Who's unreasonable? House renting, children - complicated!

[Houseone818]

I own another house to the one myself and DH live in and own together. It was my grandparents house and was left in trust for me. I inherited this before me and H married and it is very much my house and all protected etc etc.

Currently this house is rented out and my plan has always been that eventually when my DC has grown up, I will sell it and give the proceeds (or the majority at least) to them to give them a step up, the house is currently in a trust for DC in case anything happens to me but it still gives me full control / ability to sell etc.. DH knows this.

Me and DH also own a house together that we bought during our relationship and is the family home. Here there is me, DH, our child and my stepchildren, DHs older sons. The children are all too young currently for this to even be an issue right now but a hypothetical conversation stirred up a bit of a tiff between me and H last night.

Basically we were talking generally about young ones these days and how hard it can be and we got onto the conversation of wondering how long kids in general will end up living at home for nowadays (SC currently here about 30% of the week). DH then said well we could always let SC rent the other house when they want to move out and how nice it is to have a house there that means we can offer a home to the children at a lower cost and so on... for context SS's are 15 and 17 and our child is only 5 so it's obviously more likely to be SC living independently quite some time before our child.

Essentially I said well no? That house was already rented and it is there for benefit of DC, not to he used at a cheaper rate for SC, didn't say it quite so bluntly but that was the gist that basically it was DCs house, not a "family" house and that until DC needed it to either live in or sell for the proceeds it would be rented as normal.

This got a bit heated, but there are a few reasons I wouldn't be open to this suggestion and the main one is I think it's a slippery slope. So say we offered it to SC, bearing in mind still this is all entirely hypothetical, but say we did, and they or one of them lives there for many years paying minimal rent, I don't believe that it wouldn't begin to feel like a "shared" house, like we either had to continue to let whoever it were live there and not give it to DC as planned or we'd have to share the proceeds. I just think it opens it up to getting messy and I'd rather keep it simple and separate. It's DCs future, not a family house that can just be used by whoever.

I've suggested in the past that DH start thinking about putting together some sort of savings or whatever for SDC, he could as the money isn't the problem, but he never has.

It's fine if you don't want to do it, but I don't think it's at all an unreasonable suggestion for him to make, and I think those commenting that he's trying to get his dirty paws on your fortune are jumping the gun a bit. He didn't suggest that you give the house to your stepchildren or allow them to live there rent-free - I'd imagine his thought process was more along the lines of "Kids will need to live somewhere - oh, @Houseone818 has that rental - maybe they could live there for a bit while they're saving up." Obviously it being held by a trust might complicate things, but the idea isn't outrageous as some people are suggesting.
There's a home owned by a relative of DH's which various members of the younger generation have lived in for periods at a below-market rent, including ourselves - we were thrilled at the opportunity it gave us to save, and the rest of the family seemed very pleased that we were able to get a bit of a leg up. Your own children will be in a hugely fortunate position in terms of getting a foot on the housing ladder, regardless of whether your stepchildren live there or not. They're not strangers, are they? They're the children of a man you apparently love enough to marry; it seems odd to be quite so dismissive of something which might help them out without significantly disadvantaging you or your children.

Keep the house rented at market value as that's the sensible thing to do to protect your asset. But it's time to also think about how you will support your step-dc when they fly off into the world.

I don't think the answer is diminishing the returns on your individually owned asset, but it's about your dh and his children's mum to think about primarily, but with your support. I don't mean that you shouldn't contribute in any way to funding getting them some support to get out in the world, but it isn't your job solely to do with your own personal asset.

At 15 and 17, they have quite a long time before they will be looking to purchase a property (even with family help, I was 40 when I bought my first home!). There is time to plan and save up.

But I think letting children live in a family home for cheap isn't the way to do it. Firstly, they may not even want to live in that area. They may want to spread their wings and move abroad or move to wherever on the other side of the UK. Secondly, it's a bit like having a friend or sibling as a lodger. Thirdly, which one would get to live there? Would they even want to be housemates with each other? Surely, by this stage in life, they want to go live with friends away from their sibling or parental supervision in a house owned by a parent. The lines get blurred and it can become a bit too personal. Yes, think about supporting them with uni and independent living - your dh and his ex need to be the drivers in this, not you. But I don't think this is the easy solution you're after.

