New wills - should i be wary

[WalkingFred]

My dh wants us to sign new wills which effectively changes the legal ownership of our house from joint tenants to tenants in common. He inherited a large sum of money from his parents and "wants to ensure his kids get it, rather than me remarry and divert it from his kids". He is "protecting his family money".
His kids = kids from previous marriage plus kids from our marriage.
Each of us will be entitled to reside in our house without any kids forcing sale but ultimately the house goes to the kids.
I.e. upon his death i will have the right to reside in the house until i am no longer here or able to maintain it. The house plus all assets gets split between all our children. So that would include all "my savings" also.

Im not sure what i am asking but something here makes me feel uneasy.

[OneEpisode]

What he’s suggesting, when it’s suggested on here I normally agree with it. Who ever dies first, the interest of their children is protected.
DH and I did change the home ownership and our wills a decade ago and I haven’t found out about any mistresses or anything since. In our case it was prompted by the death of another family member and thinking about it all. Hope things are ok for you.

[OutsideContextProblem]

Honestly, I think he’s sensible. It happens all the time, one partner dies, leaves everything to spouse. Spouse remarries and dies leaving everything to their new spouse. Children of the first marriage get cut out completely.

That’s the simple version, and is much more common when the survivor is male. But given that some of the children are his but not yours, I appreciate his need to protect their interests, while still providing for you.

Whether this precise means of going about it is reasonable depends on the details - age, sums at stake, whether you might conceivably have any more children, etc.

However the “right to live in the house until you die” approach doesn’t work as well if old age means you need to move (although presumably it does protect assets from care home fees - but at the cost of making you a passive recipient of whatever the LA feels it wants to offer you).

With a bit of luck Mumblechum may be along with advice.

[OneEpisode]

In our case the survivor had a life interest in our home, but can sell this particular property and the dcs would then have an interest (like an interest free mortgage without any repayments) in the next home, unless the survivor chooses to pay their share out.

[blastomama]

I wouldn't. Why does he think he gets to decide all this for both of you? Why is his money for his children but also so is yours?

No, the way he is going about this is all wrong. I'd be concerned that its not the possibility of death he was thinking of, but divorce. Do not make any changes or sign anything at all without independent legal and financial advice which you get alone, without him there.

[VimFuego101]

What you're describing is also how I understood tenants in common to work. When neither of you are in the house any longer, how will it be divided between the kids, is that part fair?

[titchy]

And how is he suggesting his kids pay the Inheritance tax due without selling the house?

[WalkingFred]

blastmama how would changing the deeds in this way protect him in the light of divorce?

Interesting that you mention divorce here.

[blastomama]

I'm really not sure of the law in the UK, but there may be an advantage to him? I don't know, but neither do you which is why you need proper independent advice before you sign anything.
Maybe he is just being sensible but maybe he is being underhand. Either way the manner he is going about it is not ok and would make me suspicious.

[teaandtoast]

I would take independent legal advice.

[OutyMcOutface]

The only difference this will make is that when he dies his share will automatically go to his children. Assuming that you a given a life interest first I don’t see the issue. Rhisjust orevents you from keeping inheretence from the children that aren’t yours in the event that you outlive him.

[AdaColeman]

So the way he wants would mean that "your" savings would go in part to his children?
What would happen to "his" savings if he were to be the first death? Would your children get a share of them?

[OutyMcOutface]

P.S. your signing or not signing makes no difference. He can sever his interest at any time by giving you written notice.

[Catsandkids78]

Very unlikely inheritance tax would be due anyway ... ? Also it wouldn’t need to be sold in that instance

[WalkingFred]

They are mirror wills if tgat makes amy difference

[WalkingFred]

Who is mumblechum?

[prh47bridge]

how would changing the deeds in this way protect him in the light of divorce

It wouldn't. The house is an asset of the marriage regardless of whether you are joint tenants or tenants in common. If you divorce you will be entitled to a fair share.

And how is he suggesting his kids pay the Inheritance tax due without selling the house

There would be no inheritance tax to pay. The life tenant is the surviving spouse so the spouse exemption is available. Inheritance tax will only become an issue when the OP dies (assuming her husband dies first).

but there may be an advantage to him

No, there is no advantage to him beyond ensuring that his children inherit.

So the way he wants would mean that "your" savings would go in part to his children

I'm not sure the OP is right on that point. If her savings are in a joint account any money in that account will automatically pass to her on his death regardless of anything in his will. If her savings are in an account in her name they are not part of his estate and are not affected by his will. Her savings can only be affected by his will if they are in an account in his sole name.

WalkingFred - My view is that this is a sensible move on his part that ensures his children will inherit eventually.

[RamblinRosie]

Mumblechum is a regular poster who is well regarded as an expert on wills.

[Oswin]

He is absolutely being sensible. He needs to be sure his children will get what they are due. You see it all the time when a parent dies leaving everything to there spouse on the understanding it would be left to tree children. Once they are dead the step parent changes it to only go to there own child. So the step children are left with nothing. There used to be a poster here who hated her young teen stepchildren, she admitted they were fine she just hated there existence. She once admitted that she would glady kick them out and cut them off if there father suddenly died. People change, he is being a good father by doing this.

[WalkingFred]

Ok thanks everyone.
I can see he is being cautious and probably sensible. I get it.

[blastomama]

Why now though? And why go about it this way?

I think if anyone partner suddenly got money and then started talking about changing wills and keeping you away from his money, alarm bells would be going off.

[mandi73]

What happens if he dies and you want to sell and downsize? Where would the money come from if the children "own" your house?

[Chewbecca]

I want to be able to sell our house and spend some of the money in future (& would be happy for DH to do so too in the event I wasn't around) I wouldn't be happy for that option to be removed from me. Does this arrangement prevent that eventuality?

[worridmum]

No the option is OP ownd 50% of house (or what % they agree upon) instead of the OP getting the the rest of the property his % becomes theirs the OP can sell up and ethier give the children their share or they get a share in the new house (if new house is worth far less it can cuase problems aka you cannot sell a 500k house down size to a 100k on and children only get 50k instead of the 250k that they are entitled too)

[prh47bridge]

I think if anyone partner suddenly got money and then started talking about changing wills and keeping you away from his money, alarm bells would be going off

Why? It is perfectly reasonable for him to want to make sure his children inherit. For all your scaremongering on this thread, there is no obvious advantage to him in his proposals and none of what he is suggesting would make any difference in the event of divorce.

What happens if he dies and you want to sell and downsize

She can do so. Any surplus money from the sale would be split with half of it being held by the trustees of the life interest trust set up by the husband's will for the benefit of his children.

[blastomama]

I'm not scaremongering in any way, I was quite clear that I did not know the law. It may be perfectly reasonable but there are ways people go about it, and ways you don't, unless you have little respect for your spouse.
If your husband, out of the blue, with no sensible discussion, suddenly started talking about ringfencing his new found cash away from you and changing his will so you know longer owned the whole house in the even of his death, would you really not have the slightest problem with it? I find that very hard to believe.

A sensible and respectful discussion about making changes to protect all the children of the family would be one thing, but it doesn't sound to me as if that is what happened.

It isn't scaremongering to tell OP that she needs independent legal and financial advice to make sure her interests are protected. In fact its remiss of you to give her advice without saying the same!