Is this inheritance set up unreasonable?

@Winter2020 s post is an excellent summary. I would just add that when someone dies, the partner can freely change their will entirely. Indeed, they can change their will without saying anything to you, while you are alive.

You could go the the solicitor together and draw up valid wills you both like. One of you could make another appointment the following week to change theirs to something they prefer. So if you need something specific to happen, it mustn’t be dependent on someone else’s will.

MiL has twice been told about what will happen to ‘her inheritance’, and twice it hasn’t happened. She is still upset about it donkey’s years later.

If I was B I would want to leave my house to my children.

B’s kids should not be disadvantaged by A’s circumstances. What is fair is not always what is equal.

OR If the new house is left between all the children, so should the rented house.

You can’t engineer or depend on factors outside your immediate set up, e.g other potential inheritances etc.

I think it would be fairest for you and B to own the joint house unequally (so if you put in 50k deposit which is 20% of the cost you own 20% of the house) and the you can both keep inheritance for your own kids. It's a bit shit for B's kids to be expected to finance the shared house via their dad but you won't share with them when they've had to make the sacrifice

I had it the wrong way round! The one expected to be sharing between all 5 was the one not unreasonable. Thank you

You have mentioned uni a couple of times. Just thought I would say that if you lived together your BFs earnings would be counted for the kids maintenance loans. If he earns an amount to stop you getting child benefit as you said, uni maintenance loan will only be 4.5k a year. Halls rent alone will probably be double that a year.

But are you actively trying to be fair to all kids? Because it seems what you want is to protect your assets for you & your kids, while B kids are described as being fine because they will have support for uni education, a good mother etc. B’s kids may well have many issues in the future which an inheritance/gift would help with.

Your children & particularly your disabled child should be your first priority, but B’s kids should be his.

Hi OP,
I agree that you should keep your own home ringfenced for you. This is so you have somewhere to go back to if your relationship fails but yes this can also be ringfenced inheritance for your kids.

Where I disagree is expecting your partner to pay the bulk of the new house in terms of the mortgage over the years and then be expected to split it equally with your kids.

I think your partner should either buy alone, pay the mortgage alone (which it sounds like he will be anyway) and then own the house 100% and be able to leave it to his kids or, if he needs your deposit to purchase, you should ringfence your contribution e.g. if you pay 10% deposit you own 10% of the house and can leave that 10% to your kids. The other 90% (his deposit and his mortgage payments should be his to leave to his kids).
You would need to hold the house as tenants in common rather than joint tenants.

If your partner can own the new house entirely that would make life easier if you split up as his home would remain his and you would move back into yours. You may not be able to claim universal credit if you have part ownership of a house you don't live in, but forcing a sale or an ex to buy you out is difficult so you are left in a tough position.

Are you planning to marry? If you don't get married any savings (including inheritance) will be passed on under your will or the laws of intestacy so you can leave them to your children. The same is true for your partner and his assets.

If your partner died his will needs to specify a certain amount of time for you to live in the house before it needs to be sold to pay his children their inheritance.

You need to consider leaving money to your child with a disability under a vulnerable person's trust. If his grandparents leave money directly to the grandchildren they should also consider this.
https://www.gov.uk/trusts-taxes/trusts-for-vulnerable-people

If you are not getting married you don't need to worry about inheritance being split 5 ways (with your partners kids) as long as your money is kept in your own account and not a joint account it is yours to leave as you wish.

I think you would be best to not marry. Then you can keep your house and any savings/ inheritance for you/your kids. Your partner would have their house, savings, inheritance for their kids.

One issue that could arise is your partner asking you to contribute to running the household if you inherited say 100k - they might think it's unfair to pay everything while you save it. To be fair any claim you had for universal credit, if you had remained single would also stop if you had this level of savings.

It might be better for your parents to leave inheritance directly to the grandchildren (remembering that vulnerable person's trust if possible) and your parents could just leave you £10k or something to treat the family.

You could also think about joint life insurance with your partner to buy time if one of you died. This would again affect entitlement to universal credit while you had significant savings.

If you keep you property to be inherited by your kids, what do you envisage happening to the house that B has mainly if not solely paid for? And if you don’t sell your house how will you pay a deposit towards this house?

I am very sorry to hear how your disabled child has been treated by the system, and would never judge you for not working. And B sounds like a good kind B, good for him.

But I feel for B’s kids. They’ve had their dad give by the sounds of things, a lot of time & energy to other children. You have already invested in property. This purchase will be B doing the same but it doesn’t sound as if they are getting that property.

So you have the benefit of keeping your assets while benefitting from B’s income. That doesn’t seem fair to his kids.

I wouldn't consider it without getting married first tbh. You are putting yourself and your children at too much financial risk.

The more you post it's clearly obvious that moving into together and buying a house is a bad idea and a significant financial gamble for both of you in very different ways.

Don’t move in. It makes you more dependent on him and the dynamics change. You will be very vulnerable. What you currently do is working. Don’t rock the boat.

Also, GPs can, and possibly should, write their will to protect the inheritance for their GC. They may for example go directly to GC.

However, the disabled child receiving an inheritance complicates their support as well. They won’t be eligible for some things, or their support needs will be taken from their inheritance until it’s eaten up. You need advice on that. It may be safe for their lifetime if they are left a home, not if they are left cash.

What age is your disabled child? Can you not work whilst he is in education? I have a profoundly disabled child and I still work whilst he is at his specialist setting. It’s not just about the money either - it’s about self worth, and having something outside being a parent carer.

I think the proposal seems to be the latter - A keeps certain assets for her kids but B’s kids father contributes more to the shared house yet that is spilt 5 ways. That isn’t fair on B’s kids surely?

Understandably A wants their assets and inheritance kept out of the shared pot. If they were going 50/50 on the mortgage and deposit of the new place then that house could be split 5 ways between the children, or 6 ways with the shared child having 2 shares. Then the previous house and inheritance going to As children & Bs children gets their inheritance.

However, if A doesn't want to merge all in and is not paying an equal share towards the new house then B should protect their children in the same way and agree upon a split for the inheritance of the new house before committing to do this together. If they are paying 80% of costs but their children only get 50% of the share while A keeps all of their previous equity for their children then it isn't a fare divide

Why? Person B is being expected to share all their assets between all 5 children.

Leaving new joint house only to B's children, as I have suggested above, is in consideration of the fact that B has generously provided a family income to A and all of A's children.
A remains on the title so can reside there but it is not fair that her older two children inherit any of that house when B paid for it and also their living expenses.

If both A and B die when all children are adults ..
Person A's property is split up between his/her three children equally.
Any inheritance from A's family is split up the same.
A's share of house B is split between B's three children only.
and ..
Person B's property (the new one financed by B) is split up equally between person B's three children, as is any inheritance left to B from family.

If B dies, while still married with small children, A is allowed to reside in house B (if possible financially) until child of A & B reaches age 21 then house B is divided between person B's three children.
If A dies while still married with small children, A's house is left to A's three children, A's half of house B is left to Person B (who has paid for it).

If the breadwinner is funding everything now, his kids should benefit from everything later.