Not as committed to the marriage due to not merging finances?

[chocolatesaltyballs22]

Had an interesting discussion with my husband last night. For background, we're both on our second marriages. Married 2.5 years, together 8. I have one child and he has two. We don't have kids together.

Further background. My ex was very controlling with money and when we split I bought a house with my divorce settlement and was very happily financially independent for a couple of years before I met husband no 2. Financial independence is VERY important to me.

My husband moved into my house and sold his when we got married and we each pay half of everything. We earn around the same. I'm very keen not to completely merge finances as I want to retain some independence. He thinks this is a sign of me not being as committed to the marriage as he is. I disagree.

To be clear, he doesn't try to control what I spend money on in any way. So I'm not sure why it matters to him that we haven't completely merged our finances. He also thinks it's odd that I want my daughter to inherit everything I have, and that we won't simply split everything 3 ways between the 3 kids.

Not sure which one of us is being unreasonable and would be interested to hear your views.

I think your husband is right. However I am with you. I would want my child to inherit the house, you have one child and your husband has 2 children so things will never be equal.

I have read some sad stories about inheritance from step parents that were wonderful and raised their stepchild as their own until the will came about and left the money to their actual blood relatives.

@Hazelnutlatteplease

I'm a little at a loss at the outcome you are expecting here.

He gave up his home so you could improve your home. Substantially improving the value of your home in the process. That was a fair commitment on marriage.

But Yes that quite definitely gives him a claim on your property. Maybe not 50/50. but if you couldn't afford the mortgage now solo, i doubt you could afford to buy him out. Have you considered the prospect that it is enough of a claim to ensure the house would have to be sold to retrieve his share in the case of divorce.

Yes i absolutely think if i was him that a share should be sne of the value of the home going to his kid in any will. His asset upon marriage went into improving what he now saw as a joint asset. That's what being married is about, working together to build something worthwhile together, but that should also benefit all the kids not just yours. His equity is in the house too.

You really are wanting to behave like you never married the guy. But you did. Marriage isn't just a big party its a commitment, and a legal contract. Both of those things should have meant something to you.

Marriage a legal contract that very rarely benefits the person with the most equity. Seeking legal advice now is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I see what you're saying but the difference is that he had bugger all equity vs my £200k. All I'm looking for is for that balance to be addressed in our wills. I don't think that's unreasonable.