Who is being unreasonable – home ownership, inheritance and children from previous relationships

[Lotalota]

I have namechanged for this as I have some potentially identifying posts on here and want to keep this private.

DP and I have been together for 4 years. He has two DDs from a previous relationship. Him and his ex own a house together which they agreed to keep hold of until the youngest leaves primary school as it was just up the road and now the time has come to sell it.

He wants to buy house with me when he sells his house with his ex. As he lives in an expensive area of London where his DC will remain (his ex is wealthier than him) he can not afford to buy there alone and needs my salary in order to get a large enough mortgage. However, when talking about it he says that he would like to leave his share to his children and will not discuss having a clause that would allow me to remain there in the event of his death. I don’t have a problem with not inheriting from him but this does mean that if anything happened to him I would be out on my ear and I don’t fancy losing him and my home at the same time.

As a single person who has not owned a house before I qualify for a government scheme which would enable to part own a house with the share to buy scheme. Although this would not be as good as an investment opportunity it would mean that my home was secure no matter what happened to him. It would have to be in an area not as close to his DC as I can’t afford to do this there and there are no flats on the scheme available there.

I am not sure if this is relevant or not but I feel it may be. DP has always been financially secure. His parents are comfortably off and own two properties in expensive outright which he will one day inherit (he has one sister to share this with). He has always had very well paid jobs and is a just that bit older than me so was able to buy a house in an expensive area of London before houseprices went crazy. In contrasts my parents house was repossessed when I was 21 . I am now 34 and have saved up a small amount on my own but am not set to inherit anything. My pay is OK now but nowhere near his at my age.

He thinks I am being selfish and that he sure his children wouldn’t kick me out but I am not prepared to invest all I have and all I am ever likely to have in a property that isn’t secure. I am more concerned with security than making a profit.

To be clear I don’t think he is being unreasonable to put his DDs interests first but I think he is unreasonable to expect me to invest in a home that I would be forced to leave if he died when I have the option not to. He thinks that I am being selfish and that my refusal to buy with him on his terms is me stopping him living near his children.

Who is the unreasonable one here?

Im posting only because of the raft of YANBUs. I disagree. Totally.

There are significant elements to this that are being utterly ignored. Firstly, OP is anticipating enjoying potential shared ownership using DPs financial contribution/deposit too. This is a 2 way street.

If you were indeed able to buy the property alone, then yes Id agree with posters. But that isnt the case. This is 2 people joining financial forces to live in a nicer place than they could both afford individually. If 2 mates were buying, which is common, there is of course an understanding that if, heaven forbid, anything happened to either party, the property would be equally divided. Wills and bequests being utterly separate.

Secondly, why oh why, is everyone ignoring your financial ability to keep the property if your DP died? You wont wake up the morning after his passing, suddenly earning 3 times your current salary.

So only 2 considerations are on the table here. If you both take joint insurance to cover the joint mortgage in the event of death etc, (which you really must do), your share of that mortgage debt would also be paid off in the event of his death. (Not too shabby a position)

You would then have the choice of either, selling to meet his request of his children inheriting his share, or re-mortgaging for half the value of the property and paying the 50% value to his children. (Any lawyers here, would a joint mortgage insurance settlement become part of a deceaseds estate? Or would the estate only consist of the pre death equity?)

Worse case scenario, would you be able to raise a mortgage for 50% of the value? If you arent, then that perhaps that explains DPs position in the first place. Is it a huge discrepancy between your financial positions?.

Personally, I dont see the slightest issue in what the DP is proposing. Hes not demanding your deposit or your financial contribution is then bequested to his children if he dies, only his contribution.

If youre both matching deposits, and equally meeting the mortgage and bills, then both of you are utterly entitled to leave your estate to whom you wish.
If you are hung up on being a sole beneficiary, then youd be better served by taking out an additional death only insurance policy on DP for the value of half the property. (To cover the inheritance issue). That policy is unrelated to any property and stands alone, and you can specify that you are the sole beneficiary. The whole issue then goes away. Mortgage free plus a lump sum.

You have said you are not prepared to invest all that you have in a property that you feel isnt secure. I dont get this. Your share is, and will always be secure. It also ignores any future relationship breakdown. This is a bun fight over your partners share, in the event of his death, and ignoring the fact that hes actually paid for that share, imo is somewhat unsavoury. Are you actually stating that youll only consider buying with him if all his contributions must then come to you?

How would you feel if your DP stated that your hard saved deposit must immediately be earmarked for his (and his childrens benefit) on day one of joint ownership and infact those are the only terms that he would purchase with you? Thanks for your past 10 years of frugality. Result.

