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

OP, I am in exactly the same position as you. Where we live now is in DH's sole name but we are considering moving, in which case I would put in a substantial amount of money. In his Will, he has put in the clause which would allow me to continue living in the house, and a sum of money ring-fenced for general upkeep and maintenance. Could you perhaps get him to do that?

Of course if we buy a new property, we will have to look at Wills again, seeing as he would want to leave his share to his children, and I would want my share going to my relatives. It's tricky.

My suggested solution is to limit the children's interest in the house to a purely financial one. If your DP dies first then you get the house valued at that point. They then become entitled to half that value, but it's only payable at the point you die or sell the house. The amount is subject to indexation in the time you then remain in the house. You then bear the risk of not maintaining the house or the reward of making improvements.

E.g. house is valued at 500k at the date of death. At that point the children become entitled to £250k. You stay in the house for another 5 years before selling. In that time a house that was worth 500k 5 years ago is now worth £600k just through general movements in the housing market. At the point you sell, the children are now entitled to receive £300k of the proceds. If in those 5 years you've made lots of improvements to the house such that you sell it for £700k, you get £400k and the children still get thier £300k. Conversely, if in the 5 years the house has fallen apart such that you sell for £500k, children are still entitled to their £300k but you get £200k.

I would not move in together with this setup in place if he dies before you.

I think there's so much possibility of it going south with having his kids as half owners having to wait for their part of the house until you move or die. I think there's a possibility of financial abuse, especially given this bit here

My worry is that the way he wants it set up is that they have a say in what I do to the property, I’m expected to pay for all upkeep and maintenance, which they can veto, or demand more if they want. I won’t have control over my own home.

They should be paying some for upkeep if it's half theirs. What if you want to make an improvement and they refuse. What if they don't pay for upkeep? And I could see them being resistant to paying upkeep on a property they can't live in. What if they want an improvement and you don't?

I think the viable option if you really want to live together would be you agree to sell within a certain fairly short time frame after he passes to release that part of his kids' inheiritance. But, that's going to be hard when you've lost your partner. It's two of the worst life stressors one on top of the other and that needs to be taken into account too.

Or buy them out with your other assets. It's a lot to go through while grieving, though.

It's what we've done - DH has children from his first marriage. I think it's fair and means I can't disinherit his kids (not that I would).

But his children wouldn't actually get any say in how I maintain the house.

Tbh I'd probably downsize if I was alone though, or try to buy his children out so they got their inheritance sooner.

So if he dies before you, you sell and give them their share and then buy a home on your own.

Its not an ideal state of affairs for you. But I can fully understand he doesn't want to disinherit his children. Your only options really are to keep both your current homes, or plan that should be predecease you, you will sell up straight away to release his children's share.
I agree with you that arrangements giving you life time residence and only half ownership tend to be fraught with issues. From disagreement about property upkeep, to pressure to sell from beneficiaries, to clauses about who may live in the property. There's often little way around including such things as from the other side, the resident could allow the property to devalue.

@Itisallgoingtobeok I don't think that it's been asked, but do you have hoarding tendencies? Did you allow your house/garden to fall into disrepair, even though you could have afforded the upkeep? Are you happy to live with shabby decoration?
I'd consider him making provision, money wise so you can have any work done. Structurally speaking, it should be written that you'll keep it to a reasonable standard. The rest should be up to you, as long as you aren't doing anything that will cause damp etc.

I agree with OP that this proposal could lead to friction later on, as well as forcing the DC to wait longer for their inheritance from their father, if he dies first. As OP has other assets, she could consider buying the shared home solely in her name, keeping DP's assets sufficiently liquid to transfer to DC immediately on his death.

This is technically disadvantageous to OP in that it increases her exposure to the vagaries of the housing market, and reduces her realisable income (assuming she doesn't charge him rent, which I wouldn't). But as she is clearly happy for all, or a substantial portion, of the assets of the partnership to go to the DC eventually anyway, this probably doesn't matter.

They should take advice about IHT, care funding, and the pros and cons of marriage.

Do you think he means to keep it to a good standard so the value doesn't decrease if you
dont have the capacity to get things repaired. You can live at home for a long time with Dementia and not realise its become a hovel and so they've lost their inheritance

That’s reasonable he’s saying you can stay living in the house if he dies first. It’s not like you will be kicked out on his death. Would you not want the same for him if he dies first?

