Legal Question in Administrative Law in California

Re: Reverse Mortgage

There is a lot of unprovided information counsel would need to know in order to accurately answer this question.

The key issue is the reverse mortgage. What are its terms? If the property passes to the lender upon death of the father, there may not be much to argue about.

As for the son living in the property, is he already residing there? If so, then at some point his tenancy may be terminated by the executor, trustee, etc. who has control of the real estate. If he is not already living there, then gaining access legally (i.e. not as a squatter) is unlikely.

Re: Reverse Mortgage

Reverse mortgage is due on death or transfer/sale. As soon as the lender learns of the death, enforcement action can begin. It would be fraud to withhold notice. You'll have to refinance or sell the property to pay the mortgage.

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.