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!

But it's not 'their' house now. If OP's mum wanted SF to have it she wouldn't have ring-fenced her 80% and given it to her own children.

And nobody has mentioned SF's son with the drug problem and dodgy associates who OP's mum wouldn't have in the house. Who has been living there on and off with SF since OP's mum died. What if SF were sadly to be run over by a bus next week and Dodgy Son decides to move into his 'inheritance' because 'it's what dad would have wanted'? It could get very messy, very quickly indeed.

Here’s a question - hypothetical situation - not same a the OP, but I’m curious.

Dave and Sue are both widowed. They get married and buy a house together.
Dave has adult kids, Sue doesn’t have kids.
Dave and Sue both have a will leaving their half of the house to their chosen beneficiaries (in Dave’s case it’s the adult kids), but giving each other the right to live there until they die or sell.
Dave dies.

Sue stays in the house, as per the will, so Dave’s kids don’t get their inheritance yet.
Years pass and Sue meets Mike.
Mike has no assets or kids, and moves in with Sue.
Sue amends her will leaving Mike her half of the house, and giving him the right to stay living in the house in the event of her death.
Sue then dies.
Do Dave’s kids still have to wait for their inheritance?
Or would Sue not have been allowed to give Mike lifetime rights to the house, given that she only owned half of it?

They bought the house together. It is their house.
OP doesn't actually know if anything has been ringfenced for her and her brother, let alone if there are conditions to that. Most likely that the SD has a home until he either doesn't want or need it any more.
It's quite normal to divide your share of a property among your children, it doesn't mean they are entitled to the property before the SD passes. And definitely doesn't make it ok for them to try and kick out the surviving spouse before they are ready to go.

I knew of a case in which a woman with 2 adult kids had bought a house with her childless partner. Partner and kids never got on. Woman died and left her half to her kids, but gave her partner the right to live in the house till he died or sold it. He wanted to stay in the house as long as he possibly could, in order to prevent the kids (who he actively disliked) getting their inheritance. He got very old and disabled, and really needed to move into a care home, but flatly refused, openly admitting that he didn’t want the kids to get their inheritance. He stuck it out for years, with frequent hospital admissions due to his inability to be safe at home. Eventually the hospital wouldn’t discharge him as social services couldn’t facilitate his care at home, so he had no choice but to accept residential care and the sale of his house. He was well into his 90s by then and his stepkids were pensioners themselves !

The fact that it (might) be ring fenced for op doesn’t mean the mother didn’t want her husband to live it.

She didn’t have to give him it. He can live there anyway.

The son is entirely irrelevant. No one is forced to stick to rule their deceased partner put into place.

That 20% will go to the SF child/ren anyway. Which is another thing that needs to be sorted out

Non of this means he has to leave the house.

OP

Has your brother seen the will and does he have a copy of it?

He must have a copy of it, surely?

Moving on does not mean someone isn't still grieving.

This.

When I remarried 18 months after my first DH died, I was very happy in my new relationship, but I still ended up going into therapy for a couple of years to deal with the fact that I was still grieving my first DH. Luckily my second DH was both understanding and supportive, once I explained to him that it didn't mean I loved him less than my first DH but that I needed time to come to terms with that loss.

Before anybody points out that I needn't have remarried so quickly, there were logistical reasons around the age and education of my youngest DC that meant we either had to move quickly or wait anything up to four years in a very long-distance relationship. As I was in my fifties at that point, I didn't feel I could sacrifice those four years to waiting, and I felt that my youngest DC would be better off in the US education system than the UK education system, which in fact turned out to be the case.

But it's her pie too???!

I've never said SF has to leave the house. I've said OP needs to get independent legal advice on exactly what her legal position is. And then if she has options she can make an emotional/moral decision on what she thinks is 'right'. Random internet posters, me included, don't have the information to know or advise what is 'right'.

I mentioned the son with the drug problem because he doesn't sound like someone her mother or she would want moving permanently into the house and it might prompt the OP to think the sooner she knows exactly where she stands legally the better.

@stepparentdilemma2023 Well, we all like a happy ending. The fact that the op who actively and aggressively defended her position based on emotions alone and zero fact has not come back, since either downloading the will or getting clearer info from DB about the contents of the will, can only mean one thing.

SF has a life time interest in the 80% until he dies or sell and, SF is only required to sell [and move out] if he remarries.

As other have pointed out, no way 18 months on, op and db didn't know what of the 80% whilst SF lives there. Also, no way they would have been charitable to him to keep him in the house 18 months ago, and only since GF has entered the pic, op wants to know their position.

the way op phrased the op was telling: kinda asking mn if since SF has a new GF if it wasn't time he moved out. but why? what does the will- the only thing allowing him to be there at the moment, says? or did executors not finish the job? op must go lie to others, not us.

well, glad i could be of service!

