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!

@guineverehadgreeneyes I didn’t mean a trustee of the will, I mean as in the 80% of the property could simply have gone in trust rather than been handed over. They might not even be trustees, maybe just beneficiaries of a trust formed by the will etc. The executor deals with the administration of the will, that could have been the solicitor themselves.

It does all sound a bit weird, and unlikely that it could get this far without them knowing the circumstances - I was just giving OP the benefit of the doubt! Some people are genuinely ignorant to the details of stuff like this (whereas I, like many others, would want the full details as soon as possible!)

Either way, with all the vagueness being presented by the OP, no one can actually give an answer here. There is already an answer and OP either knows it or needs to read the will and find it!

SkySecret: I didn’t mean a trustee of the will, I mean as in the 80% of the property could simply have gone in trust rather than been handed over. They might not even be trustees, maybe just beneficiaries of a trust formed by the will etc.

I see. Whatever the situation with the OP and her brother's ownership of the property, you would expect the OP and her brother to have paperwork from the estate Trustees (or from a solicitor or probate firm appointed to act on behalf of the estate) clearly setting out the legalities.

Given her continued vagueness about the will, I'm not sure what the OP hoped to gain from starting this thread if it wasn't to obtain support for putting pressure on the SF to agree that the house would be sold to release the equity so the funds could be distributed between the three of them - even if he does have the legal right to remain in the property until his death, if he chooses to do so.

I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head here.

The OP has inferred that her brother has a copy and is taking it to a solicitor - I'm assuming the executor finished their obligations months ago, I suspect the will gives the SF leave to remain, but maybe has a re-marriage clause or something similar and the OP and her brother, disquieted by the appearance of a new woman are seeking advice.

Although we have all enjoyed hypothesising over 21 pages, there is really no point in these kinds of thread, as the OP hasn't given enough info for a trained lawyer to give informed comment, let alone a bunch of enthusiastic amateurs.

The only thing the OP needs to do is take the advice of a solicitor (having provided them with the documentation) and maybe getting a second opinion if they feel uneasy still, then thats it.

I think it is pretty unfair of those posters criticising the SF though, we don't know him, he's an older man who lost his wife, has found some companionship - we know nothing about his personality, so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I understand the OPs concerns too, but the only one who can guide her and her DB is a trained legal professional, in possession of the facts, the rest is pure conjecture and fantasy!

I agree with your second paragraph, I think re-reading the OP that the OP is hurt by the SF moving on, upset about his son dwelling, and in need of cash (as is DB)

She mentions "taking back the house" which shows a complete lack of understanding of the law, even if SF doesn't have a life interest, it's not as easy as just saying Ok we are selling up, you've got to go.

I think she was looking for a legal tit bit to hang her hat on, a loophole as it where, but she found none here, and I dare say will find none with a lawyer, it may be that they can force a sale (but I think its unlikely in reality), but not without a protracted legal process and considerable cost to them.

But there is not enough info to know.

And a final note, the SF could try and claim Estoppel on the whole property, he needs nothing in writing to launch such a claim, it may well be unsuccessful but is a claim sometimes tried (with occasional success), but would drag things on another couple of years...

OP: "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."

Does the OP consider that the SF "landed on his feet" when he married their mother, since she thinks he's "landed on his feet, again!"?

It's all rather unpleasant and catty. There are no guarantees this new relationship will flourish, especially given there is a problematic son in the mix. The fact that the "new woman" has two children of her own and is thought to be "quite wealthy" isn't relevant to the issue of the SF remaining in the property. Is the OP suggesting that because this "new woman" is "quite wealthy" she should facilitate the SF's moving out of the house into her own property in order that the house can be put on the market and the equity distributed? She may prefer to maintain separate properties for a number of years (especially given the problematic son issue).

I suspect the OP won't return to the thread.

