Late mum's husband has new partner - still living in mum's home

[stepparentdilemma2023]

Hi all

Bit of a backstory, my mum remarried a new guy (stepfather - SF) in 2018. They subsequently bought a house together, which mum paid about 80% and him about 20% of, that same year.

Mum sadly was diagnosed with an aggressive form of breast cancer and died relatively quickly in May 2022. SF received a third of her pension in the will, which already raised eyebrows among me and my brother (mum's only children), but mum's investment into the house was protected, so we still own her share.

Since mum died, SF has continued living in the house, which has increased in value quite dramatically since 2018. He has had one of his adult children, who is a bit of a tearaway, living there on off (in life, the adult child was not allowed to stay at the house by my mum as he had been involved in drug debt and had had a brick put through the window of his own mother's house, as well as being briefly kidnapped (!!) to pay off the debt).

We have maintained generally cordial relations with SF, and had arranged via WhatsApp to see him this Christmas when my brother noticed his WhatsApp picture was a photo of him and a new woman. When we eventually did go for our Christmas meetup yesterday at the house, his wedding ring was off, several photographs of mum had been taken down, and he confessed he had been seeing a new woman for a number of months.

Brother is very disappointed as previously SF had gone on about how mum was his soulmate, he'd never love another, etc... only to enter a relationship with someone new in just over a year.

I'm not sure how I feel, because I was never as close to SF in the first place, but I do know I think my mum would've been quite upset at how quickly (in the grand scheme of things) this had all come about.

FWIW, the new woman lives independently to him (as far as we know), is apparently quite wealthy (he's landed on his feet again!) and has two children of her own.

AIBU to now think that if SF has moved on with his life to the extent he is comfortable enough to take off his wedding ring and meet a new woman, that it is time we take back the house and sell?

My brother is getting married in 2025 and could do with some funds for that, and I have had a couple of my own financial issues this year so am now at a stage where the money would be hugely beneficial.

Sorry it was a long one!

"It's teh feelings of someone who was abroad when mum was in her final years who seem to not have any compassion for the partner." [sic] WTAF????

Are you saying the OP should not have been abroad - in what turned out to be her mum's "final years"??? Seriously??? So none of us can ever move away in case a parent dies then? How bizarre.

As for no compassion - the man has been living in the house he apparently only owns 20% of for a year and a half. Are they supposed to just give it to him??

The photo's could be down for any number of reasons. To be put somewhere safe or even because the widowed husband found them painful to see. If you haven't been there (and I'm guessing you haven't), then no, you probably don't understand why he would have taken them down. It isn't for you to understand. It's for him and him alone. The judgement on how people 'should' act when widowed is so ever present in society, and it's not helpful. Yes, the OP is grieving, but so is the SD and what she wants doesn't trump his wishes.

Nor does the SF's grief trump his late wife's daughter and son!!

A partner can be replaced - and he seems to be doing that already - but a parent can't. It's a fairly safe assumption that the photos have been removed out of consideration for the new woman.... at least that is how it will be coming across to the OP.

The photos conveniently came down when the new woman arrived! Not a coincidence in my view.

I am horrified by this thread. I am genuinely shocked at the callous posts, the lack of understanding that op might want to move on. The need to not be reminded of her precious mother and the loss she has endured - witnessing her family home being used by people her mother didn’t approve of. It’s too painful. Thats why the house needs to be sold, op needs to heal, and to feel she can move on and is not tied to an investment with a man that is planning a future elsewhere. I hope op is okay.

No, not the case - presuming your MIL house was sold for market value and the cash put aside - if that money is used up and runs out (on care costs) the state will step in and fund, relatives are never liable UNLESS they have been beneficiaries of a large gift that is ruled deprivation of assets.

I am assuming your MILs house was sold by a deputy or POA holder as she no longer has capacity due to dementia, in this case the attorney has the duty to ensure the property is sold for market value.

But you will never, ever be liable for someone elses care fees, unless you want to of course!

I 100% agree with you. I am shocked and disgusted.

People can be so utterly horrible.

Yes, my bil had POA, thank god. Thanks for this info, I’m almost tempted to ask for my half of the money, it would help very much for our retirement plans, particularly if mum doesn’t need it. She’s got all the equity of the family home and owns her current home outright and is very comfortably off!

