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?

This.

Ive spent my entire life working hard to have my house, savings, pension etc. I want them to go to my kids , not some bloke I’ve just shacked up with.

I don’t Intent to be anyone’s “ nurse with a purse “.

There's such a different perspective from men and women isn't there.

My dad doesn't see her as "person he's just shacked up with" but love of his life who he wants to keep providing for after he dies. I dont think he's fussed about his kids as we're grown up . And he genuinely thinks leaving it all to her means it will go equally to her kids and us after she goes. Er no. And of course in those years in between the gifts will go one way!

This is not correct you cannot stipulate what someone does with an inheritance if you leave the house to a partner it become part of their estate - they can of course then change their will and leave the property to their own kids

I am so surprised that people do not understand inheritance you cannot leave a property to someone and then stipulate that they pass it on to your kids when they die! It becomes part of their estate and they can then change their own will once you are gone and leave it to whoever they wish!

This is what my dad did, he’s since passed away, my DC should benefit, as I have option to pass it down, which I may as well since DSM is only 15 years older than me, her mother lived to 97, she may well outlive me! Not sure what my late mum would think, that her DC are unlikely to benefit from any of her estate, and step mum who bought nothing to relationship gets to live on in house.

What about children who never get in touch with their parent from one year to the next? Are they as deserving of an inhertance?

I chose to have said children. I wouldn't put "conditions" on an inheritance, that's very spiteful.

I have been married to DH for 20 years. We are very late 60s.
I have adult kids, he has no kids.

House was mine - he moved in. But he sold his house and we paid off my debts, some mortgage, put in joint savings, bought cars for DDs through uni .

So if I go first - he gets everything but the girls can have any personal stuff.
When he goes he leaves everything to the girls. He has no one to leave anything to.

I wouldn't live with them if I met a partner later in life so there would be no complicated housing issues to sort out after death - I'd keep my independence. I'd probably leave them a token amount of a few thousand but the vast majority would go to DD.

This. I have literally seen this happen and it results in horribly stressful and protracted legal battles. I'm sorry but if it were me, as soon as I died, the house would go to my kids. The partner is perfectly capable of finding somewhere else to live- they managed to house themselves for 60 years prior to meeting me so they can find somewhere to live once I am gone.

He has no one to leave anything to

What if he met someone after you passed and left it to them? it happens, its naive to think this could never happen

I am a single mother in my 50's, and whilst I have a lovely friendship/ relationship - i would never move anyone in and risk my children's inheritance. I cannot imagine any benefit to remarrying and risking someone else having claim to my house and pension, which i have worked so hard for, whilst raising my children....

I would also never be in any sort of relationship with someone, who is unable to comfortably maintain their own life (independently from me).

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

I agree with this completely. After the age of say, 40, I'd be highly suspicious of someone who had literally no assets whatsoever who wanted to live in the house I had worked and paid for my entire life. Why don't they have anything to show for their entire working life?

Also, the people stipulating they should leave it to their kids when the partner dies are being very foolish- once they have the asset of your house they can do anything with it that they like- they could leave it to the cats home if they wanted to and what about if they ended up in a nursing home and had to sell the house to pay for it? they could live for another 40 years- it happens.

People really need to get proper legal advice about the ramifications of this and what could potentially happen. Noone likes to think of the worst case scenario but its important- if we never thought about bad stuff happening, noone would ever get house insurance for example.

He has no friends? No favourite charities?

you should really either leave everything to your husband and your children get nothing, which is your shitty choice, or do something to ensure your children get something. Hoping for the best isnt a plan.

How do you know he won't meet someone else and decide to then leave it to her? Unlikely scenario but I wouldn't want to risk my children ending up with nothing.

I agree, many men in their 60s and 70s find a new partner very quickly. He could choose to leave everything to her and her children.

Often they get married and then chose to “ do nothing “ by not making a will in favour of their late partners children. They just say ( as you are )

” Oh my new wife Betty knows that the house and contents all belonged to my first wife @ColinRobinsonsFart , I’m sure she will do the right thing and leave it all to then when she dies.”

That way they don’t have to feel guilty because they are not actively disinheriting your children and breaking all their promises to you. They are just taking these promises and passing on the duty to fulfil them to Betty.

Meanwhile Betty tells herself that if he wanted the assets to go to the ColinRobinsonFart family, he would have made a will in their favour. Therefore when he dies she has no qualms about keeping everything.

After all, she is the one who looked after him in his old age etc . And then kids are in their 40s, what do they need it for? Whereas she is a widow in her 70s on a pension etc.

In every case I’ve know like this, the second wife ( and her kids ) get all the assets.

I just googled this and it's shocking. I bet she also thought he was a nice, decent and kind man but look what he did! Inheritances bring out the absolute worst in people and everyone saying "Oh, he'd never do that" needs to google what happened to her. She'd be utterly devastated if she knew what he did to her sons.

Going back to the OP's question- I agree with all the PP questioning why a 60 year old cannot financially provide for themselves?- was that what attracted them in the first place- they had no assets or money and saw an easy target who had a ready made house for them to live in?

Who on earth could ever find that attractive in a partner- it would turn me right off and would really make me question their motives 😬 Some people in this thread really need to wake up

@NotMyFirstChoiceofName that's exactly how it's going to work with my dad. They've combined assests as they married at 65 and sharing life together. Very involved in the new wife's family.

They have a very "comfortable" lifestyle and money and my brother and I truly don't. Which is how it is. But it is heartbreaking it won't be left to us.

I've had from him "don't you trust my (lovely new) wife?"

And we just look money grabbing.

My father remarried in his sixties (to a woman of a similar age). They didn't leave each other anything in their wills except a life interest in their half of the house.

That seemed sensible to me and when my husband and I wrote our wills a few years ago we took a similar approach.

We didn't meet in later life and have now been married for more than 30 years. I am nevertheless not leaving him anything except a life interest in my half of the house.

We are both retired. He has a good private pension, a state pension, and if I die first he will also be entitled to a widower's pension. He has plenty of savings in his own name and will automatically get the savings in our joint names.

He doesn't need anything further from me and I am leaving everything to our adult children. We don't have grandchildren.

Of course it would be wrong to put conditions on an inheritance. Many people have very small families so who is going to inherit then becomes obvious.

In my experience, there is usually a solid reason for this- people don't usually go low or no contact without a specific reason. Putting conditions on inheritance is horribly manipulative and unpleasant.

All of it. And I'd expect the same from him.

I am in the same situation currently. However, my partner and I have decided to draw up a legal deed to cover us in the event of a split or either one of us outliving the other (we are both in our 50's. Both financially stable. Both divorced. One of us has 2 x adult children). So in the unlikely event of a split, we sell the house and take out what each other put in plus we split any extras since moving in together.
If one of us dies before the other - we've agreed that the other will stay in the house. And if at that point the one still alive decides to sell half of the proceeds will be split - 25% to each of her children or 50% to my niece (if i die first). And the other 50% will stay with the person still alive (hope that makes sense).
We also want to make an amendment to the doc, to enable the person who outlives the other the option to 'buy out' the person's half and give their inheritance that way - but we are not sure if this is possible, so taking to this back to our solicitor for advice.