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?

No, I’d want your assets to go to whoever you want them to, that’s the whole point. I don’t expect anyone else’s assets to go to my kids or my DH, but what I really don’t want is the wealth I’ve worked bloody hard to create go to someone else or their kids.

Different people will make different decisions, but there are too many stories of men (in particular) trusting new wives to do the right thing and effectively disinheriting their own children.

Agree with this.

Dh and I are still thankfully very much together but if the worst was to happen I have no need to be moving anyone into my home. This house is our safe space (even when the dc are adults!) so why would I bring a stranger into it?

If I did falter and decided to have a live-in chap rather than a gentleman caller - which incidentally I really like the sound of! - I’d sign the house over to my kids with a lifetime interest for me. I have far more faith in my kids to do the right thing than some bloke with pound signs in his eyes.

General consensus here is children should inherit BUT very little mention of the fact that anyone who is financially dependent on the deceased can make a claim on their estate (and challenge the will). If my DP died without including me in his will I would have a right to challenge it and he would need to make it clear why he was not leaving anything to me. I haven’t left him anything in his will and had to put a sentence in about how this didn’t reflect my feelings for him. DP has included his ex wife in his will because she is still finanicially dependent on him (although his grown up kids aren’t).
So I guess what I’m trying to say is get a good solicitor to draw up your will if you are living with someone(or have financial ties to someone) you don’t want to leave any of your estate to.

I think it depends how long a couple have been together. I am my husband’s second wife, although we married way before the age of 60, and we have two children together. My step children will not benefit financially until we both die as it is our estate not just his. I would never cut them out of my will though - I have been in their lives a long time. I have also contributed a lot of money to that estate. I doubt I would marry again if anything happened to my DH and would certainly protect the inheritance of all the kids (not just those that are biologically mine).

Guess it depends on how long you're together. My children would have everything. I wouldn't leave it to my partner, not big stuff anyway.
I'd assume he already had a house of sorts at that age anyway so id want him to stay until it was sold and proceeds to children. He could keep his house going himself.

Kids all the way. Just look at what happened to Linda Bellingham's sons.

That's tricky though. what if the partner lives another 20 years? who is responsible for upkeep of the house?

If it were 100% my house I'd say partner to stay for, say 1 year then goes to the kids - gives them time to find something else.

This is an illuminating discussion.

I'm wondering - all those of you who said you'd bequeath to your children, and all those who said that you'd first give a life interest in the house to your partner, would your answer be different if the partner had no assets of his/her own and only his/her state pension as income (such that even if he/she were allowed to live in the house till he died, he/she probably couldn't afford to)?

You would hope but I honestly don’t believe these two will. They’ll go by the letter of the law as the issue is an ethical one not a legal one. I would hope they’ll give something to the grandchildren but the kind of money they’ll be looking at will be life changing for them. They’re unlikely to be giving it away when they don’t have to

I don't know, it's a really tough one. This whole thread is reinforcing my natural tendency to think it's better to stay single! I think for me a lot would depend on how my DC was doing (I only have one) - if they were already set up, I'd helped them with house deposit etc. and they were earning well then I'd feel less anxious about them inheriting. It would also depend how my DP had ended up in this situation of having no assets - if it was due to circumstances outside of their control and they'd been generous to me in other ways, then I wouldn't want to leave them wanting. But if their impecunity was due to lack of financial prudence or just because they hadn't planned ahead, I think I'd be less likely to want to bail them out.

I wouldn’t get involved with someone whose only income was state pension and who had no assets. They just wouldn’t appeal to me tbh and I’m not that desperate for a fella.

Not only would they struggle to afford to maintain the house, but how would they afford to move out? My kids could end up with the loser refusing to budge cos he’s got nowhere to go.

all of it, I would never re-marry, I would never move a partner into my home and I would not be willing to make any financial or legal commitment to them.

It’s tricky, because if the partner genuinely has no assets, they’ll receive assistance from the council/Social Services in finding alternative accommodation.

If they do have savings (say they sold their home to move in with me), they won’t receive any help and will have to find a place themselves-which is fine, except they’ll need adequate time to do this, especially if they’re elderly.

If they’ve rented out their house, they’ll need enough time to get the tenants out. I honestly can’t see anyone maintaining an empty property for say 20 years in anticipation of their partner croaking at some point!

Overall, it’s not a good situation to be in and it would be better to both sell up and buy a house together…although what happens if I leave my share of the property to my children?

My answer would be exactly the same. It's not my fault if my partner had no assets of their own and I'm not going to let my child miss out because of it. It's up to them to adequately plan for the future, not up to me to bail them out.

Still children 100%.

wouldn't change my decision for trust with life interest. The house will be paid off, the spouse could be left more assets maybe a portion of the pension to enable them comfort in remaining years. After all you don't want to think of spouse being hard up.

In those circumstances it would be a massive mistake to leave the partner with a life interest. Property needs upkeep and maintenance and if the bereaved partner only has a state pension they won't be able to keep the property in good condition, the children's/grandchildren's eventual inheritance could be seriously eroded in value by a potential couple of decades if neglect and disrepair.

Cast iron, a few solicitors not just one consulted to make sure everything left to dc.

He can't live in house unless he's contribute financially otherwise other arrangement.

I'd like to think someone I met at 60 could support themselves..... Dh and I have slogged to get house paid off and made repayments when on our I knees and never upgraded house to keep stable and ok.
Our dc have lived in smaller house but it's a great investment. Why would I waste all that on 60 year old who can't support himself?? Who I've not lived a life with..

At that's stage in life why get married?? Be in love have a partner?

No, answer would be the same, it was agreed before my mum’s DP came into inhertience. As well as the house being the only thing to leave me, my mum actually got the house from my dad as part of their divorce. I imagine i’m not the only one with this situation.

In England and NI , I can't say definitely for anywhere else, a marriage invalidates an existing will, unless that will was specifically made "In anticipation of marriage". That needs to be done with appropriate legal advice.
A person, including a surviving spouse, can change their will any time they like, regardless of what might have been discussed and agreed previously.
If everyone sorted out their life insurance and property situation at the time of buying both, and reviewed everything regularly, a lot of distress and heartache could be avoided. There are so many sad stories on here.

All of it tbh, but I wouldn’t marry or co-habit again either.

If you allow the survivng spouse to live in the property for a time limit (say 12 months) and they overstay. How do you evict them?

They won't be on an Assured Shorthold Tenancy. Would they have squatters rights?

@toomuchfaff Unfortunately, the state pension would not cover the council tax, utilities, household insurance, phone/internet, home maintenance, food etc.

The partner, especially an unmarried one who didn't automatically get a widow's pension as income (even assuming you had a pension which continued to be paid to a widow/widower in the first place), would need a hell of a share of the estate to ensure that they were not 'hard up' in the last decade/20 years of their life.

That would be at the expense of the children's inheritance.

So are you saying you'd still be prepared substantially to shrink your children's inheritance in those circumstances?

Tbh, you’d have that problem if they were supposed to leave immediately. As they’re not a tenant, I imagine that the new owner could treat them as a squatter, change the locks and chuck their stuff onto the street?

That’s what would worry me, I suppose, not giving a grieving partner any time to sort out alternative accommodation. We all hope that our children would be kind, but who knows? They might have greedy partners themselves or money worries.