Widow who wants to remarry...

[Ninetwenty]

I've been saying for years that I never would. It's too complicated with the conflict between the interests of DC and the marriage, but I'm starting to feel my age and frankly if anyone's going to be there for me as I get frail, it's more likely to be him than my adult sons! He's already supported me loads through caring for my parents, part of the reason I'm starting to feel this way is seeing how much more difficult things would have been for them if they lived alone.

My currently situation is that I have a large house and garden, too big for me, that I maintain to have space for DC to visit, which is a few times a year because of the distance. He lives in a rented flat, has some savings, but at a more "normal" level, I recognise I am very fortunate.

I have roughly the equivalent of the value of the house in savings and investments.

I have this idea that I could sell my big house and give the proceeds to DC as an early inheritance.

Then I would buy a much smaller, low maintenance place, possibly a flat in an upmarket block, using my savings and whatever DP is able to contribute.

I recognise that's a very good deal for him, and disadvantages my DC, but they don't do too badly out of it and I can't see a way for marriage to work unless you feel equal in it.

On my death DC would get everything, except the flat which would go to him, albeit that there might not be much left for DC to inherit, they'd have already had their share.

It doesn't necessarily need to involve a wedding, but I would like to move towards living with him, which again is something I said I never would.

Tell me about the pitfalls?

It’s not deprivation of assets.

Gifts made above the gifting limits are subject to IHT if the person gifting dies within 7 years of the gift. NB - if the gift wasn’t made, and the assets still within the main estate, IHT would be due anyway.

Deprivation of assets is the phrase used for a person giving away their assets and then seeking state funding for their care home etc. The local authority can rule that the person deprived themselves of the assets to avoid care charges and that therefore state funding would not kick in. This doesn’t have a specific time limit, it’s more about reasonable intent. Someone in their late 50s gifting assets and then needing care 5 years later would be unexpectedly early (possibly due to accident or disease) so unlikely to apply in this case. Someone in their late 70s who had already had two hip replacements and was not in the best of health - much more likely to apply.

Jesus. So this woman lost her husband, and the first thing his family could think of was force her to sell her home? She must have been so glad of the family she'd married into.

No, she could have chosen to stay in the bungalow, but she had never liked it so she chose a retirement flat to move to. Not forced to do anything, all her choice. She just wasn't able to inherit the property which was fine as she had no children to pass anything on to. The bungalow and then the retirement flat were maintained by the family so she had no costs either.

This is one of the most depressing threads I've ever seen on MN.

All these people who propose that every man is a scammer, and who clearly feel that no amount of money given to (adult!!) DC is ever enough. There must always be more more more, and women must never live for themselves lest DC be deprived of a single penny.

I'm a mother of two teenagers and at some point I hope to be able to give them £25-30k each to start their life with. Beyond that, I'm not going to make every single decision of my future life (I'm 51) purely based around how much inheritence I can leave them 30+ years from now! FFS, it's not an entitlement.

As for how misogynistic that view is - that women are only ever meant to be an instrument for someone else's benefit, never having the moral right to simply put their own happiness first...... don't get me started. Seriously.

Plus, the hypocrisy - the women saying "why do you need to live with him....I would never blah blah blah" probably most of them being married and living with a man. You have no idea what you would do in a situation you've not been in! What nonsense.

I'm sorry, OP, that MN is simply not a place to come and get balanced views, actually. There are genuinely better forums (such as the Thrive women's group in Facebook, where you'll get a lot more varied and common sense opinions and less ideology)

You sound like an intelligent, aware and balanced person. Make sure you will have enough if things don't work out with your DP but other than that, don't live your life in fear of disaster, wasting the good years you have.....

Well said @SecretsAndLies77

There’s further misogyny in the underlying assumption that OP is depriving her DC of monies from her late husband, when she has stated that she was the one with the higher earnings, has increased her assets since being widowed and also that she gave them the proceeds from his work life insurance policy and pensions, which were substantial.

It depends on whether the LA standard rate is lower than what the care home charges. If the funding rate doesn’t cover the current care home fees they look at funding the gap. Our local council advises contacting them six months before funds are due to drop below the threshold for LA assistance so that they can arrange a care needs/financial assessment.

