Would-be heir may have trouble getting deceased lover's house
An unmarried woman who recently lost her longtime companion faces an uphill battle to claim the home that he promised to leave her, because his wishes were never put down on paper.
Q. I lived with a much older man whom I dearly loved for 20 years, but we never married. He promised that he would leave his home to me when he passed away, but he never got around to putting the promise in writing, and he died without a will in January. His only son (whom he seldom saw or talked to) quickly kicked me out of the home so he could live in it himself. What are my rights here? How can I get the house that my beloved soul mate promised to me?A. You're going to have a tough time proving that you are entitled to the property, because oral promises basically mean nothing when it comes to real estate or inheritances. You apparently have no written evidence that your deceased "soul mate" intended to leave the home to you, so all of his assets likely will go to his immediate next-of-kin - his only son.Nonetheless, it might be worthwhile to spend a few hundred dollars to discuss your situation with a family law attorney. Perhaps you could make a case that at least a share of the home belongs to you because the 20 years spent living with the man made you his common-law wife; if you commingled your own money with his; if you helped pay for some of the housing expenses; or if reliable witnesses could testify that they heard him promise that you eventually would inherit the property. Those may seem like longshot arguments, but they might at least be enough to persuade the son to give you some money in order to restart your life - especially if it will help him avoid a long and costly lawsuit.Q. My application to rent an apartment was recently approved, but the lease the landlord proceeded to give me states that I have to pay for a "renter's insurance" policy if I want the stuff in my apartment to be insured against theft, damage or the like. I believe that it's the landlord's responsibility to pay for the coverage, not mine. What is your answer?A. The landlord is not responsible for paying the cost of insurance to protect your personal possessions. You are.Federal and state laws require landlords to provide clean, safe and "habitable" units when they are rented. Most rental-property owners also carry hazard insurance to protect their building against fire, or if someone gets hurt in the parking lot, pool or other common areas of the property. But if tenants want individual insurance coverage for the personal possessions kept inside their units, such as a TV or computer, which easily can be stolen, they must arrange the policy and pay the annual premiums themselves.Q. We are thinking of purchasing an older home in a very good area, tearing the home down and then building a new one. The current home and lot are being offered for $239,000, which is far below any other properties available in the same community. If we made the purchase and then tore the current home down, would we be able to take a $239,000 loss on our next tax return?A. No, there's no tax-deductible loss when a home is voluntarily torn down by its owner. Instead, the purchase price is added to the cost of the new construction to arrive at the adjusted cost basis - the figure that will determine whether any taxes will be owed when the property eventually is sold.To illustrate, let's say you purchase the property for $239,000, knock the house down and then spend $400,000 to build your dream home on the lot. Your adjusted cost basis would be $639,000. Based on current tax law, you could later sell it for up to $1.139 million - a profit of $500,000 - and still owe no taxes if you and your spouse file your return jointly.bull; For the booklet "Straight Talk About Living Trusts," send $4 and a self-addressed, stamped envelope to David Myers/Trust, P.O. Box 2960, Culver City, CA 90231-2960.#169; 2010, Cowles Syndicate Inc.