@mayorofcasterbridge unfortunately inheritance, along with opening the door to strangers :) drives MN nuts. People fall over themselves to kick someone call them greedy, unfeeling, selfish etc etc whenever money is involved I'm afraid.

Regardless of OP's purported motives or otherwise. SF only owns 20% of the house. It doesn't matter that he lives there. The majority of the property belongs to OP and her brother! It's useless for people to say OP has no right to feel anything, speak out etc etc. She literally does. It's HER property. She owns more of it than the SF.

We'd all agree that it's callous for OP to consider kicking SF out within a week of the funeral.

Do the PP castigating OP also think 18 months is callous? If not, when?

It was never the "family home." It's a house the op's mother bought with her husband, and the op is not entitled to kick a man out of his home so she can "heal." And so what if he took some photos down? If he's in a new relationship he might want to be sensitive to his girlfriend's feelings.

Your level of drama is remarkable.

You can't have any of it yet, nor can your brother in law, as attorney he has responsibility to hold it for her best interests (ie care etc..)

But when it's gone (on said care), none of you have any legal obligation to pay anything yourselves!

Who knows when they came down? When was the last time OP saw them up? It's been 18months since she died. He could have taken them down a year ago, it doesn't sound like the OP or her brother have been around a lot.
I am not trying to minimise the OPs grief, I'm just pointing out that there's another side to this.
Quite apart from the fact that OP has no idea what was in the will or if her and her brother are actually in any way enttitled to anything, and if so when. As has been pointed out earlier by others, the legalities all depend on the will, so nobody can tell her what to do about it until she's read it!
And honestly, I've lost a parent and a partner, and there is no comparison. 'A partner can be replaced' is an awful thing to say, you cannot replace your person. Ever. I could point out that most people can expect to lose their parents, but few expect or can be prepared to lose a spouse relatively young. It's meant to be the person you spend the rest of your life with. Its heart breaking losing a parent, but a very natural part of life. Losing your spouse is not in the slightest bit comparable.

He owns a tiny 20 %…. Op and her brother own 80%. He does not have the right to live there indefinitely depriving them of their inheritance.

I think we’re at cross purposes. Ignoring my mil’s situation, may she RIP, my mother sold the family home, 50% of which was willed to me and my brother by my dad (obviously passed). She has got this money sat in an account, having sold the house. She owns her new house outright and has a couple of grand coming in monthly from various sources. Sorry, think I was confusing!

According to someone who doesn't actually know what the will says. Let alone whether there is provision in it for the SD to stay as long as he wishes - which is the usual way of things.

How do you know? He very well may have every right to live there as long as he lives. The op doesn't even know. In fact, she doesn't really know anything about her mother's last wishes or what her will states, which is quite telling, honestly.

'The' level of drama is remarkable.

Agreed!

Unless and until mum paid 100% of the house, it was not her home alone. Also what the Will says about life interest in 80% and cohabiting or remarrying.

It’s already been covered at length that the plan to sell would only be possible if there is no clause awarding sf the right to remain to the end of life. This whole thread is based on that premise. Otherwise there would be no thread duh!

But we don't actually know this though. Not for sure. As has, quite rightly, already been pointed out, if the house was jointly owned rather than tenants in common, then the mother's ownership will automatically have been transferred to the stepdad. So the OP won't actually own anything.
But all this is speculation as, ridiculously, OP hasn't seen the will 18 months on!

I think it’s quite disgusting actually that sf hasnt offered to sell before now, or at least offered!! That says a lot in itself. If I only owned 20% of a property I wouldn’t be depriving my late wife’s children of their rightful inheritance, and just sit on the money indefinitely for my own benefit. I would do the decent thing and let them choose what is the best way forward.

The law is very clear, where a property is held as "tenants in common" which it almost certainly is with an 80/20 split, no party can sell without the agreement of all parties.

Technically one party could sell their %age, but it would be massively devalued as there is no market for such percentages, and it would cost a potential buyer dear to realise the value.

In the case parties cannot agree the party wanting to sell petitions the court for an order for sale.

The court then has to consider the purpose the "trust" (legalese for tenancy in common in this case) was formed for, and whether the purpose of said trust still exists.

It would be argued the purpose of the trust was to provide a home for SF and DM, DM having passed then the purpose of homing SF still exists.

