If you met your partner later in life (e.g. 60+), what proportion of your estate would you want to leave to your grandchildren or adult children?

[ChancerDancer]

Just that really. I'm curious to know whether, if you met a partner later in life, you'd still want most or all of your estate to go to your children and/or grandchildren?

Is it because men are more naive and believe their new wife will ensure his kids are looked after or is it they just don't care?

I think for a lot of men, especially of older generations, kids don't come first in the way that they do for women. I am late 40s, and a lot (not all!) of the men around me are not putting their kids first, even while they are still living at home. I imagine this will change - the younger dads I see seem to be much more child-oriented.

I don't have any kids or next of kin and my parents died early so I've already inherited, and have a gentleman caller who I don't live with (who has two kids).

If we were to live together I think we'd probably keep two homes - one to live in that he owns, and one as a holiday property that I'd own. As a socialist doing that makes me cringe but I can't think of any other sensible option. We would not marry.

Once the first one died, the other would vacate the property they didn't own within a reasonable time. He's lovely, so he'd get my pension (it's a public sector one and if I die after I retire it all goes back in the pot as I don't have kids - I think we could wangle it that he'd get something if we shared assets like a bank account etc). The rest of the estate - small private pension, life assurance and house would be realised and split equally between him, my godchildren, my niece, and a couple of charities that I support. At least then, children who have brought a lot of joy to my life would be able to get on the housing ladder.

I'd be happy for him to stay in a house I owned if it wasn't for the fact that my family don't live very long and his do! So we could be in the unenviable position that I die at 55, he lives to 95 like his gran did, and my eldest god-daughter who's just got married and had a baby at 35 won't inherit from me until she's 75.

@florapalum

Good point actually that many of us would assume our husbands would do the right thing by their children

but not if they’re dumb, selfish and easily manipulated

But you said you were leaving him a little money? And implied that this should help him find/pay for rented accommodation?
"this should give him the time and money to find some rented accommodation"

It's unlikely it will help if he has to be out of the house within 6 months. At least not initially - and refundable deposit plus a payment in advance can mean a fairly steep outlay when one starts renting.

Perhaps you simply meant it would help him later. But just thought I'd mention it in case you didn't realise how long an inheritance can take to come through.

I’ve known the same, sadly.

My dad started looking for a new relationship pretty soon after my mum died as he’d always had a woman looking after him (married his first wife at 16 and then straight into a relationship/marriage to my mum when that ended when he was 40).

I was 11 when my mum died and he resented having to suddenly do it all himself, or anything himself, he’d never even cooked a meal), at the age of 56.

I honestly think it’s because a lot of men are like that. women are just used to doing stuff, so don’t need another relationship in the same way.

And yes, it seems from what I have seen that women want to protect thier children’s futures more whereas men seem to prioritise a relationship.

Although, to be fair on him, my dad didn’t. he made it clear (legally) that they wouldn’t get a penny or be able to stay in his home, it was all supposed to be for me.

I would keep a partner I met after 60 totally apart from my home and my money.

Go on dates, holidays, stay over at each other's places.

But no next of kin.
No full time caring
No connection to house or money

Thanks for this reminder - fortunately I've already worked out how he gets the money without waiting for probate (but nuff said).When my sister died it took about 4 months for probate but the house didn't sell for a year, it's certainly not something you'd want to rely on. Again, thanks for the reminder though.

On behalf of my DM - everything to kids. If a partner moved in with her she would expect him to keep his own home in the event she died before him then he could return to his own home and vice versa. In my 50s I would feel the same.

This is what my aunt did. Her will stipulated two years before the properties were sold, they had a main house and a holiday house. Seems fair to me.

This

I would definitely still want 100% of my estate to go to my children and grandchildren. Any new partnership would be strictly limited to keeping each other company and sharing immediate living costs with no expectations of the whole "all my worldly goods" shebang. I would specify that if I predeceased that new partner then my inheritors should allow them at least 18 months grace period to make new housing arrangements (which might include buying my share of the home from my estate). But I would only enter into a new partnership with someone who wouldn't be dependent on me financially so I wouldn't anticipate this being a problem.

This.

I’m only 46 but if something happened to DH or we split, any future relationship I had would be under these conditions.

Just gone through this exact situation.
We have met and married at 50.
We have just set up a trust so that each of our assets, go into the trust if we die, the other spouse benefits the trust for life (rental monies etc, able to live in property for life), Then when the other spouse dies, the beneficiaries becaome the children/grandchildren.

This way, the spouse isn't immediately evicted from the home, can life there for life (or move out and rent it out, their choice), and the eventual recipient is the descendants.

