I want the house. AIBU?

Let me make a suggestion. Your deposit is ringfenced. You both take out life insurance to cover the mortgage. If one parent dies the survivor has the right to live in the property until your youngest joint child reaches 19 - or 22 if you prefer. The child(ren) can then see out their schooling, maybe university. Survivor then either buys out the others interests or property is sold with your share going to your child(ren) and his share to his.

If you are still together when your youngest child reaches 18 you make new wills.

@Missymoo100 After both parties had died then any remaining inheritance should be distributed according to the will.

Not necessarily. My grandma married a man and left all her money to him when she died. After she died, he changed his will so that her children (my parents and aunties and uncles) got nothing. Offspring are only guaranteed to inherit if it’s written in their birth parents will.

Yeah I absolutely see your point. You are enabling him to buy a house. Your deposit. Your support. So that he can hand it over to his kids? No i think you're right. You're buying this together.

Have you explained what it would be like from his perspective. Obviously you'll do the same. If you die it goes to whoever you want and he has to sell his house to pay them out. Then all the money he's put in his house goes back on rent and his kids are left with nothing and he is back in rented or council accommodation.

It kinda feels like he's trying to use you as a leg up for himself and his kids without giving anything back to you.

I think this is a good firm line to have.

It's not like he has a lot of money and is using that to buy you a house and you want his kids written out of an inheritance. You're not taking from the kids, you're just not giving to the kids. He can save or invest for them however he pleases but not by giving them your home that you enabled him to have.

There’s no perfect solution in this, marrying a man with 3 kids is always going to be messy in terms of inheritance.

"If you were to marry, then any inheritance automatically goes to remaining living spouse"

Sorry, this is just a small point, but you are mistaken here. That does not happen in this country.

If a married person makes a will then their 'inheritance' (their estate), is distributed according to the will. This may or may not include their spouse.

If a married person dies without making a will and has a spouse and children then their estate is split between the surviving spouse and children according to specific rules (the rules vary between England & Wales and Scotland).

Perhaps you are thinking of how a house is owned between a couple? Joint tenants as compared to tenants in common. In the case of joint tenants, the house would automatically pass to the survivor (whether they are married or not) by right of survivorship, the same way that a joint bank account would, regardless of what any will or the intestacy rules might say.

.

"...but most people don’t receive inheritance anyway until well into adult life anyway."

Correct, but not everyone does - he or she could be hit and killed by a drunk driver tomorrow. This is why people have insurance and write wills when they have responsibilities eg children - in case something catastrophic happens.

Theoretical If you were to marry, then any inheritance automatically goes to remaining living spouse- so I’m not sure why people are insisting money should go to his kids (wouldn’t be the case if you married), or it’s unreasonable to expect to be beneficiary in the event of death to avoid homelessness.
After both parties had died then any remaining inheritance should be distributed according to the will. So OP if you go through with this, I would suggest putting a will in place so that his children would inherit his contribution to the house when both have passed and say you would honour it. I would feel uncomfortable though that your partner would not want to see you financially sound in the event he died and is bringing this up, not sure how I would feel about this… I can see that he would want to provide for his kids, but most people don’t receive inheritance anyway until well into adult life anyway.

Imagine if the sexes were the other way round, and here you are saying:

"Exactly. No woman is worth taking on 3 children for! No woman.

I would not go near a woman who had SO many kids. And then to be expected to treat three other kids as equal to my ONe child."

"It sounds selfish, but then I am when it comes to my kids."

If you wrote that here people would rightly condemn you for that attitude. So why do you feel it is acceptable the other way round?

I think that the person you're quoting probably meant that his 50% should be split equally between all four children but her 50% goes just to their joint child (plus any more children that they have together)

I think you need to think a little more clearly. What would his ex be entitled to? Does he owe her money? She’s an ex, surely it’s unlikely at best that she could bring a claim against his estate if he died? Unless he owes her money, which his estate should rightly pay if he dies, surely this isn’t an actual
problem?

You’re confusing what the life insurance does with what ownership of the house and wills do.

You can get mirror policies, or a joint life policy, which would pay out an amount sufficient to pay off the mortgage on the death of the first of you, with the policy paying the survivor. However, in the absence of wills leaving the house to the survivor, the survivor would get the money under the policy but not ownership of the house.

To achieve your aim, you need wills in which you each leave the house to the other. Or you could own the house as joint tenants, in which case what a will says would be irrelevant because joint tenancy mean the house can ONLY pass to the survivor entirely.

