I am dealing with an estate where the Will contained what appears to me to be a Right of Occupation. The interested party to the RoO (“A”) is not a spouse or relative in any way but is a co-owner of the property in question (with 68% belonging to deceased). The deceased’s two (adult) daughters (“B” and “C”) are both Trustees and ultimate beneficiaries to the deceased’s share of the property.
Key clause points are:
"a) I give free of tax to my trustees my beneficial share in the leasehold property known as X.
b) While “A” has a beneficial share in the property and wishes to occupy it (provided the property is kept in good repair and insured with insurers approved by my trustees under a policy in their names and hers at no cost to them and provided she pays all outgoings in respect of the property) my trustees shall take no steps to sell the property or to disturb or restrict her occupation of it or to require it to be shared with anyone else or to obtain any rents or profits from it but they shall join with her in selling it if she makes a written request to that effect.
c) subject to b) above my trustees shall hold my share upon trust absolutely for such of “B” and “C” as shall survive me and if more than one as tenants in common in equal shares."
Do people agree that this does constitute a full Right of Occupation, and therefore negates use of RNRB?