd adding such clauses if they couldn't stand over them. I'd say the father in this case was pretty happy to have one of the siblings living with/caring for him up to his death. These terms can and do come with other stipulations such as not being able to move someone in, ceases to be valid if sibling buys another property, must buy the others out after x period of time etc.

Don't mean to be smart, but not concerned about any of that, it isn't a problem or concern in this case! I'm only looking for POV's on the specific question of what counts as 'living somewhere'. Again, this is a standard term in wills.

According to whom?

Are you taking the mick?! Do you or these other people have any relevant legal knowledge (or otherwise) to draw upon?! Didnt you say on Friday you didn't?! 🤦‍♂️

The specific question asked was '... What criteria would you use to consider if someone had been moved in/'living' in the deceased's property?..' Your reply.. again.. isn't exactly helpful, it's a seemingly arbitrary number based on well.. neither knowledge nor experience. Im looking for points of view from people with relevant knowledge (or experience) as I've stated to you twice..not necessarily from a legal professional I should add. It's been posted in legal discussion.. not after hours!

It IS a standard term in wills, where it's relevant to be inserted, no legal advice required. What doesn't seem to standard is how 'living somewhere' is defined. Someone else has already provided a relatively detailed post on what that might be. I'm asking a very specific question and looking for replies from people with experience/knowledge around this specific question.. Why are you continuing to offer opinions on something you said yourself you aren't knowledgeable in? There isn't a right or wrong answer, but one with nothing to back it up isn't helpful.

Ah come on now, I specifically asked had you knowledge to answer the question. There's been been repeated asks for further non relevant info and you yourself made some rather unpleasant inferences all without offering any insight whatsoever. I've been more than polite considering the above. At no point before now have you clarified you had any relevant knowledge or experience to offer.. again, the question is specifically about what criteria would be used to determine someone as 'living somewhere'.. and unfortunately it's not as simple as an arbitrary number of nights per week. it's fine if you don't know it's seems to be by no means a straightforward answer.

The original post was clear enough for a fairly clear cut answer from one poster, and clarified further multiple times in multiple posts. If I knew it all, I wouldn't be asking the specific question. No legal advice required, no thoughts needed on enforcement of the clause, just knowledge/experience needed on what criteria could be used to determine the original question.

Peregrinus, I appreciate the long response but there really isn't a need for further information re: the criteria for 'living somewhere'. As I mentioned, this is a standard term in wills, where there is a sibling remaining/still living in a property before and after the parents death. As I clarified to others, albeit unnecessarily, the intention of the clause is to ensure that the remaining sibling isnt essentially made homeless by the remaining siblings by demanding/selling the property asap.. that might not even be possible but that's not a concern in or an issue in this scenario. That clause has the no partner (living) rule to ensure no third party comes along with, or later has a child potentially giving them a claim over the property, or preventing the property being sold when siblings so desire. That should cover the intent specifically enough.

There is no dispute here, no chance of court from within the family, just a theoretical question on the practical interpretation of what is considered 'living somewhere' so everything in the future is kept above board and so that no one other than the siblings can claim any rights over the property. You don't need to see the full, unedited will to answer that very specific question posed. There's nothing in it which would clarify any further and the intention of the clause isn't spelled out in the will, not sure why it would need to be. The intention of the clause was fairly self explanatory to us, even without solicitors clarification. It's a question which doesn't just apply to wills but doesn't seem to be well defined.

Standard where the need arises and not at all unusual, it's in three wills that I'm personally aware of and the scenario where it's common is where there is a sibling acting as a live in carer for a parent. Equitable is subjective, particularly in consideration of the above situations.

The only uncertainty in this particular instance is around what 'residing' is defined as or interpreted to be, hence our desire to make sure future arrangements don't breach 'criteria' for this clause.