The care home can choose to lower their fees to match the LA rate if there are no friends or relatives willing to step in and fund the gap, otherwise the resident would have to move to a home within the LA budget. The current care home can’t evict a resident while funding arrangements are being sorted out

If you’re talking about deliberate deprivation of assets to avoid care fees then there is no time limit. The seven year rule is for IHT purposes, whereas the LA can investigate as far back as they need to if they suspect deprivation of assets.

It really depends on your age and state of health. For example, if you’re in your fifties, fit and healthy and with no expectation of needing full time care at the time you disposed of the assets, then it doesn’t apply. But if you did it when you’re in your seventies - and especially if you’re starting to experience health problems - then the LA could say that you had a reasonable expectation of needing care in the future and you would be assessed as though you still had those assets.

I’m a 47 year old widow and there is no way I would be effectively make myself less financially secure to live with someone and give money away to my children. Of widowhood taught you anything it should have been don’t rely on anyone just yourself. There is no guarantee that this guy will be a help to you in old age. What if it’s him that has the health issues are you willing to care for him?

I agree with you both, and would further point out that every single thread on MN about inheritance from the child's perspective always gets shouted down with words to the effect of 'you have no right to expect to inherit anything from your parents'.

Some pp have merely seen this thread as an opportunity to get their kicks from telling OP that her relationship is a sham.

Offloading assets in your 50s when you’ve no idea how long you will live or what your care needs will be and for how long. Thinking her private pension will cover care fees in 20 years.

Getting financially tied to someone with a history of financial irresponsibility with no assets of is own. If they divorce after 10 or 15 years or less she could potentially lose a significant chunk of her assets.

We don’t know what his pension or savings are. If he didn’t save enough in his early days to get on the properth ladder how likely is he to have a decent pension? He also seems to have been self-employed for some period.

@Aluna yes, they might get divorced. Or OP might have a happy 2-3 decades of love and companionship with a man who has showed her care and consideration and who she has already known for a number of years.

I probably wouldn’t give away much more to the kids right now, in her position, as it seems they are already quite well set up. But I think selling her house for a place that suits her better is a good plan.

Happy to agree to disagree.

She can have decades of finanical companionship without marriage so why take that risk?

One of her chief concerns is that her adult sons will not look after her in old age. But there’s no guarantee this man will either, however nice he may be, many people are simply not cut out for it. So it would be more judicious to hold on to her assets to fund all her care needs and then she’s self-reliant.

Me too! My recent experience with elderly relatives have put it around £100k a year. Even my Dad - who had led quite a rich lifestyle and had a pension of £65k a year - had his savings eaten up by it.

Because marriage means something, to some people, and clearly to OP, since she has been married before.

Because if she loves and cares for him, maybe she would like him to inherit however much of her assets she wills to him without inheritance tax.

Because maybe he wouldn't want to cohabit with her for the next three decades without marriage and then risk losing his home whilst in a much older and frailer life stage.

Yes, OP should take care of her money as far as possible but christ, if she wants to fully share the rest of her life with this man, what's the point of letting her money prevent that?

Anyway, we see this very differently so I shan't reply again.

OP has provided the update below, which seems like a sensible approach.

So, on reflection, I thinking

Don't marry
Own the new place in my name on the understanding it goes to him on my death, but not if we split.

Why do you think he can save more money for a property living on his own than by living with OP? She won’t be charging him rent.

I said losing his home. A home is the place you live, love, laugh, cry, eat, sleep, have fun, have rows, think about the meaning of life and what roast to make on Sunday.

Yes, he might be able to save money living with OP, but if he doesn’t have his name on the deeds of those four walls, he may need to move out upon her death to a place which doesn’t have those memories, unless she leaves it to him. Which she might do. But if his name isn’t on the deeds, she might change her mind, even if he’s been contributing to bills and repairs etc for years.

ETA leaving thread now as I clearly am not cynical enough for it.