And he didn’t come to the house while the Ops mother was alive. I don’t understand the point of the mum not wanting him there. Even being brought up by the Op. Though it’s obvious why it was brought up.

She isn’t here anymore. It’s entirely irrelevant whether her mother wanted him in the house or not. That’s the point that’s irrelevant.

He is in the house and yes that needs to be discussed. But would need to be discussed whether the mum would let him in the house or not.

Again, I am sure this was all discussed and is in the will. Which I am sure op, actually, has full knowledge of.

Or it could be she got pissed off with all the nasty posts and chose to stop engaging!!

As someone who lost my husband over 4 years ago I am sure I do things most days/weeks/months that would give the indication I’m coping. And of course at one level I am, I have no choice. I’m dating again, and have been seeing a lovely guy for a year or so. But, I’m still grieving. Badly at times. And this time of year is always tough; more so because my late husband loved Christmas. You really have no idea what it’s like, and am pleased for you that you don’t. I wouldn’t wish losing a husband (or wife) early on anyone.

Regardless, the house doesn’t belong to him. It mostly belongs to the children. Whether he is fine or not fine - it’s not right to hold on to 80% equity that belongs to someone else ( unless his wife left a life time provision ) They had a very short marriage, not decades of shared life. I don’t know why so many are struggling to see the difference.

Not agreeing with you does not mean struggling to see the difference. I’m not sure why that’s so difficult for many to grasp?

The legal situation, as he owns 20%, is that he cannot be forced to sell without a court order, and a court order may very likely go in his favour as (a) he’s a part owner and (b) he’s living there. So the OP needs to find someone to buy 80% of the property to get her hands on her Mothers money.

But, the OP is very unclear on the contents of the will, which is odd. Without knowing what’s in the will it’s difficult so state anything other than the legal position. Whatever is in the will can only strengthen his position though. All those posting about how she should get him out asap are lamentably lacking in knowledge of what that actually entails.

I think most people are recognising that point , which is why almost everyone has focused their advice to OP on telling her to check the conditions of will , establish if there is a life time provision or not , and then make an informed choice about how to proceed.

What people are objecting to are those linking the SF’s rights to stay in the house to whether he is dating or not.
one has nothing to do with the other. OP understandably has emotions around this, but that is not a reason to kick him out the house, when previously she was happy for him to stay. As a pp had pointed out, there is no legal or moral basis for linking the two.

I don’t understand how people can’t see that the actual ownership isn’t the issue.

He could own non of it and still have the right to live there.

It all depends on the will. If he has the right to live there, the Ops mother never intended the Op to be able to liquidise her portion until a trigger is hit. The trigger’s are usually death or remarriage.

Op owning a portion doesn’t mean she is entitled to the money it is worth.

Tbh, that's about the time I'd expect someone to start a new relationship in.

I would be surprised if a court order went his way, with only 20% equity and no provision in the will to remain. A court will deduce the lack of lifetime provision and her entire equity signed to the children would indicate the intentions of the deceased. There was ample opportunity for the mother to leave a lifetime provision to sf and assuming it’s not there, we can assume she did not wish for him to have it.

Im sorry you lost your mum Op.
I think opening a conversation about long term plans is yhe right thing to do so that SF knows that there needs to be a conclusion in the not to distant future.
However... as a widow... who will forever grieve my DH and consider him the love of my life... dont be too harsh or judge the timeline as a slight against your mother. Loosing a spouse is about the biggest head f**k ever. And men in particular struggle to comprehended being on their own. Its not aa reflection of the love they had for their spouse but often a desire to curb loneliness and have some sort of something to look forward to.

We know that she left him part of her pension, but we don’t know what provision was made in the will for him to stay in the house as the OP hasn’t said. But, based on what we do know I suspect your confidence is somewhat misplaced.

So you put your stepDC before your own DC? Wow

Well there is no case to answer if ops mother left a provision for him to remain. If it isn’t there - then that was the decision of the deceased not to include it, which indicates her intention quite clearly by choosing not to cover a life time living arrangement. It’s not about confidence - a court will always seek to protect the wishes of the deceased.

Wtf! Have you told your children? Clearly some people are cashing in on the 2nd marriage racket at the expense of the children involved.

@LonelynSad . Jumping to conclusions much there I think. His children are not out before mine.

All children from both sides are adults coping on their own. My husband has been my husband for over 13 years, lived with for years before that, in my house. He has contributed to its upkeep, diy, conservatory built etc. why would I not recognise all of his input to a comfortable home and leave a percentage to his children also?