To achieve your partner’s aim, you’d need to own as tenants in common (as opposed to joint tenants) AND have wills. Then in his will he could give you a life interest in the house (meaning that after his death you could live in it for life), after which his share passes to his children (which should be in equal shares to any existing and future children you may have). You could also leave your share to whomever you wish, which may be to your one child entirely or to that child and any others you may have. This would mean (unless you have lots more kids) that once you’re both dead, his children will each have ended up with less than the child you’re about to have (an a further child if you want 2), since his share would be split minimum 4 ways and yours might go to only one child (who would also have received 25% of his share).

As you’re putting in the deposit, the deed of trust under which your respective shares in the house are recorded (if owning as tenants in common) should reflect the unequal initial contributions. So if you’re buying a £400k house with a £40k deposit and then sharing mortgage payments 50/50, your share should be 10% of the sale price plus 50% of the balance.

If you did not know all of the above already, you definitely need to take legal advice before committing to this very significant financial decision which will affect your and all the children’s futures.

It’s not unreasonable of him to want to ensure that his children inherit his share of the house, rather than any new partner you may get after he dies. You would want to ensure the same for your children.

Exactly this!
keep it as an investment- why should you put a deposit down for a house for you all and then if he dies you’re potentially homeless that’s absolutely ridiculous!

This, and don't get married.

I'd stay put if I were you.

This! This!

Keep your flat! Do not sell your flat and buy home with him under the current circumstances. You're not even married, he has 3 children, and you're 'happy surprise' pregnant when you haven't even discussed basics by the sound of it.

Exactly. No man is worth taking on 3 children for! No man.

I would not go near a man who had SO many kids. And then to be expected to treat three other kids as equal to my ONe child.

hou have a good set up. One owned house for your one child. Why risk all of that to be sharing it with other peoples kids? It sounds selfish, but then I am when it comes to my kids.

Really surprised by the voting here so far.
He has kids, of course they should come first. Firstly you should ring fence your deposit as a percentage of what the house is worth now. Eg you got 25k deposit, house worth now £100k so he owns only the remaining 37.5%. That leaves you protected assuming everything thereforward is paid 50/50.

But he would be a really shit dad if he took out this insurance leaving all to you instead of his kids. If he died shortly after you bought then you would have everything. Likely go on to meet someone else and they benefit too, your future kids also benefit from his death, but his very own get nothing.

All people voting OP should get the money, would you really write your existing DC out of inheritance for a new relationship? I definitely wouldn't. I'll likely never marry to protect what I bring to the table from being taken from my DC who has been the 1 living the sacrifices for me to have got to this place. Less time with mum, more time with childminders

As you are the only one putting in equity you need to both purchase this house as tenants in common (NOT joint tenants). This will financially protect you. Ensure a will is written up dividing up the assets to which children if you so decide.

Joint tenants own the whole property together, and ownership automatically passes to the survivor if one dies, suitable for couples. Tenants in common own distinct, divisible shares (e.g., 50/50, 70/30) that can be passed on by will, ideal for friends or new relationships with unequal contributions. Joint tenants have equal rights, while tenants in common can have unequal interests, the same % is divided should you seperate in the future thus protecting your investment). Will require a will to state who gets what especially with Tenants in Common (gaining popularity with blended families / where one person has a larger asset to put down when purchasing property).

This is not about insurance: it's about wills. My husband and I both have children from previous relationships. Our mirror wills protect us both, and also our children. The home is protected for the surviving spouse on death, so they don't suddenly find themselves hoofed out of their home. On the death of the remaining spouse, the estate is shared with 50% to my children, and 50% to his children.
If you are not married, sorting your wills is even more important. Don't leave yourself vulnerable. This doesn't just matter now, but in 20, 30, 40, 50 years time when one of you will pass away before the other.
If your partner can't see this, red flags should be waving.

Wait until when though?

Do people realise how normal people live? Who on earth is saving a deposit on mat leave with 4 kids, whilst renting?

Is he paying towards the mortgage or are you paying for it all?

If you are concerned about your deposit (and rightly so!) then get it written up so that you get your deposit back in any future unfortunate event and then split the rest.

But to expect a man to pay towards a home and leave all his share to you and one of his children and nothing to his other biookids? YABU and incredibly selfish.

The fairer way and what most people do is leave the home to the surviving partner with the proviso that if they want to sell the property they give the share of the deceased partner to the children or when the partner dies the.property is sold and the children inherite the partner portion.
You are bu as you are already considering desheriting his children, that's not right.

Keep your flat, do not sell it. Rent it out.

Find deposit elsewhere or simply wait.

My brother did that. When he died his 2nd wife got everything, leaving his children from previous marriage with nothing

Her baby is also his child?

That’s part of the baggage you took on - he’s got kids and your relationship with him shouldn’t completely disinherit them. Work something out.