To sever joint tenancy even though DH doesn't agree??

@vintagevixen

Are you still here to ask a question to?

@Twinkleylight

The steps children will inherit from their own mother. It woildnt be fair for them to also get a piece of what the OP actually owns.

They will get their father's half and whatever their mother leaves them. The joint child will get the OP's half (and really should get a third of the dad's but that wont happen).

OP owns half that house. She can give that to her own child. The husband owns the other half. He can split that between his 3 children or just split it between his first 2 children, who will also inherit from their mum.

Even if you didnt know before reading this, you should have been able to figure it out.

It is absolutely the safest and fairest thing for all the children. Joint tenants is where you have the problem and some kids end up getting nothing depending on who dies first and what the survivor chooses to do.

With tenants in common, it doesnt matter who dies first. All the kids are protected. Why are you having a go at the OP for doing the fairest and safest thing?

You need to work on reading comprehension.

Wh not a third each between the children instead of half to the joint child and a quarter each for the step children? Your current idea might leave resentment between the three siblings.

I'd definitely do it. The stepchildren have their own Mum to inherit from.

You must do this to protect your son’s inheritance, and to prevent your half being touched in case of him getting into debt or needing care.
It’s a no brainer.
It also protects his half from his side.

The house cannot be taken into account for care fees if it is resided in by the spouse or partner of the person needing care

www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/factsheets/fs38_property_and_paying_for_residential_care_fcs.pdf

[quote Porcupineintherough]@Mogul you are not the only one. I love my kids but the idea of leaving dh unable to be cared for in old age so they can get their slice of the pie makes me sick.

I dont think people realise what being left to the mercy of state provision actually looks like. [/quote]
That's not the only reason though. For example, my DH is 9 years older than I am. Women tend to live longer. If he needed care and all the money in the house could be used for his care I could be left with no money to pay for care I might need a decade or so later.

I think I will talk to him about doing the same. We only have one child, so things are much simpler in that regard but it does make sense to split things.

Definitely do it OP.

Even without children to think of, it makes sense. With the possibility of remarriage or wrangling over inheritance I'm surprised more people don't do it. Care home fees too. Your DH needs it properly explaining by a solicitor perhaps.

Posted too soon - if he thinks you would include the dsc in that situation, then he's just going on trust and so the way to sell it is to say it just formalises what everyone assumes will happen anyway and protects the kids.

If he did die before you, would you really give dsc nothing??

So you want nothing to go to his older dc? Am I understanding this properly?

Challenged!

If your husband’s Will does not grant you lifetime occupation as a surviving spouse (and vice versa) this can be under the Inheritance Act 1975.

Granted not the position you want to be in.

Best make an appointment for you both to see solicitors to write your wills and sever the joint tenancy.

Do your step children have a mother or family on their mum's side from whom they are likely to inherit. Maybe put it in terms that his children have two parents to inherit from and it's not fair if they inherit from three parents while yours only inherits from two.
Although that only works if the kids have a mum to inherit from.

You owe it to your child OP. Ignore DH on this.

I would say be careful how you handle this, at present the surviving partner has security and statistically women outlive men. You need lifetime occupation if you change to Tenants in Common.

Would I press this issue on an unwilling partner??.

It may be that he does not understand the implications in which case I would try to explain and reassure him, beyond that I would drop the issue. UNLESS I had a health scare myself and my survivability was in question.

PP have identified the one main problem with the plan, which is that if your husband doesn't also change his will in order to grant you a life interest in his half of the house, then if he dies first you will not be able to stay in the house unless you are able to buy out your step children. You might think that this is a risk worth taking, but statistically he is likely to die before you and so I think it might be worth another go to get his agreement and make the changes together.

Could OP plan for provision for DC in a different way eg life insurance?

DH and I are starting to think about these issues at the moment. We certainly wouldn’t want the other to have to leave a house when one dies. But in a lifetime interest situation if a move triggers giving money to children the surviving spouse could be compromised too much with what they could buy with 50%. Eg May have to move areas. We should have choices and financial freedom after bereavement.

(We are thinking joint tenancy in our case anyway. We will give the children a good start, the rest is up to them. If anything is left when we are finished they can have it. But We are not keen on making sacrifices in our old age. It’s not like we don’t make them now.)

I think this is fine so long as you are willing to sell the house if your dh died - if you are doing this against his will, the relationship could become acrimonious and he might be unwilling to give you a lifetime right to remain in the house. In which case your relationship is dead in the water.

This does have the potential to turn nasty between you and dh - he will naturally see all 3 kids as equally important but to you your don is a priority and while on some level he already knows this is the case, what you are proposing really obviously spells it out. I'm not saying you're wrong - in your shoes I'd want what you want too, but if he's opposed you need to handle it carefully