Battle Over Farmhouse Rented Out As 'An Act Of Charity'

Bangalore

Battle Over Farmhouse Rented Out As 'An Act Of Charity'.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8884561/Battle-over-farmhouse-rented-out-as-an-act-of-charity.html

Bangalore

We had a similar problem, but I resolved it with sensible discussion, it never went to court. My father owned a near derelict house, which he allowed a JW family to live in, rent free, until he needed it.

The crafty bugger tried to get the old feller to accept rent, but dad would not, knowing this would give them rights, plus he would have seen a couple of months rent and no more, the "brother" had money troubles, which was why he was on the street with his wife and two kids.

When father wanted the property back, matey boy, who by now was back on his feet, running amuch better car than Dad had etc etc, did not want to vacate, but I persuaded him it was a good idea (Don't ask)

I also said that if he bad mouthed the old man I would take him to court, so he never had a bad word to say about Dad, which knowing him he would otherwise have.

I guess we don't know all the facts of this case, but even if the owner did promise them a lifetime tenancy at a peppercorn rent, the judgement seem awry in the present circumstances, I hope the old lady wins, and the JW's will have to live at least a bit in the real world.

Anyway, they won't have to pay a fair market rent for long, the "End" is soooooo close !

jgnat

I'm with the tenants on this one. They had an agreement with the widow's husband. Verbal, but there it is.

She can't change the terms.

tec

But there is no proof that this agreement was for the rest of their lives. I would think that a court would have see proof of that before making such a ruling. One word against another... how do you decide which one is telling the truth without some kind of proof either way?

There must be far more than what the article reports. Or I don't undertand the property laws of that place.

jgnat

Here's the little I learned from wills and estates. We cannot presume to know the will of someone after they passed, as they are not around to correct us. Courts will always side with what the person's wishes were while they were alive. If a man writes a will while married, divorces remarries and dies - but never replaces the will - that original will is presumed to be his wishes. He never bothered to replace it.

If the now deceased husband had recorded his wishes (meant for a short time until they got on their feet), then the courts may well have sided with the widow. In the absence of that, his wishes will continue.

tec

Well... I guess that shows that importance of getting things in writing - to protect either side of the transaction.

Wow.

Peace,

Tammy

wobble

A verbal agreement ain't worth the paper it's written on.

I don't see the tenants getting away with this, and I just have a gut feeling that a guy who refused to put in writing what they asked, they say he fobbed them off, if he ever said to them they could have the tenancy on the terms described, and we only have their word for that, I reckon he thought about it afterward, and decided not to give it.

So, his wishes would be that the property returned to his family.

That wish should be respected, it has more merit than the tenants vague claim.

talesin

Though I couldn't speak to the legal issues, what I find astounding, is that the widow had to pay them 40,000 (don't have the pounds symbol) for improvements. Let's see, that's 50 per week, less than 1,000 dollars/month for a 60-acre farm... for life.

I'll take that deal! YOWZA!

t

GLTirebiter

That *lifetime* part of the judgement defies reason and equity. The tenanrs were offerred a kindness, and returned it with a legal sanction to occupy the property forever. I don't know how it works in England, but in the absence of a documented lease landlords should be able, on reasonable notice, to raise the rent to a reasonable amount or to end the tenancy.

Battle Over Farmhouse Rented Out As 'An Act Of Charity'

Share this