Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

660 replies

Itisallgoingtobeok · 17/07/2026 10:02

My partner and I are planning on moving in together. We will each sell our separate properties and buy one together 50/50. He is a widow with 2 DC in their mid twenties. I don't have children.

We are starting to talk about how we would set up finances, and one issue that has come up is that if he dies first he wants his half of the house to pass to his children in trust, whilst I remain able to live in the property until I sell or die. They would then inherit their Dad's half when I die, or get their half if I sell. My half is for me to decide who inherits. FWIW, I would leave my half of the house to him.

This doesn't sit well with me. If he dies first, then half of my home is owned by others. I get on well with them, but I have no idea if they would want to maintain a relationship with me after their Dad's death.

Part of me completely understands why he wants to leave his children his share, but it leaves me in a really tricky position. I really don't like the idea of this at all. AIBU? What have others done in this position? I can't be the first person to have this problem!

OP posts:
mommaham · 18/07/2026 17:18

I've reread my will in this respect and my husband can stay in the house until he dies or remarried. My stipulation. He pays for all day to day maintenance eg annual boiler service. If there is any large repair which is essential to the house eg a roof then that is shared 50/50 or whatever the percentage share of the property. Eg I own 98% of property so he would pay less. He cannot sell the property and use the sum to buy a new property. He can only use his own percentage. He can sell it at any time and take back his percentage eg he may decide he would rather live in a smaller place in a different location and the balance would go to my heirs.

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 16:56

pikkumyy77 · 18/07/2026 16:06

This idea of half ownership is quite common but I don’t see the advantage to the OP at all. Hypothetically she might “get” a larger, nicer house than she could afford on her own but in a traditional marriage (with all my worldly goods I thee endow) she would be entitled to consider herself a full owner. If he were not intending to ring fence the house she wouldn’t be entering a rather cold, business, co share and would be sharing weal and woe together assuming both the potential risks and rewards of the asset and the relationship.

Its reasonable for him to ask and want to make this disposition of his wealth. But its foolish to enter into such a selfish, suspicious, relationship under the guise of marriage. Since she’s not going to inherit from him (though he plans to inherit from her) there is no tax advantage. And he’s structured it so that she is ending up acting as manager and housekeeper for a half of the property she doesn’t own.

In many traditional marriages the property is owned as tenants in common with the surviving partner getting the right to remain in the property when the first partner dies, exactly as OP's partner is proposing. This is not selfish or suspicious. It is a normal way for a partner to ensure that their share of the property will be inherited by the children whatever happens. If they don't do this, the surviving spouse could remarry then die without making a new will, in which case everything will go to their new partner and the children will get nothing.

She will inherit from him. She isn't going to get his share of the house, although she will have the right to live there, but she will presumably get all of his other assets, or at least a share of them. She is choosing to leave her half of the house to him, but she doesn't have to. She can do whatever she wants with it. There is nothing to suggest he is insisting on her leaving her portion of the house to him.

He's structured it so that she can continue to live in their home as long as she wants.

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 16:49

As is often the case when life interest trusts are discussed on Mumsnet, there is a lot of misinformation on this thread. Unless this is not a normal life interest trust, some of OP's posts suggest she has misunderstood how this works. If she is uncertain, she needs to consult a solicitor.

If this is a normal life interest trust, OP's partner's share of the property will go into trust when he dies. It will NOT go to the children at this point. They will NOT own it - it will be owned by the trust. The fact they will ultimately inherit his share of the property does not give them any rights. The only people with rights and responsibilities are the trustees. This may be the children or it may be someone else. People often appoint their executors as the trustees. If the children are not the trustees, they will have no right to interfere.

OP will be responsible for day-to-day maintenance and upkeep of the property, keeping it in good repair, just as she would be if she owned the whole house. The trustees are responsible for ensuring that the property maintains its value but, beyond that, they cannot interfere.

If major works are needed such as a new roof, what happens depends on what the will says. It may be OP's responsibility (as it would be if she owned the house) or it may be up to the trustees to pay.

The trustees cannot demand changes to the house. For example, they can insist that the kitchen is kept in good repair, but they cannot insist on a new kitchen, nor can they insist on building an extension.

If OP wants a new kitchen or bathroom, or to extend the house, she will need the approval of the trustees who will need to ensure that the planned change will not damage the value of the property. That does not allow them detailed control over the change. If, for example, OP wants white kitchen units, the trustees cannot insist on green, nor can they refuse to approve the change just because they don't like white.

If OP wants to downsize or move elsewhere, she will be able to use all the proceeds from the sale of the house to do so. The trust will own a proportion of any new property she buys. Any surplus funds that belonged to the trust would be invested and OP would receive any income they generated.

If OP needs to go into a care, she will be able to use the equity in her portion of the property to pay for care. The equity in that belongs to the trust will not be taken into account in determining whether LA funding is available.

The above assumes this is a normal life interest trust. As I say, if she is in any doubt OP should get proper legal advice.

