AIBU to feel uneasy about my partner's inheritance plan?

It's her home but it's also their house in part. In the same way when you rent, it's your home but the landlords house. I wouldn't enter into this kind of arrangement as proposed to OP myself.

In the same way, the daughters should also be liable for a 50% share of insurances, rates, maintenance. Which is another headache if they don't reliably pay up and you have to chase it.

Agree.

My will is set up with a RTR and trust. One of the conditions is that the home is maintained. Of course the other trustees will have an interest in protecting their inheritance. That fence is on a lean but the occupier doesn't care right now? They might. Roof needs painting but occupier wants to wait? They might think it needs doing now. So, yes, I have this situation and have had full legal advice on it.

You can't take an old woman with dementia to court because she can't maintain her house though can you? So it's completely pointless if OP gets to a position that she CANT. Just the idea that you would WANT your children to take your elderly, ill, wife to court to force her to spend money she hasn't got organising repairs she isn't able to organise. Or to threaten her with losing her home. Would make you abit of a cunt wouldn't it?

This is the bit that needs changing. They should retain a 50% share but no say over anything that isn't structural

Having to give them their share on sale would also stop you from downsizing/getting a bungalow. DP is being completely unreasonable. Would be fine for you to have an ordinary life interest.

Yeah, agree.

And even if he wasn't looking for a shaggable nurse with a purse, I'd NEVER agree to a situation where I might end up elderly and me and my home are vulnerable to legal bullying by adult DCs of deceased husband.

I've seen how people behave about money when someone dies, it is simply GHASTLY.

Normal these days even with married couples. Why shouldnt his children inherit. He is just protecting his kids inheritance. If you had kids youd do the same. You dont want to be the wicked stepmother do you?

I think you’d be mad to agree to buying property on this basis. Unless you treat each other, legally, as spouses, with all the inheritance rights you should expect from marriage, I think you are 100% better off staying where you are.
(Maybe he can sort out his offsprings’ inheritance from his present estate here and now, and only buy with you with funds set apart from the whole, IYSWIM. )

I’d never cede my financial autonomy to a new setup weighed down by concerns about adult DCs. You'd never get any peace of mind even with him hale and hearty, but after his death, you could be treated very badly indeed. Not only by them but by sneaky will updates too.
(Hate to mention it but if he did become very ill, would you be the live-in nurse? Were you the patient instead, who would take on the nursing duties?
Beware being taken for a ride in this whole family scene, only to turn around and find yourself under orders to sell up and clear out in your grief)

If you absolutely have to live together, rent a place while renting out your present houses.
That’s as far as I’d go, unless marrying is a possibility, protecting your interests that way, with no talk of half shares being carved off for offspring.
He has a large estate, you say. Let the DCs derive a share from that, but you and he would do well to have mirror wills, and you should be the no question of your selling the house, or passing it on to the DCs in his or your own will. It should be yours.

I’d never buy a property in which my rights and interest were curtailed in the way your DP is proposing.

My dad did this with his new wife and he has since died. She gets to live in the house till death. She is also entitled to sell it but his 50% that is in trust to me and my sibling has to carry over to the next house. We have no say in what she bought when she sold it. She has to maintain it. If she needs to go into a home they cannot claim the finances from our 50%. The house has to be sold and we get out 50% and the care home gets her 50% to pay off fees.

Standard apart from the fact he also wants his children to be able to demand improvements and upgrades along with regular house maintenance. She is happy where she is and where she has security. He is the one who wants to marry and get a bigger better house and can only afford it by the OP selling the house she owns. He is the one pushing this and it's not for her security it's for his. She then will own half of the shiny new investment and when he dies won't be allowed to make decisions about it such as a new kitchen or bathroom but his children will while she has to shut up and pay for it. Oh and he and his children will get all of her assets should she die before him.

The OP needs to stay put and stay single - although apparently that's a likely deal breaker for him. He's a single daddy looking for a shaggable ATM who might become a nurse and wipe his arse if he needs care. Clever boy thinks if he traps her in marriage he has easier access to her assets and her domestic work too. Many single parents avoid remarrying and prefer to leave their assets to the children. it's better for everyone generally. But I guess there's a profit to be made by getting that someone else to fund a bigger better house and a bigger payoff for his children. The drawback is that the pesky ATM wants her own security too.

Perhaps on his death you sell up and move to a new property bought outright with your half of the estate and his share passes to his children at that point? So instead of staying indefinitely in the shared home you need to sell and move within two years or similar.