DC have never resided in this home, so the purpose of the trust never involved them.

Likely then the court would uphold the DCs financial interest, but also the SFs right to remain for his life.

This process would costapacket, loadsamoney, to the DCs - far easier to wait for SF to move on of his own accord and realise the 80% as and when..

of course the argument is logical. It’s entirely illogical to suggest it’s ok to force him to leave because his girlfriend, whose finances are nothing to do with home, is wealthy.

If you want to look at this purely from an emotional point of view, it’s definitely a tantrum.

From an emotional point of view they only want him out because he has a girlfriend and is no longer playing the part they think he should.

Owning 20% is neither here nor there. It’s his home. It’s also likely that the lighter have some guidance on what she expected. Op believes she knew her mother that well she knows what she think of him moving on. But seems to have no clue what her mother would have expected regarding the home. Given he lives there, it’s not as simple as they want the house sold so it can be. It’s far more likely that the will contains wishes for him to stay than leave. Surely the op and the brother didn’t just forget that part?

If someone posted here that they owned 20% of a house with their husband and their husband kept pointed out that their fraction was tiny and not important would you think it was ok?

I think it’s highly unlikely there was nothing in the will about what was to happen to the house. Or that the issue has been ignored.

Ops question isn’t when is it morally right. It’s is it morally right to expect him to leave since he has lived on quicker than I would have liked. You are suggesting that he lives his life at a pace that suits op to stay in his home.

The Op can move on. She doesn’t need the cash to move on. She can move on as much as he can. We don’t even know what’s on the will. If the mother said he was to live there as long as he wants or until he remarries, would that be the mother preventing him from moving on.

and yes the girlfriend being wealthy is neither here nor there. Because her finances are nothing to do with the Op.

I would have far more sympathy for the Ops position if this was something They were pursuing already. Op doesn’t even know what was in the will. But killed straight to, right he needs to leave because I don’t like his choices. Op appeared to be quite fine up u til he made a choice she didn’t like. I know what it’s like to lose your mum. It’s awful. But it’s also awful to decide you want someone’s home sold, only because you don’t like a choice they made for themselves.

@Newchapterbeckons how do you know he doesn’t as it depends on the will?
my friend died and the house belongs to his children but the will states that his partner can live their for life , despite not owning it

Also I'm not sure anyone can decide for someone else that its too quick to move on. That is down to the individual and nobody else's business either really. Sometimes these things happen and the person is not even expecting it.

It's your last sentence that sums up the issue.
You are saying that OP had no intention of selling the home until SF met the new woman. And is only doing it to punish him. So, according to your interpretation OP would have waited indefinitely had he continued, erm, play the part of the grieving widow.

But my interpretation is that OP always intended to sell the house if possible, and get her share. Why would anybody NOT want any cash they're entitled to? It's just that, as I have stated several times on this thread doing that ASAP, say after the funeral would be callous and cruel.

18 months later, OP + her brother are needing cash and the SF appears to have moved on. Is it still 'callous and cruel'?

THIS is really the question OP is asking and has been mired by discussions of the new woman, landed on his feet, etc etc.

Quite frankly I think if the OP was indeed grabby and wanted cash ASAP she'd have gotten a copy of the will, done all of this as soon as possible.

There are options here depending on what the will says, OP could negotiate with SF, go to court, etc etc but that's not the question being asked. What's legal is legal. What's moral is moral.

Btw, not sure who the PP was who said that SF is likely to be allowed to stay as DC never lived there. That depends on who is responsible for the maintenance cost. If SF doesn't have enough money to maintain it and neither do the children a court isn't going to force the latter as majority owners to go into debt for it.

I think it’s quite disgusting actually that sf hasnt offered to sell before now, or at least offered!! That says a lot in itself. If I only owned 20% of a property I wouldn’t be depriving my late wife’s children of their rightful inheritance, and just sit on the money indefinitely for my own benefit. I would do the decent thing and let them choose what is the best way forward.

@Newchapterbeckons As with many people, when my dad dies he is leaving the house to my sister and I in trust, and it's stipulated that if our step mum is still alive, she can live in it until she dies.

She wont own any % of it and she'll still be there until she dies, 'depriving us of our inheritance.'

@stepparentdilemma2023 You need to know if there's anything like that in the will, or what it says. Without knowing that, this whole convo is moot really.