Re: Reverse Mortgage

It would help in answering this question to know the mechanism of inheritance (by specific provision in a will, under the terms of a trust, under the rules of intestate succession, or perhaps under a right of survivorship). It would also help to know the specific reason or reasons why the heir "cannot take ownership." It is possible to refuse a bequest, of course, if done timely. I assume the heir has convinced himself that it is economically bad for him to accept the gift, and that may indeed be so, but I would advise the son to have all the factors looked at by an expert on administration of estates.

There is no such thing as real estate without an owner, and likewise it follows that SOMEONE is always entitled to be in possession of the house in question. Often, the person is a co-owner (such as the decedent's spouse), but frequently the right of possession may also inure to a trustee or an executor. Who is it that will be selling the house? Under what right?

So, I think the person who has the right to live in the house may be the son, it may be the executor or trustee (but as fiduciaries for the heirs or beneficiaries they cannot live there to the economic detriment of the heirs or beneficiaries).

This is not a simple question. There are too many separate pathways that may lead to the right answer, depending upon the answers to all these questions. Perhaps one way to get to the answer is to ask "Whose rights would be impaired if the son lived there pending a sale? Who is in a position to object? Who has the key? Who has the power to make a sale?" The answers to these questions may point to the answer to the question YOU asked.

By the way, just because there is a reverse mortgage does not mean the son should reject the gift and never become the owner. More likely than not, there is still some equity in the house and the son should take ownership but only for long enough to sell it, pay off the reverse mortgage, and pocket the remaining equity.

Re: Reverse Mortgage

It would help in answering this question to know the mechanism of inheritance (by specific provision in a will, under the terms of a trust, under the rules of intestate succession, or perhaps under a right of survivorship). It would also help to know the specific reason or reasons why the heir "cannot take ownership." It is possible to refuse a bequest, of course, if done timely. I assume the heir has convinced himself that it is economically bad for him to accept the gift, and that may indeed be so, but I would advise the son to have all the factors looked at by an expert on administration of estates.

There is no such thing as real estate without an owner, and likewise it follows that SOMEONE is always entitled to be in possession of the house in question. Often, the person is a co-owner (such as the decedent's spouse), but frequently the right of possession may also inure to a trustee or an executor. Who is it that will be selling the house? Under what right?

So, I think the person who has the right to live in the house may be the son, it may be the executor or trustee (but as fiduciaries for the heirs or beneficiaries they cannot live there to the economic detriment of the heirs or beneficiaries).

This is not a simple question. There are too many separate pathways that may lead to the right answer, depending upon the answers to all these questions. Perhaps one way to get to the answer is to ask "Whose rights would be impaired if the son lived there pending a sale? Who is in a position to object? Who has the key? Who has the power to make a sale?" The answers to these questions may point to the answer to the question YOU asked.

By the way, just because there is a reverse mortgage does not mean the son should reject the gift and never become the owner. More likely than not, there is still some equity in the house and the son should take ownership but only for long enough to sell it, pay off the reverse mortgage, and pocket the remaining equity.

Re: Reverse Mortgage

It would help in answering this question to know the mechanism of inheritance (by specific provision in a will, under the terms of a trust, under the rules of intestate succession, or perhaps under a right of survivorship). It would also help to know the specific reason or reasons why the heir "cannot take ownership." It is possible to refuse a bequest, of course, if done timely. I assume the heir has convinced himself that it is economically bad for him to accept the gift, and that may indeed be so, but I would advise the son to have all the factors looked at by an expert on administration of estates.

There is no such thing as real estate without an owner, and likewise it follows that SOMEONE is always entitled to be in possession of the house in question. Often, the person is a co-owner (such as the decedent's spouse), but frequently the right of possession may also inure to a trustee or an executor. Who is it that will be selling the house? Under what right?

So, I think the person who has the right to live in the house may be the son, it may be the executor or trustee (but as fiduciaries for the heirs or beneficiaries they cannot live there to the economic detriment of the heirs or beneficiaries).

This is not a simple question. There are too many separate pathways that may lead to the right answer, depending upon the answers to all these questions. Perhaps one way to get to the answer is to ask "Whose rights would be impaired if the son lived there pending a sale? Who is in a position to object? Who has the key? Who has the power to make a sale?" The answers to these questions may point to the answer to the question YOU asked.

By the way, just because there is a reverse mortgage does not mean the son should reject the gift and never become the owner. More likely than not, there is still some equity in the house and the son should take ownership but only for long enough to sell it, pay off the reverse mortgage, and pocket the remaining equity.