Retrospective Don Entre Epouse

[Gyn_Paul]

Apologies if this is old ground being ploughed again, but I've searched and cannot find a previous posting which answers this Q....

Person 'A' bought a house in France in his own name (for reasons too complicated to go into but having to do with him and his wife selling both their UK houses serially), prior to moving here.

They are now both resident here in France. He has children from a previous marriage, but not she, and they have none together.

He knows the situation as it stands were he to die before she did - re fixed inheritance for the children and life interest for her etc.

If they were starting out to but their house now, they would enact a 'Don Entre Epouse' to protect her inheritance.

Am I right in thinking that a 'Don' enacted now doesn't act retrospectively?

If so wouldn't it be possible to enact a Don and then for him to sell the house to his wife, thus bringing the property under its cover?

Failing that, could the property - which was 3 broken-down cottages, and now comprises a house and two discrete gites - be subdivided and sold to his wife, leaving him with the smallest (and therefore cheapest) of the gites, or would this action attract such huge Notaire fees as to render it unfeasible?

p.

[YCCMB]

I can't answer your specific questions, but I can tell you that when we bought our house, one of the key reasons it was being sold was because it belonged to the husband, inasmuch as its acquisition predated their marriage. They wanted to buy a house together, largely for the reasons you've touched upon...both having adult children from previous marriages, she having no "interest" in the property....

Now, the bloke we bought from was a very savvy person, whose knowledge of the ins and outs, cans and can'ts of French life was legend. They didn't want to move, particularly, but if they'd come to the conclusion it was the only option, then I would be inclined to think they'd drawn a blank on being able to do something retrospectively to give the wife some share of the property.

[Loiseau]

1.Pedant's hat on:

It's "Donation entre époux", not "don entre épouse", GP.

2. I think it's worth seeing a notaire about doing one. I seem to remember it didn't even cost anything until the day it had to be implemented.

It can't actually disinherit the children of the husband, but it can give the wife the right to use and enjoy the house/s and contents for her lifetime. Then the children get their share in the normal way after her death. Or if she sold the property, they would have to agree, and probably sign, and then be paid their shares before she pockets the rest.

I am no legal expert, but I would think that if the two of them are married, then the wife would get half the house on the husband's death, whether she bought, into it in the first place or not. (Or maybe this depends on what their marriage regime is deemed to be; it can perhaps be specified during the process of drawing ip the "donation".) Of the remaining half, the major chunk would go to the children, leaving a small extra slice for the husband to leave to his wife, if he so wishes - which can be written into the "donation"

HOWEVER, if the wife were to die first, and she DOESN'T own any of the house/s, I am not sure what happens. Presumably it's the husband's outright. If the wife does not have any children of her own, this might not be a cause fkr any concern, though.

They need to ask a notaire how things stand.

I think that changing the ownership of the properties would be a very expensive option, with all the fees involved.

We did a donation entre époux years after buying the property. It wasn't a problem.

Angela

[nomoss]

Pointless post[:D]

 

 

[Gyn_Paul]

Angela - That doesn't sound markedly different from the current 'default position' as it stands at the moment.  My understanding of a DeE is that which ever is the surviving partner is deemed to be the full owner if the property is jointly owned, which doesn't get us past the need to somehow change the property to joint ownership.

I should point out that this is not me... My wife and I did a DeE before purchasing our current house, and since we neither of us have children (or parents) we have no 1st line inheritors.

p

[Loiseau]

Nomoss wrote:

Pointless post

Why?

[Loiseau]

QUOTE GYN PAUL

That doesn't sound markedly different from the current 'default position' as it stands at the moment.  My understanding of a DeE is that which ever is the surviving partner is deemed to be the full owner if the property is jointly owned, which doesn't get us past the need to somehow change the property to joint ownership. END QUOTE

The donation doesn't make the survivor the full owner where there are children. It merely prevents the children turfing out the survivor so as to grab their due inheritance right away, but they will have it in the end.

In our case we jointly owned our property from the start, but in the scenario you mentioned, I think if the couple are married it might not be too different. They should ask a notaire, to know exactly where they stand.

Angela

[parsnips]

[quote user="Loiseau"]QUOTE GYN PAUL

That doesn't sound markedly different from the current 'default position' as it stands at the moment.  My understanding of a DeE is that which ever is the surviving partner is deemed to be the full owner if the property is jointly owned, which doesn't get us past the need to somehow change the property to joint ownership. END QUOTE

The donation doesn't make the survivor the full owner where there are children. It merely prevents the children turfing out the survivor so as to grab their due inheritance right away, but they will have it in the end.

In our case we jointly owned our property from the start, but in the scenario you mentioned, I think if the couple are married it might not be too different. They should ask a notaire, to know exactly where they stand.

Angela[/quote]

Hi,

  Loiseau is correct about the effect of the "donation entre epoux",  But if the survivor wishes to remain in the house , it is by far the easiest and cheapest solution.   Much depends on how the step mother gets on with the children .  

[nomoss]

[quote user="Loiseau"]Nomoss wrote: Pointless post Why?[/quote]

 

I hope you didn't think I referred to your post, above mine.

I was referring to my own post which I deleted because it seemed the OP ignored it, while also disagreeing with what you said.

I will make one further observation:

The Donation entre époux affects the entire estate of the first deceased, not just a house or half a house.

 

 

[Loiseau]

Re the stepmother scenario...

In our case, I too am a stepmother of three. I said to the notaire that as we all have extremely harmonious relationships, perhaps it was not necessary to make the donation, but he was adamant that it was. He said you have to consider when the stepchildren marry, may have wives who want their cut earlier, or conversely want to block the sale of the house at some future date, or even get divorced - which can require some urgent money.

He said he had seen it all...

I must say, the fact that we had done it did smooth the path after my husband's death.

Angela

[Frecossais]

We had neighbours in France, a young couple with two children, who split up, the mother moving away from home and leaving the children with their father.

In the aftermath, because the house was in her name only and she wanted to sell, he and the children were forced to move and the house put on the market. What I don't know is whether they were married, but it would seem prudent to me to take every step possible to protect your interests.

The house I'm writing about is still empty 4 years down the road.