I'm guessing from your comment re slippery slope that as young as they are now you are not entirely confident that it would end well as and when it would need to end. So I would be firm on the point that the Trust will require any letting to be at market rates, that becoming his own brothers landlord will compromise their relationship and it's entirely likely his children won't want to live in X when they finish uni. But, given he and his ex wife are in a financial position to help provide for their children in the future, perhaps it's time he got some financial advice about tax efficient schemes given that your mutual child as a consequence of his maternal grandparent will have assets and savings.

I'd also gently point out that using this logic is your husband suggesting that your mutual child share in the asset distribution if any of his ex's parents in due course?

Simply put, the trust is for your DC's interests. Renting the property at lower than market rate to non-beneficiaries will negatively impact your DC, so actually, unless your DC directed you (as trustee) to do so, it's actually a breach of your fiduciary duty.

Take the emotion out of it and his/hers kids. Legally, you cannot do it. So the idea is a complete non-starter anyway.

This is above my expertise but everytime I read a thread about this I feel the same…YOUR grandparents left house to you…biological DGD and you have it in trust to your biological DC. Would your DGP really have wanted to leave this asset which they equally saved and scrimped to own to a non biological offspring in any way? Lower rent = lower income to trust. I just feel this not what your DGP would have wanted. Talk with DH use any legalities in place which would make it impossible to “rent for cheap” and be the kind thoughtful SM you are but this particular asset is non negotiable.

I’m with you here. As much as I love my DSD, it is for DH and his ex to save for her and my priority is my DC.

@Abitofalark

Perhaps you could soften it in other ways, e.g. set up a joint fund for his children into which you both put something in whatever proportion seems sensible according to affordability and other relevant considerations. He should be saving on his own already for his children but you may have to drag him into it. Might be worth it for harmony and to get him off the idea of the other property.

That should be done by both their actual biological parents though - not the OP? She has already suggested to him that he sets up long term financial plans first his elder children, which he doesn't seem to have actioned - instead assuming his children would have some form of interest in the property held in trust. The OP is wise not to muddy the waters here. 🌹

Exactly this, my priority is obviously our DC.

It’s nothing to do with their dad, it belongs to their step mum. It’s surely pretty simple to explain. What might not be so easy to explain is that their df could have been saving for them for years but hasn’t bothered as he assumed they’d be able to mooch off someone else asset instead.

This is OPs Grandparents house left to her. It is absolutely nothing to do with her husbands children. Would her stepchildren's relatives give OPs children anything? No, neither should they. It's so clear. SC have their own family. Let them deal with housing.

Nope. Nope. NO. Yanbu. Your GP's put this in a trust for reasons JUST like this, so respect their foresight and do not let the SC in. Why should you accept a lower rent, lower savings for your dc?

And if one of them decide to live there for years and years, ship a partner in, have a child then you will be responsible for kicking 'family' out.

And what if they can't afford /don't pay the rent? Or in between jobs for ages?

What if they destroy or damage your grandparents home?

There is potential for SO much to go wrong. If you didn't come up with the idea yourself, then I can assure you the resentment will destroy the marriage.

This home is for your child, from a part of your life that did not include these children and were not catered for these children. Stand your ground.

What would concern me is DH saying 'ok I will leave my half of the family home to SC as you are leaving far more to DC' therefore you could potentially lose half the house and DC could lose out in inheriting from their DF.

That really COULD become a slippery slope.

The sc will inherit their share of op and their dad’s shared house. So they will still be getting a leg up. Especially if it’s split equally, rather than 50:50 as is the norm with blended families (50% to mums dc, 50% to dad’s).

so they will get the usual inheritance of a share of mums house and a share of dads. Hardly being left destitute. Presumably step dc will inherit via mum from that side of the family as well.

so everyone inherits from their own gp/parents. If one side has more money it is what it is.