This arrangement generally works well. Unfortunately, sometimes it does not and the children harass the surviving partner. Sometimes the surviving partner does nothing about this, either thinking there is nothing they can do or being unwilling to take action. However, if the children make unannounced visits to the property, make threats or engage in alarming behaviour, the surviving partner can get an injunction to stop them. If the children are also trustees, even if their behaviour does not cross the line into harassment, the surviving partner can apply to have them removed as trustees if they are hostile or acting unreasonably.

pikkumyy77 · 18/07/2026 16:06

This idea of half ownership is quite common but I don’t see the advantage to the OP at all. Hypothetically she might “get” a larger, nicer house than she could afford on her own but in a traditional marriage (with all my worldly goods I thee endow) she would be entitled to consider herself a full owner. If he were not intending to ring fence the house she wouldn’t be entering a rather cold, business, co share and would be sharing weal and woe together assuming both the potential risks and rewards of the asset and the relationship.

Its reasonable for him to ask and want to make this disposition of his wealth. But its foolish to enter into such a selfish, suspicious, relationship under the guise of marriage. Since she’s not going to inherit from him (though he plans to inherit from her) there is no tax advantage. And he’s structured it so that she is ending up acting as manager and housekeeper for a half of the property she doesn’t own.

outerspacepotato · 18/07/2026 15:55

The issue here is OP's partner seems to be leaving her a bit at the mercy of his children. He says he wants to live with her and marry her and he wants her to sell her biggest financial asset to move in with him and if he dies first, that could become problematic for her. There's already been monetary gifts so the kids can get on the housing ladder. If he became ill, OP would likely be the main caregiver.

For many, a house is their biggest financial asset, and in these days when it's very difficult for the younger generation to get on the housing ladder, I can see wanting to leave their house to their kids. But that's when you don't move a new partner in to new partner's financial detriment.

OP's partner wants it both ways. He wants her to buy a new place with him and share his life, but it's only for his lifespan if he dies first. Then it becomes conditional.

Bereavement is horrific in itself, to have to sell the home right away, that's such a huge life stressor in itself.

I just wouldn't do this if I were her.

Keepingthingsinteresting · 18/07/2026 15:48

Itisallgoingtobeok · 17/07/2026 10:24

Why is it fair that the wording allows his children demand anything they want done to the home I half own though? That doesn’t seem reasonable either.

But that isn’t generally how these things work @Itisallgoingtobeok. Usually you have the right to live in the house, do what you want with it and that usually includes selling it and buying a replacement.

What you cannot do is half half the value of the property you haven’t paid for, do you really think that’s fair?

Obanotters · 18/07/2026 15:40

Allseeingallknowing · 18/07/2026 15:38

Better to sell the house then and divide proceeds equally.

Agreed (or by whatever proportions the contributed).

Obanotters · 18/07/2026 15:39

SweetnsourNZ · 18/07/2026 15:34

I agree. All it seems to be doing is stopping people living their best lives as they are obsessed with leaving children an inheritance and children tallying up their parents wealth or resenting them enjoying their retirement.
I think it's down to high home ownership of the 55 plus age group, more 2nd marriages and the high cost of housing.

What is it about MN that there are so many posters who seem to think it outrageous to want to support your children or that ‘living your best live’ doesn’t include doing so?

Allseeingallknowing · 18/07/2026 15:38

Obanotters · 18/07/2026 15:32

Eventually could be when they their own families have flown after growing up living in overcrowded accommodation/dealing with a long commute/no holidays/only managing to rent not buy because they have liability for the maintenance of a large property/paying half the cost of new kitchens their step mother gets to enjoy with subsidised maintenance costs for decades.

Better to sell the house then and divide proceeds equally.

SweetnsourNZ · 18/07/2026 15:34

Writer034 · 18/07/2026 13:18

All I would say is that inheritance isn't some kind of God-given right, something which a person expects by a certain age in life so if takes longer, it's some sort of injustice. Do we seriously wish a person to die a bit quicker so we could have some money????

The British middle class obsession with inheritance seems like a fairly recent thing because in the past it was only the aristocracy that actually had anything to pass on, but it's really taken hold in that many people now seem to have this attitude of absolute entitlement ("I'm in my 60s, why haven't I got my inheritance yet?" Well, because the person who's got the legal right to live in that house isn't dead yet, sorry about the inconvenience!!!)

I agree. All it seems to be doing is stopping people living their best lives as they are obsessed with leaving children an inheritance and children tallying up their parents wealth or resenting them enjoying their retirement.
I think it's down to high home ownership of the 55 plus age group, more 2nd marriages and the high cost of housing.

Obanotters · 18/07/2026 15:32

Allseeingallknowing · 18/07/2026 15:14

It would be fairer for OP and the children to share those bills, or at least contribute to them. They are going to inherit a nicely maintained and updated house eventually.

Eventually could be when they their own families have flown after growing up living in overcrowded accommodation/dealing with a long commute/no holidays/only managing to rent not buy because they have liability for the maintenance of a large property/paying half the cost of new kitchens their step mother gets to enjoy with subsidised maintenance costs for decades.

ShrubLover · 18/07/2026 15:31

Do you actually want to live with him. I'm also mid 50s and financially independent. I cannot imagine ever giving that up to have to live with a man again. Even someone who appears to be wonderful, you simply do not know someone properly until you have to live with them and women rarely benefit from cohabitation. It's a huge no from me. Who is driving this change to live together? Guard your peace and independence, it is precious beyond anything else.

