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

Thanks, In her updates OP did say that he preferred option was that the house would be left to her. I have seen in practice arrangements where the house has to be sold within a year of death. By this stage, OP might be very settled in her house and well into her old age. A move at this stage could be very disruptive and create significant work- the new place would be much smaller and furniture would need to go and OP might be really struggling to cope with grief and then what might be by then a much loved house with good neighbours.

You say you don't expect to inherit. Have you discussed it with your dad? Has he told you she can stay there? Was this a house he originally had with your mum?

The way he put it to me was they can have a say on when kitchens, bathrooms etc are done to maintain the value of the property so it doesn't become dated and will sell easily on my death / if I choose to sell. I would also be 100% liable for major repairs like new windows etc. They won't have to contribute to these upgrades or major repairs.

This is ridiculous and indeed a deal breaker, Haha they would have control over your entire finances. Fancy going on a weekend break to Eastbourne? Bad Luck the Dsc are insisting you put in a Qooker tap and a Hardwood Parquet Floor.

Tell him you are thinking of leaving your half of the house to a friend who will have matching rights over his use of the house. And he should bear in mind that she is an environmentalist who will want the whole house taking off grid and converting to a well for water, a compost toilet and electricity from a wind turbine.

Would it work if you live in YOUR house and he rents his out, paying you the net profit on the rental to make up for living in your house?

If you did this, would the extra income enable you to buy a bigger house suitable for the 2 of you in your name only?

Then he could leave his house to his dc.

I can see that the conditions he wants to put on the house are unreasonable. I thought that usually in a Life Interest Trust the remaining occupier had responsibility but no obligation to maintain the house and could do what they liked while they live there.

Then it's not quite the reverse. The OP will be contributing half and thus be entitled to half if she is coerced into buying a bigger better house . Frankly it'd be better for the children and the OP if they continue living in their own separate properties. The children would inherit on his death. The OP would have the security of her own property without the risk of demands that she makes improvements so as to boost the children's inheritance. And hopefully she'll find someone else to leave her assets to, be that a friend, a cousin, a charity. Although that does mean daddy dearest and his children won't get their hands on her assets.

That’s preposterous. If he Thinks it’s fair that the children can insist you put in a new kitchen at your expense he really doesn’t have your best interests at heart. Don’t buy with him. Massive red flag.

After your deaths entirely up to them to pay for a new kitchen to maximise sales but only in agreement with whoever inherits your half.

Oh it's so simple. Just buy them out with the money off the money tree

I'm in this situation in reverse. My df has a long term partner (not married) who has never paid the mortgage or had her name on the deeds. She will have the right to live there until she dies. I have no doubt whatsoever that she or her DC will purposely trash the house and/or cause structural damage out of badness. She tried to get her name on the deeds from day one and it has always been a bone of contention and her DC and extended family have tried to corner my df into it. If he dies first I don't expect to inherit anything!

No one is saying she should get the entire house. OP just wants things to be fair. Best thing imo is for partner to stipulate that the house should be sold and the money equally divided. Best and fairest for all.

But it is unfair that she is expected to pay for maintenance etc!

OP did you tell your partner that you are unhappy with the fact that you are expected to pay for maintenance etc.? If so, what did he say?

Then it needs to be clearly set out what is to happen!

But your interests ARE protected. You can stay in the house until death or you want to sell. Your half of the house is totally protected. They cant make you leave.

I think his arrangements are very clear, open and entirely proper. If you are concerned over costs or maintenance, it would be a very small change to ensure that following his death, all costs would be split between you and the children. The challenge with this is that then gives them ongoing involvement in any maintenance or decorating schemes. Would you be happy with this? You could also have the house sold and assets distributed within 12 months. From experience, depending on your age at the time of DP's death, this might be very disruptive indeed.

I do not think it would be at all fair to his children that you finished up with the entire house on his death.

How would you feel if you could stay in the house without interference for a set periodsay 2 years. Then you sell up get your own place and they get their money.

Which is why it is highly unlikely that this is what the paperwork actually says.

As an adult I can perfectly understand you not wishing to be dictated to about your home if he was gone.

I think he is a bit of a CF and disrespectful of you to think this would fly.

Pass his half on for sure, but that his children infact become a controlling owner, absolutely not.

You are extremely sensible to be wary of anyone being allowed to dictate to you as you age.

I wouldn't do it with my own children, not to mind someone else's.

Definitely legal advice required.

That for example isn’t right.
If the house is half yours, surely you should have a say?
And if the house is half theirs and thry have a rigut to say what is or isn’t done on the house, they should pay half too?

With that arrangement you have the worst of both worlds. What if the decide that some extremely expensive work needs to be done and you’re the only one to pay?

Yes that is normal but what is not normal is the idea that the beneficiaries with a vested interest can demand upgrades to be made to the property which is what the partner wants. A property can be well maintained but have a 30 year old kitchen for instance.

Please go and speak to a solicitor who will put your mind at rest. They won’t be able to demand you build extensions etc, it will be to keep the property in a reasonable state of repair and maintenance and to make sure it’s insured.

If it’s normal it’s wrong. In OP’s case it should state that the children pay half the maintenance and renovations as they’re the ones who will also benefit from them

OP, it’s normal to have to pay for all upkeep, insurance etc under a LIT. The children will have a vested interest.

Best solution

FFS, this is entirely NORMAL.

No it’s not and you need to ask your partner why would he want to put you in the position which could leave you financially vulnerable. By all means he should leave his half to his children but that shouldn’t mean they could make you pay for all or any alterations they want you to do.