Paying to inherit property?

[1966AJW]

So, I have been paying money to the parents with the promise to inherit their property.

I moved out.

Situation is that they have now sold that property and moved.

I asked what about the inheritance agreement?

They replied that it was contingent to me remaining on the property, and because I moved out it no longer applies.

They made no declarations of the money I paid them.

They did not declare any capital gain from the money I paid them.

How does the law view their actions?

 

[sammy01]

verbal agreement.... You've got nothing...

 

[Rod]

How does the law view their actions?

You may have a cause of action but it is not straight forward. This is not the sort of query that can be answered through an online forum. You should be seeing a lawyer for advice tailored to your exact scenario. The lawyer will have to go through all the evidence you have. It is the detail that is important here and sometimes what appears to be insignificant to a layperson, can have important legal ramifications.

 

[1966AJW]

verbal agreement.... You've got nothing...

Under Specific or Part Performance we have a rock solid case. WA property act section IV 36 (d).

Over rides written requirement for contract.

Thanks anyway.

 

[1966AJW]

You may have a cause of action but it is not straight forward. This is not the sort of query that can be answered through an online forum. You should be seeing a lawyer for advice tailored to your exact scenario. The lawyer will have to go through all the evidence you have. It is the detail that is important here and sometimes what appears to be insignificant to a layperson, can have important legal ramifications.

Thanks Rod. More interested in understanding what their responsibility to declare is than my right to challenge.

They can not receive significant sums of money over time and make no declaration of that as either income or a capital gain.

And I know that there is no provision to amend their tax returns beyond the last 2 financial years to reflect the amounts received due to the invoking of their claim.

They would have needed to make a legal provision for that claim to be invoked and applied to ensure that they complied with legal requirements.

Given that they have not declared amounts received or made any legal provision to account for this position, then surely that would show it to be a contrived claim that is derived to deceive and cause me loss, common fraud?

It can not be validated or proven to exist due to their actions or should I say inaction to make allowance or provision for it.

Where as I can prove very clearly from my actions specific or part performance.

 

[Rod]

They can not receive significant sums of money over time and make no declaration of that as either income or a capital gain.

Yes they can - there is a legal concept called gifts. And money doesn't attract capital gain, property does. Money can have implied interest assigned to it.

I can receive money as a gift from my children, and as long as I am not receiving government benefits I do not have to declare the money to anyone. Nor is it taxable.

 

[1966AJW]

Yes they can - there is a legal concept called gifts. And money doesn't attract capital gain, property does. Money can have implied interest assigned to it.

I can receive money as a gift from my children, and as long as I am not receiving government benefits I do not have to declare the money to anyone. Nor is it taxable.

Wow you're quick. Thanks for that, broadening my horizons with your knowledge.

The thing I s I have it in writing that they acknowledge that the money was paid to them to cover mortgage payments. And that it was measured against that.

I have in writing their admission that the property would be bequeved to me. But then they throw in this claimed contingency that it was reliant on me remaining on the property.

Thus if effected without making the correct legal considerations it would then show it as a contrived position.

There is no way that they can claim gifting of the money received as it has been clearly stated what that money was for.

 

[Rod]

As discussed in one of your other posts, you have a number of possible actions you can start against them.

Issue is: they have your money and they do not want to give it back.

To get it back you are going to have to spend money.

There is no easy fix here when the other party refuses to co-operate.

 

[1966AJW]

Thanks Rod, part of my strategy is to show that we have tried to solve this issue through mediation in a fair and reasonable way.

Another part is to allow them enough rope to hang themselves. Each time I challenge a position that they claim based on logic and deduction. They then come up with something else.

Over time this will show a complete inconsistency in their claims with none of them able to be validated through actions that would be necessary if they truely held the claimed position.

It will show a pattern of deception with intent to defraud us of our entitlement.

Our position on the other hand has remained consistent and can be fully validated in the actions attached under part or specific performance.

For which I now have over 90 percent written acknowledgement from them.

So if it does come to taking them to court then everything they have done and said will now work against them.

It will show a marked difference in the behaviours between us.

So currently I am trying to evaluate what their responsibilities were purchasing if they claim a specific position?

Thanks again for your insights and assistance, greatly appreciated.