I wouldn’t buy a home together. Keep your two separate homes, live in one, and rent out the other. That way you keep control of your own property.

I’d be fine with his share being left to kids. I would not be fine with being told what I could or couldn’t do in my house with the remaining years of my life. That would be a firm no.

To reiterate what other people have said, and I have personal experience that this is doable.
He does leave his house to his children. This is fair and reasonable. However, the caveats are that you have an obligation to maintain the property to a reasonable standard, without interference, and you also have the right to transfer the equity to another property that better suits your needs, again without interference. This is very important because you don't want to be stuck in a property that doesn't suit you, but you can't sell because you don't have the funds to buy a suitable replacement. You need to not be hog-tied and unable to live as you wish.
If he cannot see that this is also fair and reasonable, don't buy together and keep your assets separate.

OP, if you have enough to buy a property outright, do so. You can get advice from the solicitor about entering into a cohabitation agreement with your DP, whereby he foregoes any potential claim to your property if you do choose to live with him.
But whatever form the trust takes, it could be quite unpleasant with your stepkids waiting for you to die once your DP goes, so I wouldn't entertain it. Much much better to remain financially independent. I am pleased that it sounds like his proposed arrangement would not be enforceable but I'd be concerned that this was what he wanted for me in the first place. I get the wish to benefit adult children but I think the idea that you want to share your life with someone but you want to make sure they get nothing from you is quite unpleasant. If that's how you feel, stay single/financially independent. Don't try to make them enter in to agreements that will make their lives miserable.
I think that in mid-life, marriage is more beneficial to men rather than already financially secure women. Your DP would be gaining companionship, care, your share of your sales proceeds, your share of the house if you die before him. You likely wouldn't gain the same by the sounds of it because he does not even plan to share his estate with you at all (despite you saying it's quite significant). Why should you marry him if he wants the benefits of marriage with none of the obligations?
Stick to your guns and protect yourself.

Quite frankly, if he thinks youre the type of person that's going to let the house you live in fall into disrepair to the extent he needs to give his children legal rights to dictate what works get done to the house then why would he want to buy a house with you.

You buy a house with someone in the faith that they will respect and look after it with you

I agree. Some people want the drama and will create some if it isn't already there.

I think provided you have your concerns about maintenance discussed, I think it’s a fairly normal situation. I have to say I never really looked at the detail of my husband’s will but I think it does say something about me having to maintain the property. I think I assumed this just meant me not allowing it to fall into huge amounts of disrepair. I don’t think there’s anything about step-son having a say in what is done. Fortunately for me I know he wouldn’t be that interested anyway!

Perhaps to be clearer. In addition to the will arrangements it is usual to have a contract dealing with these points.

This is important for everyone including the OP to ensure that her rights to stay in the property after her partner's death are fully protected.

I'd expect in a sensible discussion between lawyers that the ongoing obligations would get watered down to limit them to avoiding diminution in value. Certainly it would not be normal for the beneficiaries to be able to require improvements.

The OP is doing the right thing to see a lawyer and I think all this should be capable of being worked out amicably.

You never once said oh really that's good to know to the numerous people who offered their own experience. Yes a lawyer will be well versed in this.

Would you be happy leaving your half of something to someone else who then has full control over it and can give it all away to someone else? A new woman? His children ? Who are your beneficiaries ? Nephews etc ? Would you risk this ?

It's really NOT normal to make the surviving partner, ie the OP, responsible for ALL maintenance and update costs.
And to also give the DP's DC the right to demand specific works are done eg fitting new bathrooms, kitchen, roof etc etc.

That is very unfair, and leaves OP at the mercy of her dead partner's children, who may or may not be reasonable.

I repeat - he cannot unilaterally contractually bind her to being legally responsible for all the maintenance of a property she only owns half of. She would have to sign a contract to state that she agrees to this arrangement in the event of his passing - and if remaining in the property after his death/disallowing his DC’s to sell while she is alive is the condition then it is not a valid contract in law as it is a coercive clause.

If the house needs a new roof, or underpinning - ie major works - the result of doing it or not impacts the value of the asset. It is not equitable in law to require her to be financially responsible for those costs (and therefore liable for the impact on the value of the asset if she is unable to do so). It is a legal minefield.

She is best to keep her finances separate.

If I was in this situation I would not get married and I would not live together.
Then again thinking about it I might be prepared to get married but only if we could live separately, but that would cause problems with capital gains tax if either if you wanted to sell your property.