What think you?

So what does OP bring to the 'team'?

Absolutely right that the DP wants to leave the house to his DC.

OP is being a gold digger.

Maybe the male colleague thought she was being cheeky!

If this is actually for real, if you don't want to be a house sitter get your own house. He's letting you live in his sons house effectively, until you no longer need it. If you don't like that idea get your own house and make your own decisions.

I agree. I will never re marry if my H dies for this exact reason.

My kids are getting everything which is as it should be in my opinion.

A woman who has been married for 30 years to a man, brought up their kids and then struggles to get her fair share is not remotely the same as someone who is marrying someone at almost 70 after they have acquired their own assets over a life time, and has had no part in helping to build that life. Its very disingenuous to pretend they are equivalent or comparable.

What he is proposing is totally normal and, as long as the arrangements are properly drawn up by a solicitor, the son will not be able to contest your right to continue living in the house OP.

My DH was on the other side of an arrangement like this. After DH's mother died, DH's father remarried very quickly to a much younger woman. His new wife was very unwelcoming to DH and his siblings. After 4.5 years of marriage DH's father died unexpectedly. The new wife had a lifetime interest in the family home (and its valuable contents) and continued to live there. She refused to have any contact with DH and his siblings. She finally died 39 years after DH's father. When DH and his siblings were finally able to enter the house they found she had sold most of the valuable contents (which she only had a lifetime interest in).

So I wouldn't worry OP. If you marry this man - who sounds sensible and generous - your future will be quite safe.

it might make you look like a Goldigger and I am sure thats' not what you want

It appears she wants more!

Im not sure at all re this. A male colleague said it was cheeky and that I was just going to be a house sitter.

If you move in with an older man who is in a better financial position than you, marry him after a shortish relationship and then make sure he leaves all his assets to you it might make you look like a Goldigger and I am sure thats' not what you want

That’s nice of him. To be honest if you are 55 with no property assets you’ve landed on your feet and I’d grab it with both hands. To be honest this is how a lot of married couples with kids structure their wills - to the survivor for life and then to the children. He sounds very generous. He could leave you nothing and refuse to get married so that you risked ending up homeless in old age.

Thinking about this, if I died and DH remarried someone younger... of course I'd want DS to have some of the benefits of our shared assets on DH's death (and probably, to be honest, not after his new partner potentially lives to 90).

On one hand, a lifetime stay in the property is necessary and maybe the minimum, as you're in HA and he's asking you to give that up, and he probably knows you'd not bother if you were agreeing to leave on his death with nothing to buy a place with in your old age.

On the other - he could have easily told you it should be sold and split between you and the son on his death.

You could still be perched in his house in thirty plus years' time. His son could die before you. It's a very generous and decent provision, apart from the pension payments.

Bearing in mind you are 15 years younger than him, you may end up as his carer should things go poorly with his future health. Such is life.

Phew, I hope that’s correct for my own peace of mind re ex’s remarriage.

Everything I own is going to my kids. No man (or woman) is getting any of it. If it’s his house then I think he’s being pretty generous letting you live in it. I don’t understand your colleague’s comment about it being CF?

Personally I wouldn’t marry and I’d keep my HA house. Marrying when you (one) already have assets and kids just makes everything so complicated.

What I'm pointing out to the sneery, nasty PPs who have leapt to 'why should you benefit a penny from a short marriage/ you haven't paid in' is that the law doesn't care who has paid in what. Nor should it! Women would lose out massively if that were the case!

Well, I totally agree that women shouldn't lose out in a marriage if they have stayed at home to look after the kids for example.

However, the OP appears to be implying she "should" get absolutely everything which is frankly, a bit weird considering he has a child. However, she hasn't actually clarified what she thinks is fair yet so maybe I am making assumptions. Its the way its been worded which makes it appears that way.

Sounds normal to me. My step grandmother lives in the flat she shared with my late grandfather, which he owned long before they met. On her death or moving to care (which is sadly imminent, and arrangements have been made to cover costs of) it is to go to my kids, nieces and nephews iirc

When I talk about paying in/building that pot of money I actually mean building that life together. That comes in all forms including working, SAHM, having kids and therefore a backseat in your own career, creating a home with them, the relationships that are built, the life that is created. Not just adding to a pot of money because I agree, women shouldn't be penalised because they financially didn't put in 50%.

He's being very generous with you. He's already making this arrangement to the disadvantage of his son, who could benefit from selling the asset or living in it himself. This is why I will never remarry if I were widowed. I want to protect everything for my children. YABU and only six small months?!

Yes, and many parents make arrangements for children to inherit some of their estate at the point the first spouse dies.

What I'm pointing out to the sneery, nasty PPs who have leapt to 'why should you benefit a penny from a short marriage/ you haven't paid in' is that the law doesn't care who has paid in what. Nor should it! Women would lose out massively if that were the case!

So you have a man that is putting is child first and making sure that his lifetime of work goes to his kid. Excellent, check.
A man that is also being open and honest in his discussions before big decisions are made. Excellent, check.
A man who is being intentional with his pursuit of you, wanting to marry, etc. Excellent check.
A man who wants to provide for his future wife. Excellent, check.

I don't actually see the problem.

You didn't build that pot of money with him, therefore you are not entitled to it. I hear so many stories of second wives/husbands swanning in at the end of a lifetime and taking the money and the kids don't get to benefit from their parents hard work as their parent did want.

I think you've got a good man there, and you've stupid to doubt it. Marriage is a contract. A legally binding one. Love and marriage are romantic, but I think going into any legal contract and marriage being open and honest is the right way.

It sounds quite normal - he wants the house to ultimately benefit his son, not your next husband.

I understand that you would be leaving a security of housing association rental, so there is something to lose on your side, but well written right to stay in the house should cover that.

If it comes to the marriage, get a legal advice on how your right to stay there should be written to be as safe as possible.

Also entirely the norm to ringfence assets for children from previous relationships.

Yes, he is within his rights to make pre-nuptial type arrangements to vary the norm

Its also very normal for people to want some of their estate to go to their children and to put something in place to ensure very new partner doesnt get everything.

Thats quite "normal" too. Most people would want their children to inherit something- hardly unusual.

To all the PPs who say 'of course you shouldn't get any share of his assets if he dies first:

When you marry someone, there isn't a probation period, before which you don't inherit your husband's assets but after which you do.

When you marry someone the law dictates that assets become jointly owned. Because marriage forms a team.

Yes, he is within his rights to make pre-nuptial type arrangements to vary the norm. But it is the norm that the surviving spouse inherits all their late spouse's assets- regardless of how long they were married or how much the surviving spouse financially contributed.

Why the hell would you care where the house goes after you die? He is nice enough to say you could live in it until you die.

Sounds totally fair if you're not paying for mortgage. You get to live there for free and the money you would have spent on rent/mortgage you get to save up for your own place to rent out or something until you need to move if he dies

YABU. The house is his today and if he died tomorrow it would probably go to his son. If he marries you, it’s not fair that the house would become yours and then pass to your family members on your death instead of his son. It’s generous enough that he would put a provision in so that you can live there for the rest of your life.