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

I really think she just shouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t. I would rather be in control of my own assets than be treated like a regency widow living as a quasi pensioner on my husband’s children’s estate.

Their inheritance, by the way, is totally notional until he dies. Brits are funny about land/houses—well that is why its called real estate—but I don’t see that I would be comfortable isolating the house from pensions/cash as “owed” to his children. What if OP ends up subsidizing his “half “of the house financially (new kitchen/extension/decor) but he insists that was optional? Do his children get the benefit if that added value while she bears the cost during the lifetime of the shared marriage? Its not easy to be married and share living expenses while one person isolates wealth for future heirs. It raises questions and turns OP into the one subsidizing the children’s inheritance because (supposedly) she has no heirs.

You hope he'll leave it to you. What he says now and what he does when your mother dies are very different things. He may meet someone else and leave it to her and her children. I've seen this scenario play out.

The exact wording is the real issue not the only giving you a life interest in the property.

As pp say owning a property as 50:50 tenants in common and giving a life interest to surviving partner is not unusual. The wording can give the surviving partner the right to sell and downsize, is clear on maintenance etc.

The difficulty is you have no right to even know what he puts in his will. What you can do is draw up a deed of trust that clearly sets out that you pay 50:50 for maintenance etc.

Your best option is to see a STEP solicitor and decide if buying a property 50:50 is the right thing for you.

As others have recommended speak to a solicitor.

Leaving children a property in trust is common and sensible. And it's important the property is maintained. It's not usual to write into the will that the joint owner and surviving partner is liable for all costs incurred if the children have a right to demand improvements. Yes he naturally wants his assets to go to his children but it does seem as if he wants it both ways. On his death he wants his children to be able to tell you they want a new kitchen/bathroom/sauna/whatever and you are meant to pay for all of it. Yet you have no rights to decide yes or nay. Fuck that.

His determination to marry you actually makes me suspicious as he's also keen to leave you with no control over the property you'll jointly own. If it's a deal breaker for him that you live together and marry ask yourself why? It's certainly not to protect you. Is he looking for someone to wipe his arse so his children can inherit all his assets whilst you do the grunt work of caring for him? Someone who can take on domestic drudge work? He seems to think he is in control here. And this prince amongst men also expects your own assets to go to his children. They're really raking it in with you aren't they? If he's so determined that his children can control you by forcing you to pay for upgrades and you just have to stump up tell him you will now leave your half to person X (a friend, a cousin, a charity) with the same restrictions on him should you die first. Then his children will only receive his half in the end (once your heirs have told him to fit kitchens/bathrooms/sauna at his coat to maximise their inheritance when he pops his clogs. See how he reacts.

If he thinks that's fair then he's simply misunderstood how leaving a property or part of a property in trust works and you can work something out that protects his children's inheritance but also ensures you are not bullied into paying tens of thousands to install whatever on the whims of his children. I'd suggest not getting married and having one house each. That means two properties, held separately. It'll be much easier to sort on the death of either of you. Sadly I suspect this isn't the case.

If he whines or disagrees you have a clear sign that you are a resource to be plundered, that he regards his relationship with your assets as the primary relationship. And if he wants to split after this then you have had a lucky escape.

There are too many men with children who conveniently find a woman with assets of her own (especially women with property and particularly if you have the nerve to be wealthier than him). That also includes men with their own property. They expect her to be another resource for him or his children whilst treating her a domestic appliance and an ATM. A nurse with a purse. Great deal for him and his. A shitty deal for the woman.

You are absolutely right, it is a recipe for disaster. A situation could arise where you are at an advanced age and your step children are insisting you find the money to do major upgrades to the house so the value will have increased when they go to sell it. Or they could just tell you that they have organised for new windows, here is the invoice, you pay it.

This is a good idea. Or even that OP takes out the policy so that it isn’t then included as part of his estate but she uses it to buy the children out of the house if he dies first.

He is a widow - so some of his money comes from his late wife. I can see why he wants to protect his children.

you could remarry and leave everything to someone else if he goes first. I think he is doing the right thing.

