To sever joint tenancy even though DH doesn't agree??

[FigOPig]

My husband and I own our house, both on the deeds.

When we bought it we naively didn't really talk much about what would happen on death, we didn't even have a will, and we proceeded as joint tenants without really giving much thought as to what it would mean.

Anyway, fast forward to now and we have a son together. My husband also has two older children from his ex.

I've been thinking more and more about this lately and I would like to change to tenants in common so I can ensure my 50% of the house goes to DS. It is likely to be the only thing of real substance we have to leave the children as we don't have huge amounts of assets.

I would like to do our wills so that whoever is left has life time occupancy of the property but it's then split 50% to DS and DHs half to whoever he wishes (obviously likely to be the children).

DH doesn't agree and wants to keep as joint tenants so the house passes wholly to whoever is left. It would then leave that person free to give it to whoever they wish in their will. In theory if it were me, I could not give DSC anything at all or if it were DH, he could split it evenly between the 3 which I don't feel is fair.

Anyway, I've been reading up and it seems you don't actually need the other owners permission to go ahead.

If DH really puts his foot down and says no to doing it amicably, WIBU to do it anyway?

I really don't feel comfortable with the idea of not being able to control my share of the house and leave it to my son. It's what I wish to do with it if something ever happened to me.

Challenged!

@user1471457751

So if you split it 50/50, you want your child to kick him out to get their share. If not split and he dies first, you will leave it all to you child ignoring your stepchildren. Both show a really shit attitude towards your family

I wish they would bring back comprehension lessons in school.

So you want nothing to go to his older dc? Am I understanding this properly?

@Cherrysoup

So you want nothing to go to his older dc? Am I understanding this properly?

No, she wants her half of the house to go to her child, not her step children. Which is very reasonable.

@Cherrysoup

So you want nothing to go to his older dc? Am I understanding this properly?

No you're not understanding it properly.

If he did die before you, would you really give dsc nothing??

Posted too soon - if he thinks you would include the dsc in that situation, then he's just going on trust and so the way to sell it is to say it just formalises what everyone assumes will happen anyway and protects the kids.

Definitely do it OP.

Even without children to think of, it makes sense. With the possibility of remarriage or wrangling over inheritance I'm surprised more people don't do it. Care home fees too. Your DH needs it properly explaining by a solicitor perhaps.

[quote Porcupineintherough]@Mogul you are not the only one. I love my kids but the idea of leaving dh unable to be cared for in old age so they can get their slice of the pie makes me sick.

I dont think people realise what being left to the mercy of state provision actually looks like. [/quote]
That's not the only reason though. For example, my DH is 9 years older than I am. Women tend to live longer. If he needed care and all the money in the house could be used for his care I could be left with no money to pay for care I might need a decade or so later.

I think I will talk to him about doing the same. We only have one child, so things are much simpler in that regard but it does make sense to split things.

The house cannot be taken into account for care fees if it is resided in by the spouse or partner of the person needing care

www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/factsheets/fs38_property_and_paying_for_residential_care_fcs.pdf

@CheshireDing

If you change it to tenants in common, you really need to put a trust deed in place to say what each person wants to happen to their share.

I would change it if I wasn’t happy personally

This is what we’ve got. It’s recommended for second marriages.

You must do this to protect your son’s inheritance, and to prevent your half being touched in case of him getting into debt or needing care.
It’s a no brainer.
It also protects his half from his side.

I'd definitely do it. The stepchildren have their own Mum to inherit from.

Wh not a third each between the children instead of half to the joint child and a quarter each for the step children? Your current idea might leave resentment between the three siblings.

@user1471457751

So if you split it 50/50, you want your child to kick him out to get their share. If not split and he dies first, you will leave it all to you child ignoring your stepchildren. Both show a really shit attitude towards your family

You have absolutely no idea what tenants in common means, do you?

Even if you didnt know before reading this, you should have been able to figure it out.

It is absolutely the safest and fairest thing for all the children. Joint tenants is where you have the problem and some kids end up getting nothing depending on who dies first and what the survivor chooses to do.

With tenants in common, it doesnt matter who dies first. All the kids are protected. Why are you having a go at the OP for doing the fairest and safest thing?

You need to work on reading comprehension.

@Twinkleylight

The steps children will inherit from their own mother. It woildnt be fair for them to also get a piece of what the OP actually owns.

They will get their father's half and whatever their mother leaves them. The joint child will get the OP's half (and really should get a third of the dad's but that wont happen).

OP owns half that house. She can give that to her own child. The husband owns the other half. He can split that between his 3 children or just split it between his first 2 children, who will also inherit from their mum.

@vintagevixen

Are you still here to ask a question to?