Some of the responses here accusing the OP of all sorts just sound mean.
The SF was not with OP’s mum for decades long and he has now moved on which he clearly has a right to. They don’t have any children together, we can’t really say he’s a grieving widow at this point anymore really.
For him to move on completely and properly, I think it’s fair that the house is sold and everyone gets the share they’re entitled to. I don’t see what the whole angst is all about, he has been living in the house till now and it’s not as if he has been paying 80% rent on the share that’s not his own, op and her brother can’t really be seen as grabby for wanting to move on now that SF has clearly moved on.

What exactly is nasty?

Yes he can still be a grieving widower. You thinking he can’t doesn’t make it true.

Length of marriage doesn’t matter. It’s not a divorce.

He doesn’t need to leave the house to live in the properly. It’s his home.

He put 20%. He could still have the right to live there and have put nothing in. op and her brother put nothing into the house. If we are goi f to say he needs to leave because he didn’t put much into the house, then why would op and her brother get a say when he leaves? The percentage owned by each person doesn’t impact wether he has the right to live there or not.

Thats you opinion on fair. The mother might have felt it was fair For him to live there indefinitely. Does that not matter?

Why would he pay rent?

I don't think he's that old. Didn't the OP suggest he might live for another 40 years if he's like his parents?

Or he can get hit by a bus next year. Regardless, life is short, when you meet love, should you reject only because a daughter of your partner you have been with for a few years is salty that you don't want to mourn forever? How long should he have waited to satisfy her. 5, 10 years? It's just super selfish of OP. She needs to mind her own business when it comes to the widower's love life.

Of course, there is also that. But unlikely as any pissed off OP will rap up 'any' opportunity [i.e any, no matter hoe small, even only correcting half of the dilemma] to tell 'nasty' posters that they were wrong- with facts to back it up- and have her 'I told you so' moment.

Oh, complex but easy. Since your friend 100% owns the house new wife is in and wants to buy, any good solicitor will have to ask the new wife to stamp up the additional stamp duty penalty for second homes, your friend is now liable for as she is not a first time buyer.

Unless this request would leave new wife in penury, new wife should rectify this, as the other option BY LAW, is to sell the house new wife is in within 18 months of your friend buying new house, as then your friend would get her extra stamp duty back from the Tax man.

As you can see, it depends on new wife's means to pay out, otherwise, I would go to court if I were your friend, if new wife has means to pay the extra stamp duty. I am not grabby, but don't believe in people enriching themselves at the expense of others and have a solid sense of fairness. Any good solicitor can advice your friend effectively.

Plus, it depends when the deceased dad died- if he died before Osbourn/e changed stamp duty laws on second homes, even more reasons to argue the deceased dad did not anticipate this stamp duty if he clearly would have expected/ foreseen your friend to be able to buy her own home (a professional etc) before new wife died.

However, if new wife has been in this house long enough already since the death of dad, it is unlikely the court will come to your friend's rescue unless friend was a minor when dad died.

I have an adopted daughter who I am so pleased is now 22 years. I adopted her when she was 2. She is developmentally slow (nothing wrong with her, but just slow and trusts everyone she meets) and am still worried about her being manipulated by cousins or new boyfriend/ husband of hers. Anyway, when she was below 18 years, I have bequeathed one of my houses (huge old house mortgage free) to her, but I had to put it in a trust because she was a minor. I also gave her cash and stipulated the house cannot be sold until she was 30- I just needed her to mature before losing her home through manipulation. The house requires a lot of maintenance now (hoping to do so in 3/4 years). But I am now of the view that, I may have to sell the old house and buy her a smaller house ( I am still in my 40s so have time and she is no longer a minor) which will require not much maintenance. All I am saying is that, parents know the nature of their kids, before burdening them with things. SO, I am sure your friend can manage to sort this.

The other recipients of my assets are sharp cookies (both boys and girls)- so no worries about what they will do with theirs. Her being a double orphan will get almost 75% of everything, hence I am worried of manipulation by others- even seemingly well meaning ( I don't take stupid risks with finances), but some are too selfish and entitled., so don't trust them to advice her properly. Others have already been helped whilst I am alive and already multiplied what I gave them because they are very intelligent- why I was comfortable helping now already. She needs more help.

YUP! Exactly what I said yesterday as a closing remark of this thread.