You are of course equally entitled to bequeth your share to whomever you wish and would suggest wills and additional policies are put in place to protect DPs position also.

Im curious though, What do you wish to happen if the relationship breaksdown?

Caroline, she doesn't want his share if he dies. But she doesn't want to be turfed out of HER HOME if his children will it! Rtft ffs.

A lifetime interest agreement just ensures that she gets to remain in her home as long as she lives. Once the OP dies, or decides to move, THEN his dc get their share. Which is totally reasonable. No?

I have read the full thread Orangebird, its full of 'hes a twat' not so feminist feminists utterly ignoring his contribution on the purchase. (I guess a/ being male and b/ the mention of wealthy parents warranted the whole vitriolic outburst)

Children will only ever have claim on 50% of the property. Full stop. No they cant move in, no court would allow that as it is the OPs home, and they can only force a sale if the OP cant financially meet the 50% bequest.

She has options that can be pre-planned for to cover that eventuality. As does he. The OP quite simply needs to take a measured sensible view on inheritance planning rather than 3 pages of 'hes a twat' advice. Not sure if the OP intended to make DP sound like hes a good for nothing scrounger whos bringing nothing to the party, or if its just how posters wish to translate it. Do we look forward to a years time, 'my partner earns 3 times more than me but he expects me to pay all the bills ' thread? To which you can jump in and call him a twat again. Brilliant. I love this new feminism.

that should have read....'half the bills'....... apols.

they can only force a sale if the OP cant financially meet the 50% bequest.

But, what is the likelihood of the OP not being able to afford this? It seems to be quite high.

It seems like it would be more sensible for him to ask his parents to contribute to the house and the OP stay out of it altogether.

Carolinesbeanies the children can go to court and try and force a sale that is why solicitors put that clause in wills otherwise they would not bother would they. She just wants to make sure at whatever age she is if she survives him her home remains her home until she dies. Most of us understand why the potential for legal battles over our home is not something to brush aside.

You need to buy your own place.

If dp wants to live there with you that's his decision.

Never ever compromise your own home security for the sake of any relationship.

I wouldn't agree to this.

However you seem to be OK with is ex having to sell and his children being moved and so is he so I can see why he would think the same sort of arrangement seems sensible to him.

Also are you intending to have children with him? What would their share be?

Have you looked at life insurance?

Have you looked at marriage?

If the DP agreed to the OP's proposal he is essentially privileging his partner over his children. Should he die relatively early it's possible that his children wouldn't inherit for decades as the OP is relatively young. With a reasonable life expectancy of 80 for a woman the OP could be looking to have a life interest of as long as 50 years. Presumably it would be a mutual thing so the OP's share could also be locked up for a very long time too.

I totally understand the OP's concerns, but I think that there are other options to explore, I'd start by looking at life insurance sufficient for the surviving partner to be able to buy out their share or purchase a new home of their choice. As both OP and her DP are relatively young that may not be hugely expensive, and would give the OP more security. Wills would be a very good idea too especially as they are not married, and there are options that are not as long term binding that might be a good compromise.

However you seem to be OK with is ex having to sell and his children being moved and so is he

That was agreed before I even met him. Their decision to sell isn't anything to do with me. His ex us buying with her new boyfriend and us keen to cut ties with dp.

To clarify, if I was to pass away first I'd ensure dp could stay there til he died and would probably end up leaving some of my share to his children.

If he was buying on his own i wouldn't expect to stay but I would rather invest my money in something secure, even if its part owner by the government and not in the area where he wants to live.

Some of the pseudo legal advice on here is shameful.
OP please go and see an independent financial advisor. Ask someone you work with for a recommendation. Choose someone senior at work who is likely to have a decent salary/ some investments/ pension. They'll know someone you can trust. Personal recommendations are best. Go to the meeting alone or with a trusted and savvy friend and have all your questions ready. Talk through possible scenarios ( you predecease him/ he predeceases you etc)
You really need to have the money and kids ( his and your joint future possible kids) conversation with this man. I don't know if you want or plan to have a family of your own with him, but you need to address every possibility. Be careful. If he won't deal with your concerns don't commit yourself to buying with him because he isn't considering you at all. Sorry to be harsh but it's really one of those situations where only straight talking will do. Love and romance are fine but if the sh•• hits the fan you need to be able to secure your own future.

OP,

I think you need to give very careful consideration, and look out for your interests. You never know what the future brings.

You may have children. If this happened, would he split his 'DC's share' with them as well.

What if either of you get really ill and can't pay your share of the mortgage for a while?

Also, does he consider you to be his life partner, or by someone just to share the bills with? What if you got married at a later date? What about inheritance tax and capital tax considerations. What if he needs to go into a care home, will you be turfed to pay half the costs?