What if he met someone else? and got married (unlikely perhaps) but happened to a friend. Her mum passed, dad met someone else and got married in his seventies.
Dad died.
New wife fought to stay in the house and keep the house- she didn’t win but it went for ages, cost a lot of money and was very stressful.

Wills are so important, I don’t know if had one or if the new wife said he made a verbal agreement she could stay in the home. A long and difficult process.

Everything to the kids. I wouldn't get involved with someone who was financially dependent on me - I would keep my house and he'd keep his.

This liferent business is great in theory, but in reality it creates a potentially very shaky foundation for family relationships going forward.

I mean, how weird to live in a house as a healthy widow, knowing that your stepkids know that they'll be getting a payout when you pop your clogs.

My partners father and his step mother had an agreement that whomever died first would leave everything to the partner and the partner would amend their will to include all children from their first marriages equally.

Partner’s father died and the step mother now has severe dementia and doesn’t have capacity to change the will. Despite my partner caring for his step mother prior to her needing 24 hour care he will get nothing from the considerable estate and it will all go to her estranged children.l who now live abroad.

The will should have had an agreement of tenancy until death (or moving into a home) and then his share of the estate should have been freed up for his heirs. The money is far less of an issue than some of the smaller personal things that her adult children arranged for house clearance guys to come take away.

Yes indeed. I think that's probably what my mum will have assumed. That he would make sure we were looked after, as he knows is what she would've wanted. But they were married, and she didn't stipulate anything, so everything automatically goes to him and that's that. I even asked him if I could have one of the rings she always wore. He said 'they're MINE to do with what I want.'
He said I might get them in the future 'if they still exist.' Christ.

In cases like this, I couldn't help hoping that the estranged kids would have a conscience and share the money. Maybe I'm naive but how could they enjoy a windfall in these circumstances?

we're in this situation. MiL met (now deceased) husband when they were 55 and 60. They sold their respective houses and bought one together.

Both had one DS each. When her husband died, his savings went to his son. MIL is living in the joint bungalow, when she dies her savings will go to my DH, the bungalow will be sold and proceeds split between DH and his "stepbrother". There's a fair chance MIL will end up in a care home, in which case all her savings and the property may be used up.

We have a very good relationship with DH's "stepbrother" which helps.

It's a different situation with my FiL. He lives abroad, his 2nd wife has 3 children. FiL has already told DH he won't be leaving him any money as apparently. MiL got "more than she should have done" in the divorce, and DH will benefit from that 😗. I suspect everything will go to his wife's family, especially if he dies first.

I went through this myself a few years ago. My mum married again in her 60s to a man in his 70s. When he died mum was left half of the house, his lifetime pension (a very good one) and some other financial assets & savings. She was also allowed to stay in the house as long as she wanted (his only DD had already died. It was very generous of the GCs to let my mum continue to live in the house imo).
When mum sold up to move in with my sister (about 4 years later) his 2 GCs got half the house value split between them and all the sentimental possessions & co. However, they had both been given £££ by him to buy properties in their 20s when he was alive.
Mum's DDs (me included) will probably benefit from his Will in the long-term, but he was a big part of our family for over 15 years they were married.

I agree, @Darkofnight.

Six months is no time at all for a grieving, possibly elderly, partner to find alternative accommodation. It would be a horrible position to put them in. Imagine that one of us lost our long term partner and we immediately have to start viewing properties, because the clock is ticking?

Nowadays, rental properties can be scarce and as for purchasing a house-it takes months to complete, assuming that a chain doesn’t collapse. What if they found property, started the process and it all went wrong after four months? They’d have to start all over again and possibly be homeless partway through.

I’d give a grieving partner at least a year to sort themselves out.

I wouldn’t marry again (if anything happens to DH & I!) and I wouldn’t live with another man again, but if I met another partner later in life they would get nothing in my will. I’ve worked hard with DH to build some wealth that we might pass on, and the only place it should go is our DDs.

I’ve asked DH to promise me that he won’t remarry if I die first, I want him to be happy & have a new relationship, but I don’t want anyone to be able to make a claim on our wealth & leave DDs with nothing. Yes, he could make a will, but I know full well he wouldn’t!

I couldn't make someone promise not to get married again @SlipperyLizard - it's nothing to do with me; I'm dead. And what if he met someone like me, with assets, and no kids, and we got married and I died first? Would you be content for your kids to have money and assets that my parents had worked so hard for? To have half of a final salary pension that they have no right to?

regret what exactly? She asked that i dont kick him out straight away.