I agree with Simon that the gift of the property appears to be an interest in possession requiring that MAC lives in the property, and that upon her ceasing to live there, the IIP terminates. However, MAC’s entitlement falls short of a right of occupation, as “occupation” includes not just a right to reside, but also a right to let. This was drummed into me many years ago by a senior member of the Chancery Bar.
I note the deceased owned only a half share of the property, and guess that MAC was the other joint owner, and now the surviving tenant in common and sole trustee of land. As trustee of the land, MAC would need to be involved in any sale, so that her consent would be implicit in such transaction in any event.
As sole trustee of the property, MAC can let it, but will be required to account to the beneficiaries of the trust of land for the income, and the deceased partner’s estate will be one of those beneficiaries, with its share of the rents belonging to those entitled following termination of the IIP.
If the property was purchased with the intention that the deceased and MAC live there during their joint lives (and for the survivor to remain living there), it seems to me that as MAC no longer resides there, the purpose of the trust has now ceased and it may be open to the beneficiaries of the estate to force a sale, even should MAC refuse to countenance such a transaction. Having said that, if MAC accepts their IIP has terminated, if the income from the letting is satisfactory, the beneficiaries might prefer to keep the half share and its income stream.
Paul Saunders