This seems premature. There may well be a solution and the person who can tell you about it will be a solicitor with experience in wills. It is a relatively common situation and you would benefit from discussing it with a professional.

My partner's father left his home to his adult children, but his partner is allowed to live there for life. They have a very clear agreement over which items of building maintenance the adult children are responsible for - they have to pay for structural repairs. The occupier runs the property as her own and does what she wants to it. They have no say in what she does to the property, they just have to organise and fund any structural repairs and pay for the insurance. In practice this means she has full security and privacy, and they have obligations now and the hope of an inheritance if they outlive her.

If his other estate is of equal value to yours, couldn't you just pay them out if you wanted to and own the whole house yourself?

its all totally normal, EXCEPT allowing the children to decide what happens with the house during the OP living there.

I'm not sure if this is feasible or desirable.

If wills were made on the suggested lines BEFORE marriage, they would be negated after marriage. So would OP then inherit her DH's share automatically?
Then "do the right thing" & make a will that includes DH's DC.

His terms are perfectly standard. If you’re not happy with them, buy your own property.

I agree op. I love my DSC dearly and I’ve been in their life for decades but they will not inherit a share of our home. The house comes to me and we have made seperate provision for his DC. It was his idea as he could see that them owning a share could cause difficulties. To be fair, if it works that way and he goes first, they will inherit it all when I die, but he has to rely on my being honest about that because I could change it after his death? I wouldn’t, but I suppose I could?

It’s so unusual & unreasonable that I suspect the wording has been misinterpreted.
Which is why the Op needs to go through it with her own solicitor to clarify and explore all her options.

That’s not generally the standard wording in a deed of trust
generally your required to keep the house in good order not them as you are living there
and they have no power over what you do while your living there

they have no say over say if you wanted to decorate nor can they just walk in / out as they like as you have the right to live there

so I think your right to be wary of such a Clause

it may be that your partner has asked to add such a clause but it’s definitely not the usual

This is a life interest trust. You get to live in the house until you die or otherwise terminate the trust and only at that point does it pass to the children. No worries about people trying to kick you out. It will impact your inheritance tax position though as the value of the half share of the property in trust will be treated as part of your estate and then any tax due will be paid pro rata between your estate and the trust assets

Oh, forgot to add to my post that pre-/post-nups are legally binding where I live.

I think you should not buy a house together. You need to protect yourself and your future.

I get that he wants to leave his half to his children, which is fair enough. I know someone who received no inheritance, as their mother left everything to her new partner, who has now met someone else and will leave everything to them.

But you need to think about yourself, and what your situation will be. You dont want fo work hard to buy a property, and end up feeling like a lodger in your own home.

Not happened to me but I know of someone whose dad died and his 2nd wife has the right to live in the house u til she dies. The house is owned by the 2 children of the marriage. It’s been fine, no problems. I wouldn’t like it though. I guess if you don’t too then you need to decide if you want to buy together after all.

First off, I wouldn't sell a sole-owned home and buy with a partner or new spouse in the first place. What I own will go to my children 100% and I wouldn't want any impediment to that (like a surviving spouse with a life-estate). So that being said...........

Not me, but my elderly auntie and her partner set up a prenup before they married. Each owned and were going to keep their home and they would move back and forth between the two. Hers was 'in town', his was in a resort town in the mountains. The initial prenup specified that their respective homes (and separate finances) went to their respective children in the event of a death and the survivor would simply move back into their own 'pre-marriage' home. Easy peasy.

But after they married her husband sold his 'previous marital home' (and kept that money for his DC) so they lived in hers. So there was then a postnup superseding the prenup And it's that postnup which may interest you. It stated that he would have a life estate for 5 years after auntie's death to allow him ample time to figure out what he wanted to do. When the 5 years were up, he was required to vacate. BUT, if he married or cohabited within that 5 years, he had 60 days to vacate. During the 5 years, any needed maintenance would be split between him and my 2 cousins since they'd benefit from it in the long run. If he decided to do any redecorating or 'improvements' or if he caused any damage to the house, those were his financial responsibility. And he had to get my cousin's approval for any actual structural changes or for the repair work for damage he caused. And vice versa, if my cousins had wanted to do any improvements or redecorating during the 5 years, it would have been on their dime and he had the right to veto any unnecessary work whilst he was still living there.

Luckily, he died first.