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

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.

Usually a trust forms on death and those who have an interest in the house are trustees. The terms we have set up is that everyone in the trust must agree on major things like selling the downsize the RTR person (if that's deemed appropriate), or other significant matters. It's collectively owned even though only one has the right to call it home while they live.

I think the next step for OP is legal advice to iron out these wrinkles or find out that she can't set it up in a way that is acceptable to her, so she avoids it altogether.

I think a solicitor has got involved and had to give dp the best advice for him as they have to do. It sounds like this was not actually his idea. Hopefully they will come to a resolution that suits everyone.

A lot of this depends on the terms of the will (no trust required). You could definitely set up the will so that if OP sells then the children must receive their share of the property value at that point.

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

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.

Did you miss the bit where she says their dad died years ago? I am sure his children would have loved to have been as lucky as you were.

One of you needs to own the house that you both live in; then the other keeps their house / rents it out so you both still own a property each. Then if for example he bought the house you both live in, he leaves it to his children and you have a period of time to live there before moving out (going back to your own house or selling etc) then his children inherit. Means you both still own your own property and have that as a safety net if/ when needed

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.

Exactly. They get a say then they help pay for it or no say and they don't contribute although it remains in trust until she dies so they don't technically own it until then.

TBH I just think OPs partner feels guilty - either his partners misses out or his kids do, so he is making a poor effort to keep everyone happy which isn't sustainable in the long run.

I would arrange a joint meeting with the solicitor drawing up your wills so they can explain the meaning of this set up.
https://osborneslaw.com/blog/life-interest-trust/#life-tenant

They could take over her affairs though or compell whoever is her POA to spend money on it.
What is OP getting out of a marriage to him anyway? He isn't even sharing his half between her and dc, it all goes to dc as they are his "family". Obviously he doesn't consider a wife family too. I just don't see the point in this whole arrangement.

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.

My mother died when I was 65. I think I was very lucky to get to my mid-60s with both parents alive. I’d rather have my mother alive than the money she left me, even though it was a pretty substantial sum. I didn’t see my mother’s house as “my inheritance.”

It is not reasonable that the deferred beneficiaries be required to pay for anything either - they might simply not have the money and be struggling to afford rent on the places they live. It could be decades before they inherit.

I think that sounds reasonable. That is maintaining in good order. I think they should be contributing to the kitchen (if it's a need rather than a want due to age/functionality/deterioration) but that might come with the trade off that they get a say in what is bought (they might want a cheaper one than OP wants, in which case they could always agree to pay half of the cheaper one and OP pays over that for the more expensive one).

It is OP's home but it would be half their house, just as much as hers. I couldn't put a new kitchen in a rental without the agreement of the LL, so this is similar when you have co-owners.

Leaving someone the right to stay in a property for life, even if you state it must be maintained, is accepting that the property will likely deteriorate before the ultimate beneficiaries will inherit. It is pretty much inevitable as the occupant ages that they will no be able to maintain the building to the same standard in their last few years or cope with the type of upheaval significant works require. On the upside, old kitchens don’t impact value all that much as, unless it is brand new and to the buyers taste, they may well factor in replacement anyway.

I think in the OPs case, DP is saying that she can't fit a new bathroom without asking or if she wants a new kitchen they get an input in to the kitchen but they don't have to pay. It's either her home or it isn't. A kitchen in good working order is all they should expect I think. Just like any house you inherit.

Unlikely, unless the death of the daughters is premature. In that case, their share passes to their children, if they have any, or to the other daughter if they don't.

They should pay their share of insurance, rates, taxes, essential maintenance because the house is theirs too and they will benefit from it being maintained when it's eventually sold. If they aren't contributing, then they should have no say and should leave OP in peace.

From the other side, my Uncle divorced and later married his second wife. They were both living in separate homes but sold them and bought one together. He'd had an inheritance when his father died and always said that money would pass to his children on his death.

He hadn't bothered writing a will, so everything including the house and the inheritance money went to the second wife who chose not to carry out his wishes and his children got nothing.

It makes sense for him to protect his interest so his children do get something eventually.

Thrashing out the ways and means of doing this is up for debate though. It needs to be something you are comfortable with.

Well, yes, but if OP doesn't have the money and something happens that is damaging the house, then it's understandable they'd want it sorted. Roof has a leak because it needs repointing, for example. The daughters should definitely be on the hook for half the cost of any ongoing expenses (rates and insurance) and all essential repairs to the building. It's half theirs after all.

I think I'd just run from this if another solution couldn't be found.

One of you move in with the other and keeps their own house - either to rent out or just simply keep it for use as and when by themself or family. You both sign an agreement that both of you will have no interest/stake in the other's house/estate unless explicitly stated in the will. You split all household bills 50/50. When one of you dies, then the other stays put (if it's their house) or moves back to their old house.

I don't see why the "children" should pay for any maintenance on the house. The OP could live longer than the children due to inherit and all they would have got from the house is bills.

There is no way to enforce that. OP might decide to leave it to cats protection, or get married again and leave it to her new H, or need care and have to spend it all on care fees. That would be essentially disinheriting his children.

He should leave his half to you if he dies first,then when you die his half goes to his kids