Obanotters · 18/07/2026 15:28

SpaceRaccoon · 18/07/2026 15:01

OP has her own home now. Why on earth would she change that, as her DH wants her to, for that substantial downgrade in circumstances?

Presumably she would get to enjoy living in a much larger/nicer house with the man she loves? When her DH dies she could always sell up, take her share of the equity and buy a property similar to her current one?

Anxioustealady · 18/07/2026 15:18

Allseeingallknowing · 18/07/2026 15:14

It would be fairer for OP and the children to share those bills, or at least contribute to them. They are going to inherit a nicely maintained and updated house eventually.

What if they can't afford to? Surely someone else's will can't compel them to. Would they be able to force a sale if they couldn't contribute to bills?

Allseeingallknowing · 18/07/2026 15:14

Anxioustealady · 18/07/2026 14:58

Do the children even know about this plan? They probably aren't expecting anything.

I would be very annoyed if someone put in their will I was responsible for paying for maintenance, upkeep, council tax (someone said they should pay this)... for a house for potentially 30 years so their spouse could live there. How is that right? It could end up costing them more than they'd ever get back from selling it.

It would be fairer for OP and the children to share those bills, or at least contribute to them. They are going to inherit a nicely maintained and updated house eventually.

pikkumyy77 · 18/07/2026 15:13

I wouldn’t combine finances and assets at all with someone who was more concerned with his adult children's inheritance than my comfort and safety in widowhood. He’s basically saying when he can’t benefit from my services as his wife he has no interest in my well being.

pikkumyy77 · 18/07/2026 15:10

Obanotters · 18/07/2026 13:25

But we aren’t talking about wanting inheritance ‘now’, we are talking about someone who wants his money to benefit his children. Why shouldn’t he seek to ensure it does so?

Well he has the option to simply gift “his money” to his children now but chooses not to.

SpaceRaccoon · 18/07/2026 15:01

Whyhaveibeencutoutofmamsnot · 18/07/2026 11:54

Seems reasonable that you should pay for maintenance and bills of the whole house if you are living there. The alternative is that you pay rent for their half.

OP has her own home now. Why on earth would she change that, as her DH wants her to, for that substantial downgrade in circumstances?

Anxioustealady · 18/07/2026 14:58

Allseeingallknowing · 18/07/2026 14:07

But the children should not expect the OP to pay for all the maintenance and renovations. Eventually they will get the property without paying out a penny. That what this thread is all about- the unfairness of it all.

Do the children even know about this plan? They probably aren't expecting anything.

I would be very annoyed if someone put in their will I was responsible for paying for maintenance, upkeep, council tax (someone said they should pay this)... for a house for potentially 30 years so their spouse could live there. How is that right? It could end up costing them more than they'd ever get back from selling it.

Allseeingallknowing · 18/07/2026 14:48

supercrone · 18/07/2026 14:17

Seems entirely reasonable to me. You get to live there till you die, or you can opt to sell. That's fair.

Can you not see it is unfair if OP has to pay for all maintenance and renovation, yet the children can have a say in it and don’t pay a penny?

Lotsofsnacks · 18/07/2026 14:24

Can u move in with him and rent yours out? So you have security if u split or if he passes away before you? Or just keep as is and split time between both houses?

supercrone · 18/07/2026 14:17

Seems entirely reasonable to me. You get to live there till you die, or you can opt to sell. That's fair.

Allseeingallknowing · 18/07/2026 14:07

Whyhaveibeencutoutofmamsnot · 18/07/2026 11:54

Seems reasonable that you should pay for maintenance and bills of the whole house if you are living there. The alternative is that you pay rent for their half.

But the children should not expect the OP to pay for all the maintenance and renovations. Eventually they will get the property without paying out a penny. That what this thread is all about- the unfairness of it all.

KeepPumping · 18/07/2026 13:52

mommaham · 18/07/2026 00:34

Why is that? She or her estate will benefit when she sells or dies as house value will have gone up?

How do you know the house value will have gone up? The OP and partner have still got two houses to sell, and they have not even bought the house yet! If they bought now and interest rates go up the house value will go down not up.

Notonthestairs · 18/07/2026 13:37

Writer034 · 18/07/2026 13:18

All I would say is that inheritance isn't some kind of God-given right, something which a person expects by a certain age in life so if takes longer, it's some sort of injustice. Do we seriously wish a person to die a bit quicker so we could have some money????

The British middle class obsession with inheritance seems like a fairly recent thing because in the past it was only the aristocracy that actually had anything to pass on, but it's really taken hold in that many people now seem to have this attitude of absolute entitlement ("I'm in my 60s, why haven't I got my inheritance yet?" Well, because the person who's got the legal right to live in that house isn't dead yet, sorry about the inconvenience!!!)

You can burn your stuff before you die for anyone on here cares. Knock yourself out.

But people wanting to provide something for their loved ones after they’ve died is perfectly usual and has been for hundreds of years.

Swipe left for the next trending thread