Do children who previously have to cover the costs of caring for their children?
Hello everyone,
An acquaintance (37) is a strange character. He wants his divorced mother to transfer her three properties in advance so that he won't have to pay the care costs later, and so the state won't have to cover them if the children earn less than €100,000. He had this confirmed by a notary.
He believes that parents are responsible for their children's well-being for their entire lives, since they themselves brought them into the world. Therefore, he is pushing for the mother to transfer everything so that he doesn't have to pay any care costs.
Now the divorced mother has nothing except the three properties (one old house is rented out (her parents' house) and the house from the divorce is rented to her daughter). There is also a plot of land ready for development. All three properties are worth approximately $1 million.
The mother, however, lives rather poorly, despite owning real estate. She lives in her new partner's house and only earns a part-time job and a small pension when she turns 65. All of her income goes toward paying off the mortgage where her daughter lives and toward the high maintenance costs of the rented house.
Is he right that if the mother transfers the three properties, the children really do not have to pay any care costs if they rent out less than €100,000 but have previously transferred or own properties worth over €100,000?
Now, the guy is also quite jealous and selfish. He thinks that if the properties aren't transferred and the mother becomes poor, he alone will be responsible for paying the nursing care insurance.
He works and already has one paid-off property and deliberately does not want children.
His two siblings both have children and have to pay off their house. While neither of them earns more than €100,000, neither of them is poor.
What do you think about this?
Personally, I think it's a shame that the state and society can be screwed over like this and that taxpayers have to pay for the care costs of the wealthy, but that's just my opinion.
(1 rating, 1 votes, rated)You need to be a registered member to rate this.
Loading...
It's a bad and sturdy plan of the son.
If it remains the way it is, then the mother could finance her own life night, also an old house, because then a property would be sold.
If the mother overwrites everything to the son, then it could happen that the son comes over the 100,000 EUR, because the rental income counts not only the salary. And he should pay out his siblings.
The mother has enough fortune to fund her care after sale. The kids don't have to pay for it.
This is due to the fact that the state can intervene retroactively up to 10 years and can get its money.
If the fuzzy is only 37, the mother will be around 60. If the property is now transferred, it is likely that it will pass more than ten years until, if necessary, the nursing event occurs.
A stroke is so fast you don't even look from one wall to the next. It's never safe. I'm restricted and I've been lucky for the disaster. But I don't get out without care. At 46 years old, I got the stroke.