OP (and DB) knows the exact terms on the will. Now she and DB are going to solicitors to check if there was a loophole to kick SF out now 'he has moved on' as he has a new GF.

You put it succinctly.

To the other poster- even if I had 1% of the property, I would want to know when and how (conditions placed on my 1%) I can get my hands on it, at the time the WILL is being read or when executors give me my good news of my 1% inheritance. Jeeez.

Op wanted MN to be the usual to say: kick SF out, 18 months too soon to get new GF, will can be disregarded in this instance, Go girl- the judge/ solicitor will agree with MN. This is one rare occasion MN has been real. Thank you.

Forget Op's hope to find a legal tit bit on MN. No, OP purely relied on usual MN outrage of step parenting (hence he was quickly assigned a SF name), to agree with OP to kick him out with no legal basis, which would have been 100% consistent with what OP and DB are thinking whilst waiting for a solicitor.

Yes, length of marriage not an issue as it is not a divorce. Just OP's mum's wishes as stipulate din the WILL. Also quite rich for OP to tell us she is certain mum will be upset at SF moving on 18 months on. WHILST needing solicitors to tell her what the WILL says in those circumstances. Talk of double standards.

None is minimising Op's emotions. From very early on, multiple posters told her it was a difficult time for her but she must try to remove the emotions, as this matter is only decided by law, not emotions.

That doesn’t mean the house can’t be sold. Yes it makes it more difficult but if those with an 80% share want to sell the house then it ought to be possible. And the one with the 20% share should see this.

No that’s not how it works.

I don’t know why you keep saying this. From the OPs post there is nothing to say that it can’t work as I have suggested. If mum had wanted her DH to stay in the house for the rest of his life then she would have put that provision in her will. From what we have heard so far she did not do that in fact she didn’t leave any part of her assists to him. This suggests the couple always expected to be financially independent and so the house is seen as an asset and not as a home. Assets can be sold. And should be when the majority owners wish it.

Assets not assists.

@GrannyRose15
OP hasn't confirmed/ doesn't know the provisions in the will .
If SF has a lifetime interest OP can't force sale .
OP has been very shortsighted not finding out the implications of the WILL 18 months ago .

For the last time, whether he’s a “grieving widow” or not has got absolutely nothing to do with his right to live in the house 🥴.
Also can’t believe you are trying to suggest that kicking him out of his home is in his own interests : “for them all to move on completely and properly”. 😲

You've ignored multiple questions about your mother's will.

It's extremely common in this sort of situation for the spouse to have the right to live in the matrimonial home for live or until co-habitting with a new partner. Your interest in the house is protected but you don't get your hands on the cash until your mother's husband dies or moves out.

Of course it’s in his interests. He will never own the house in full so better he makes use of his 20% share sooner rather than later.

ermmm, not if he has a lifetime right to live there, and he’s comfortable. 💁🏼‍♀️

Oh god!

Op said she didn’t know what was in the will. Which is unlikely. Instead of just reading the will the brother is taking it to a solicitor. People do not spend money getting a solicitor to re read a will unless they are looking for loopholes. Especially people who ‘could do with the money’. Not when a lifetime interest would be instantly obvious from anyone reading the will.

How likely is it that when the brother communicated to op that she owned 40% of the home. No question was asked about how it works with SF in the property. Or where he would go.

The op never even mentioned trying to legally force him out or whether legally she could it as only about the morals of the situation. Again suggesting he does have a right to be there. Otherwise it would be simple ‘SF doesn’t have the right to stay in the house. I think 18 months is long enough and it should be ok to broach it with him now’. That would be simple.

Looking at what Op has said he (likely) does have lifetime interest in the house. Likely with caveats but saying will not be one of them.

Besides which, him owning the smaller portion (20%) is irrelevant because in most cases all need to agree and if he doesn’t it would cost alot in legal fees. Them having 80% doesn’t mean it can be sold. As I said it doesn’t work that ways.

You thinking he should see this doesn’t mean he would agree. And why should he. He may own a smaller portion but out of the 3 of them he is the only one that actually put his own money into it.

Why would you assume having the money would be preferable to him?