It’s a hard one - would it be better for you to sell the house in the event of his death and buy your own place rather than live on a house half owned by his children?

OP I don't think you're going to receive much sensible advice on this thread.

Repost in legal or - better! - see a solicitor.

They should go halves after discussing the renovations between them. They shouldn’t inherit a house where the maintenance and any renovations have been done all at OP’s expense. They should look after their future inheritance too.,

This is exactly the set up we have with our Will. I have children and my husband doesn't. If I die first, my half will go to my children and they will own half the house. I would not have agreed to anything else. I want to be 100% sure my children get my share as this did not happen with my inheritance (both my parents were remarried).

But the children didn’t ask for the inheritance, why should they pay for - e.g. an expensive new kitchen of OP’s choice - that they may not want or ever use?

A friend of mine did precisely this. When she met her partner they both had two adult children and owned their own homes about a 40 minute drive away from each other. He was reluctant to move as he was living in the long-term family home, but she had been considering a move anyway and bought a house a 10 minute walk away. They split her relocation costs between them and spent a lot of time at each other's houses, but she relished having her own place which she could furnish and decorate to her own taste and where she could entertain her family and friends, while he did similar.

When he sadly died, she decided to sell up and move to a different area to be closer to her family. His kids sold his house divided the proceeds between themselves. My friend said she was be very grateful that she had the space to grieve without feeling pressured to make any immediate decisions and also because she didn't need to consider anyone else's needs or timescales. His children were obviously happy that they could inherit immediately and thus everyone was happy with the ultimate outcome. Could this be a good solution for you OP?
.

.

The tone of your posts reads that you’re not very close to the children, or don’t like them? Which, if true, should give you pause on putting all your financial security in with your DP. Why not just keep your own houses and visit each other?

As his wife died i can see why he is so keen to protect his children's inheritance. He is also protecting his late wife's money that she would want to go to her children.

My parents are divorced and i don't expect to inherit anything, it will go to step siblings either side.

I have a daughter and one of my fears is if I die and my husband remarries to a woman who is cruel to her, and then all my money goes to his new wife and her children.

I think best would be to live together and rent out another property nearby.

Well you think that, as do l. But I wouldn't want to be having that discussion with someone who was looking to maximise what they could sell my house for if I were elderly and still living in it.

No it’s unfair, the children should pay half for their future inheritance. Why should OP have to go to the expense of eg changing the kitchen, allowing them to have a say in it , and they benefit later without paying a penny!

I would never go into that situation either, OP. You are in your 50s, independent and secure. Absolutely don't give up your security. The other options suggested sound so much better - better for his children, too.

Equally, her partner can’t have his cake and eat it. The OP sounds financially sorted so my advice would be to avoid marriage and cohabitation with this man.
It sounds like it’s the partner who wants to get married rather than the OP. I bet he’d also happily take her share if she died first. I note that he hasn’t insisted that she should leave it to someone else or to charity (which I would do if I wasn’t planning on benefiting someone).

Think of it as rent for the half she doesn't own

I highly doubt it is written as described as that would be unusual.

But there is nothing stopping the Op from getting some individual legal advice.

Well he certainly cannot cut his children out of inheritance just because he has a new partner. That wouldn't be fair.
If you did have children, would you still leave the house to him?

But why should she pay all the maintenance if the children own half of it?

OP- couldn’t you go halves with maintenance and upgrades. It seems unfair for you to pay it all , and they inherit it when you die without having contributed

She doesn’t, she explained very clearly that he’s writing it so they get a say in maintenance and works and get to demand she does things they think she needs, while she bears all the costs of the works. Thats not a tenable position. Held in trust for her life, with the op responsible for upkeep, and the dc get no say in the upkeep until it’s theirs.

I get your concerns OP. It's right his DC inheritance is protected but not at the cost of having controls over your home or possibly causing you to feel it's no longer your home if DH passed.

Someone said up thread along the lines of no one knows how people will deal with money after someone dies and this jumped out at me because in recent years I've seen two former friends behave like vultures following family bereavements. Folk can be very unpredictable when it comes to inheritance and entitlement.