At the moment, it seems as if his main consideration is sharing the mortgage costs in a pricey area of London.

Capital gains tax ( if he dies and you stay in the house then his children may need to pay this).

Yanbu.

If you decide to not LTB then might this work:

You put your own money into a buy-to-let property in your sole name which you rent out, in an area you wouldn't mind living in yourself. You have a mortgage on that obviously but presumably the rental income will more than cover that with a bit left over to boost your income if you are lucky.

You then are also joint applicant with DP on a family home with careful wording to ensure the percentage ownership is very clear.

Rather than a life interest in this family home, get it written up that in the event of either of you dying, the survivor has 2 years grace to make arrangements to move, after which it must be sold in order for the heirs of the deceased to inherit (or may buy the deceased's share if preferred)

If your DP dies you can then close the tenancy on the buy-to-let and either move in there or sell it to buy out your DP's kids.

I'm not going to have children with him. I did stare earlier on that I'm unable to and would rather not have to keep repeating it

I can't do buy to let. If I buy alone it will be in a shared ownership scheme with the government and I would have to live there. I can do this in an area where I wouldn't mind living but would not be as close to the dc as do would like. It would be a tube ride away rather than a walk.

Well thankfully Kit30, were coming out of the EU. If this were France, the OP wouldnt have a say in the issue. Childrens inheritances' are thankfully protected in the first instance and it takes masses of hoop jumping and planning to get round that issue. Perhaps a slight change in the hes a selfish twat attitude, would go along way here.

Would he compromise on taking out an insurance policy that pays out to you on his death that is worth half the value of the house, so that if he dies before you, you can use that money to buy out the children's share of the property and not be forced to move so they can get their inheritance?

That is absolutely the solution invisible kitten. It is important, and for the simple act of pre-planning, years of heartache can be avoided. OP, just in an attempt to repair some damage here, just consider what if the new partner of the childrens mother, demanded the same proviso? The situation would then be, that the proceeds from the childrens family home would end up with utter strangers who would more than likely, never see them again. Its important, and your DP is absolutely right to ensure that doesnt happen.

On a personal note, perhaps just jump in and start to enjoy this exciting time in your life. There are so many what ifs for the next 40 years, you'll end up spoiling what should be a very happy time for both of you. If you split up, the house will be sold and split. If chronic illness hits, you can only deal with that when it happens. This issue is only on death, and a stand alone life insurance policy, which wont be that expensive if its death only, resolves the provision element for the children. Who knows where your life may be in 15 years. You may own several properties with your DP by then, be married, flying high in a new career or any number of great paths your life may take. Enjoy this time. Do a little pre-planning with your partner, and go be happy. But for me, hes not being unreasonable.

I think the insurance policy might be the solution.

Caroline I don't want to actually inherit it. I just would like to know that I wouldn't be booted out of a house i own half of after retirement age which is the time that we are both likely to die. I would want to do the same for him too. I would think that mothers who are no longer with their children's fathers would be naive to think that any "new" partner would forgo financial security so their children get ge5 cash they would get anyway earlier.

I'm happy to keep finances separate but I think that sharing finances means sharing security as well as costs. Which in my case would be us both securing each other's right to stay in the house.

I like the insurance policy idea, but I'm not sure how you would get a policy for "half the value of a house" - would it be half of the current value or half of the value at some point in the future when the insured person dies? You'd have to guess at the amount you would want (and err on the generous side so there would be some left over!).

I am absolutely not an expert in this area but I am very wary of the 'life interest' clause that has been mentioned. I say this because I knew a woman whose husband died and left his half of their house to their children with the restriction that his wife could stay in the property until death (so far so good) but 40 years later she was a very elderly woman living in a big old, cold (no central heating) house that was becoming increasingly dilapidated because she couldn't maintain it. She should have moved to a small modern bungalow but she couldn't because she was stuck in the family home with no way out.

FWIW there is no way I would compromise my own financial (and residential) security for someone else's children. I agree with nearly every other poster that you have to look out for yourself. Independent professional financial advice is essential.

The insurance policy, is a possible way forward, but he if refuses, then you need to forget buying a property with him.

You can't take for granted that he'll die of old age/illness. You could be in an accident together and at the time he dies, you have serious, or life changing injuries.

You need legal advice, as Solicitors will cover all possibilities.

Considering he'll inherit property, so he's got other assists for his children to inherit, he's being exceptionally selfish, in expecting you to not even have security.

please do not buy under his terms, you'll end up having to sell your own home. As for "I'm sure my kids won't throw you out" that's rubbish they try it regardless of what they think of you whilst their Father is alive.