Fellow widow here - my sister is also widowed - she has kids but I don't. I've remarried and my sister has a new partner. Everyone is different and nothing is without pitfalls. I think a frank conversation (not very romantic I know) with your partner and also with your DC about what it means for everyone. That should clarify your mindset (and theirs) to a place where you can move forward. I know loads of widows via WAY who have remarried and it works for most.

I don’t understand why he doesn’t need to be on the deeds of his current home, but you think that he needs to be on the deeds of OP’s home?

Why are the memories of his current home expendable but the memories at OP’s home will be indispensable?

If he and OP split, he can still ‘live, love, laugh, cry, eat, sleep, have fun, have rows, think about the meaning of life and what roast to make on Sunday’ in his new home.

And by living with OP rent free, he’ll have a chance to save and make home ownership a reality, which he can’t do now as a tenant.

It’s not cynical advising women to be mindful that relationships can end and feelings can change, it’s pragmatic.

I’ve read so many threads on MN where women have lost tens or hundreds thousands of pounds and half their property when a relationship ends. It would be unfair not to advise OP of potential pitfalls. Ultimately the decision rests with OP.

People

I can't see why you shouldn't have wills that leave the property to each other when one of you dies, if you wanted you could make it so that his was a life interest so that it went to your DC after his death if you were to die first. I can't see that he would have any objection to this as he has no dependents, unless he has nephews or nieces that he wanted to help.
I do know one case where this hasn't worked, where someone died leaving a life interest to his wife, with the property going to his family after her death. She was upset by it because it meant she couldn't leave the property to her own DC, though realistically her DH had already helped them and she already had two other properties as well as other assets left to her by her husband. They had no shared DC.

Actually I have my own experience of this.

My dad was with someone for 30+ years after my mum died. He didn’t marry her or move in with her because he knew deep down that it would be sticky if he did. She would’ve fought tooth and nail to not give me or my siblings anything. She actually loved to tell me about her best friend who married a widow down south with a massive house in Surrey. He died very shortly after the marriage and his only child, at uni, got ZERO. My dad always says to me that his house is not just his, it’s my mothers too, and it’s going to his kids only.

I don’t really want any of my dads money, I’d wish he’d spend it on cruises. However, it would be a very dark cloud on my life if the house I grew up in, those memories and it’s worth was passed over to a partner who is of no relation to me, and didn’t work themselves to the bone to pay the mortgage like my dad and mum did.

Sorry OP, I think you are being played. Go be with your BF and move in together, but protect your well earned assets. He was a banker. My DH is a banker. Sorry, but they earn a tonne of money and get massive bonuses. If he’s blown the lot and doesn’t even own a one-bed flat he’s very very irresponsible and I wouldn’t be sticking his name on anything.

And NO, I wouldn’t be giving my husbands well earned money to another bloke if he ever passes away. My children come first, and any DGC will too.

OP - you asked for some positive stories.

FIL was widowed in his early 40s and we (his DC and me) were delighted when he met a lovely woman shortly before he turned 60.

She's several years younger and couldn't match FIL when it came to assets. FIL sold the family home, downsized and they bought a house together. FIL gave some of his equity to his DC and put the rest into trust for DC when he dies. And he's been very generous with the grandchildren who've come along.

FIL and his wife's house is their home and none of our business what happens when one of them dies. DH and his siblings wouldn't dream of questioning this or putting pressure on FIL's widow if (most likely) she survives him.

That's because they are decent people and they have loved seeing their dad so happy and content for the past 25 years. It's been a very enriching relationship for the whole family.

So, OP (if you're still here) ignore the posters who are telling you you're naive and your DP is a grifter. What are you going to do with your one wild and precious life?

My family have a similar to situation to one mentioned where my gran had it written into her will that her husband could stay in the house and inheritance delayed until he either moved on with someone else or passed. Her husband knew this was how her will was and had the locks changed before she had even passed away and was in a Relationship with her close friend before she was cold. It was horrible! 10+ years on , her children still havent had any inheritance (not that inheritance is everything but it is what she would have wanted given her husbands behaviour since!). It seems sensible to have a joint home that you both own and divide inheritance up as you wish that isnt tied to a house with the other one still living in it.