“Basically we were talking generally about young ones these days and how hard it can be and we got onto the conversation of wondering how long kids in general will end up living at home for nowadays (SC currently here about 30% of the week). DH then said well we could always let SC rent the other house when they want to move out and how nice it is to have a house there that means we can offer a home to the children at a lower cost and so on... for context SS's are 15 and 17 and our child is only 5 so it's obviously more likely to be SC living independently quite some time before our child.

Essentially I said well no? That house was already rented and it is there for benefit of DC, not to he used at a cheaper rate for SC, didn't say it quite so bluntly but that was the gist that basically it was DCs house, not a "family" house and that until DC needed it to either live in or sell for the proceeds it would be rented as normal.”

I don’t think it was unreasonable to suggest that the stepsons could become tenants in the property at a lower cost than full market rent. It isn’t unusual for relatives to offer a slightly below market rent to family members- and step brother is a lot closer of a blood and bread relationship than cousin or niece/nephew. The three children have the same % of your DH’s DNA. It might not even be to your child detriment as a lower rent can be offered in return for them being good tenants and taking care of minor DIY. They are more likely to take care of the home than random stranger tenants. I don’t think he was suggesting they live there free or for a peppercorn rent.

I think while you are free to say no, as you did, I do think you were a bit unreasonable to be so hasty and should have considered it more fully. To just reject the idea instantly for reasons of MY house for MY child must have seemed very divisive and that you do not view your SC as family members.

Unless OP’s DH was widowed young and the SC have no mum except for the OP? It might be so because over 90% of the time if the bio mum is alive the SC would be living with her and not with OP and their father.

Anyone else think blended families are a fool’s errand? This must be the third thread like this I’ve read tonight alone.

They don't live with us, as I said in my OP they stay about 30% of the week.

To just reject the idea instantly for reasons of MY house for MY child must have seemed very divisive and that you do not view your SC as family members

It's a bit more nuanced than that I think.

It's not just because it's mine/my child's.

I just think it has a very big potential to muddy the waters because ultimately it is my child's and that isn't going to change. As I've said and as PPs have said, it has the potential to complicate things further down the line for example if one or the other SC has been living there what happens when they end up needing to be chucked out of their "home" so our child can have what was always intended for them. Am I then going to be made to feel guilty for that and so on. Best just to keep it entirely separate.

I suppose you can't help who you fall in love with but all these mixed families with children from different places sounds like an absolute ball ache. You have my sympathies that you can't do right by your own child without arguments and causing offence to other people.

Silly comparison. Her stepchildrens relatives aren't anything to do with her. Her stepchildren though are part of her family.

I'm so glad my husband treats my children as his own. I couldn't be with someone who wouldn't.

Who owns your house? If it’s yours, and your dh did have children, would you be happy for them to get half?

it’s ok saying that when your children aren’t losing out - or are actually benefiting as if your dh doesn’t have kids they may inherit from him?

But if you owned that house before your dh came on the scene, you’d be more than happy to give half of it to his kids?

your choice to get remarried. That choice leads to your kids losing half their inheritance as well?

Who pays for things in your joint house OP? If it's 50/50 fair enough do what you want with your house. If he pays for most things then you are being unreasonable. It also feels very cruel to deny your step children any gain from the house. You could easily put in restrictions to avoid problems e.g an agreement they can rent for a limited period - no more than two years each to get on their feet for example.

Surely it would be more straightforward to help the stepdc with rent or a mortgage/lump sum.

then they can be supported independently of o/p’s house, and the costs to op and her dh will be the same.

who knows anyway, the house may be in the wrong area, to big, too small- if it’s an expensive let it may be more financially sensible to rent a newly independent dc somewhere cheaper.

I can see why you are upset but when you marry you merge with your partner financially, your dc will e d up with a house plus 18 years plus of rental income (minus costs) and you see red at the suggestion that his dc could potentially rent it at a preferable rate? He's not even suggesting they get to live in it for free!

I'm with your dh, I think whilst your joint dc is so young, helping his siblings out is the right thing to do

Your grandparents left it to you and your children .. not ( to them ) some random children .

I'd say keep it separate because I've seen the horrid side of money grabbing step families and it's grim !