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

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!!!)

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!!!)

This also happened in my extended family. My uncle remarried and him and his new wife bought a house together and each left half in trust to their respective children with lifetime residency for the surviving spouse.Everyone agreed to this at the time and still do, it was and is the right thing to do. However, he died over twenty years ago now and his wife is still living in the house as a spritely ninety plus year old. She is loved by everyone and my uncle's children still visit her but my uncle's children still havent had their inheritance even though their dad is long dead. They are in their early sixties themselves now.

It's normal for the parent to leave their share of a jointly-owned property to their DC, and their (new) partner to be able to live there for life.

But I've never heard of these other constraints put on the surviving partner eg re maintenance and upkeep, and the deceased partner's children having control over those things.

I can completely understand why you are not comfortable with that.

For example, if your partner died soon after moving in, and you lived another 20 years, you would be putting a lot more £ into the property in terms of maintenance and upkeep, but still only getting 50% out of the profits.
I think any maintenance and upkeep costs should be recorded, with receipts, and 50% of that total amount returned to you, THEN the profits split 50:50.

And it might be impossible to reach agreement with the deceased partner's DC about what work was actually necessary.

If you can't reach agreement on this, @Itisallgoingtobeok then don't buy a property with him.

Choose one of your homes to move into, rent the other one out, and split the rental income.
Or the person that moved pays the home owner 'rent'. Lots of other possibilities too.

Buying a joint property is a big thing. If it doesn't feel right, or you're unhappy with any part of it, don't do it.

Then the DH has to leave some money in the trust that will govern the house to pay for essential things. Then the trust pays for things. The share that should have been paid by the DDs for maintenance could be tallied up and deducted from the proceeds of the house and added to OP's share on her death (to leave to the cats home, friend, or whoever she chooses). You don't get to own a house, or part of a house, and not pay for it. It doesn't work that way. You own a house, or part of it, you have to bear the costs of it.

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.

There is no way to guarantee that in law. OP could always change her will so that the kids would inherit nothing.

This is the whole purpose of the trust - to guarantee that his half is ring fenced for his children if he should die before OP, but with OP owning her 50% and having the right to live in the property for the rest of her life. The children cannot force her out or make her sell it. They don't actually have any say at all over what she does while living there and OP is responsible for all upkeep and for the choice of decor despite what her partner seems to be suggesting, which I believe is a misunderstanding on his part. This could easily be set straight by a solicitor, if he and OP would only LISTEN to one.

At the moment OP is just fixated on the trust giving her partner's children his half of a joint property. She seems to believe that this gives them rights to dictate how she will live in her home. Which it doesn't. She still has agency over that.

Her partner has, I believe, misunderstood some of what these trusts are for if he is saying that his children would have any authority to dictate stuff to OP. Under a normal trust they wouldn't at all, so that notion is what needs to be knocked on the head here, not the idea of a trust itself, which is a very normal and fair way of doing things.

"What if OP wants to sell up and move elsewhere?" I hear people cry out in their self-righteous indignation! She can still do that. Nothing is stopping her. The trust moves with her to the next property, so partner's children still have their inheritance protected. They wouldn't have any say over what property she bought or where. That would remain her choice entirely.

OP has nothing to fear from the trust idea. Not if it is set up in a normal and proper way.

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

So you want him to leave you some of his assets and he has made it clear this isnt his plan?

He isn’t going to marry you for the above reason.

He wants all of his assets after his death to go to his children. The maintenance criteria is so that you/anyone can’t erode the asset he has built up for his DC. It’s very generous of him to allow you a lifetime interest whilst denying his own DC access to their inheritance after his death.

The way round this is for you to have sufficient funds set aside to buy his DCs out immediately after his death - or that you own another property that you will move to or that you own this one outright and he pays you rent. In this scenario would you leave all your assets to him if you died first?

Then you can only reverse mortgage to the share of the house that is yours. You can only do what you can afford in life.

As others have said - this is normal and actually, extremely fair.

I would also want my children to receive my half and I am not sure why you disagree with this?

I totally agree with this, and I was widowed four months ago. You cannot put time constraints on when a person will/won't be ready to move on.

My mother also died only three months after my DH so that makes things doubly sensitive and difficult. I haven't fully finished dealing with DH's estate yet and we are now having to start on hers.

I am nowhere near ready yet to decide what to do about my own house and where I will live in years to come. Ready to get some necessary work done on it and to make it more how I personally would like it to be, absolutely yes, but not to make bigger decisions on it. Not right now.

I might stay here. It is still home and has been for many years. I might downsize, buy myself a bungalow etc. All decisions for me in the future, but not yet and I won't have a time constraint put on me.

Then you can only reverse mortgage to the share of the house that is yours. You can only do what you can afford in life.

I mean this kindly, as someone who was widowed 6 months ago I am nowhere near normality and the idea of having to move house would be horrible. You shouldn't really make any big decisions in the 1st year anyway.

That would make one party subject to CGT and that property would not be covered by IHT relief on your residence.

As others have said - this is normal and actually, extremely fair.

I would also want my children to receive my half and I am not sure why you disagree with this?

I would prefer we each left our respective halves of the to each other. The rest of his estate which is substantial (and roughly equal to mine) can go to his children. It’s about security of home for me.

So then what happens? Your dad has to get mortgage to buy another house? Maybe hasbto relocate somewhere he knows no one?Good luck to him if he is too old.

Except they are not LL. And if they were they would pay for the renovations IN FULL. Not a ‘contribution’

And tbh a new kitchen or a new bathroom is just a want not a need. They can easily replace them when the time comes to sell.
A leak in the bathroom, a gas leak, an issue with the roof. Even a boiler breaking down. THOSE are needs and essential. But I suspect the urgency side would mean it’s only the OP paying despite the fact them, as LL, should be dealing with it….

Exactly. And what if you would like to get a reverse mortgage and travel the world and you can't. I would not get trapped into any sort of arrangement like this. Its different if you come from a family set up yourself but as you are a single woman with no children of your own the dynamics are going to be a lot for you to get your head around.
Kids today can be very grabby and think an inheritance is some sort of right when really an inheritance is only an inheritance when it lands in your bank account.
Its telling that even though he wants you as a wife he doesn't want you to inherit as much as a bean from him.

My dad has bought a house 50/50 with his partner. Their written agreement is that his half will go to me and my brother and, similarly, her half will go to her children. After the first one dies, the other has 6 months to either sell up or pay half the value to the inheritors. Clear cut and saves things dragging on for years.