What are people’s views as to the validity and the interpretation of the below (I have removed actual names and addresses):
I GIVE [ADDRESS OF FLAT] to my son [NAME OF SON] to be registered in his name with the Land Registry. I leave all contents of the same flat to my daughter [NAME OF DAUGHTER]. [NAME OF DAUGHTER] will pay [NAME OF SON] a reasonable rent for [ADDRESS OF FLAT] as [NAME OF SON’S] tenant for as long as she lives. She will pay all the expenses: electricity, water, etc. and the maintenance charges. She will share the cost of insurance with [NAME OF SON].
[NAME OF SON] will share the flat with [NAME OF DAUGHTER] as he does now with me. He occupies the small bedroom where he keeps his clothes etc.
To me there seems to be an irreconciliable contradiction between giving someone the right to lease a property for a reasonable rent and also giving the freehold owner a right to occupy the same property (or, on another reading, a room in the property).
Probably unhelpful, but the best I can do on a Friday afternoon:
Is there any chance that the daughter has no interest whatsoever in moving in with her brother and paying him for the privilege?
Or, if they are close, might/can they make a DoV that contains a semblance of logic?
For what it’s worth, I don’t think it can be a lease and I’d be surprised if you could bequeath a licence to occupy alongside the legatee freeholder (also in occupation). I’d assume it would be void for uncertainty or as contrary to public policy.
I have never seen anything so specific in terms of how a beneficiary is to receive a bequest.
It seems the testator wants to ensure daughter has a right to residency for life but the Son to have legal title and also a right of occupancy albeit limited to his own room.
I notice the property is a flat but you mention the Son as a freeholder? Is he the freeholder or is he a leaseholder of the flat?
Could it be read the testator wishes them both to have a lifetime interest with Son being the remainderman. Is there a clause stating what should happen in the event Son pre deceases tge Daughter?
I agree this can’t really be a lease, if it would not confer a right to exclusive possession on the daughter (Street v Mountford). I think one must interpret it as an option to take a license to occupy the property subject to sharing it with the son. The reasonable rent to be paid by the daughter would have to take that shared occupation into account I think. I hope they like each other!