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.

Day after day. Thankfully this OP is protected.

Every word! It’s nothing to do with him. And I’d say the same if it was the other way round and he was keeping it for his children. Bet he wouldn’t be giving your child a cut.

It's 50:50.

We own our house as tenants in common so my share will go to our DC and DHs share can be distributed as he sees fit. As their mum is likely to leave DSC hers.

Just to clarify, my child is also his child.

My grandparents knew my step children even less than DSCs mum family knows my children as I didn't even know DH at the time!

I think you've misread the original post.

No one is talking about giving half a house away. It's about letting the step children rent a second property at less than market value. They will still be paying. I would be happy to do this for any child in my family and indeed extended family too.

I see, thank you. But I’ll presume if you had children that weren’t his he might feel like you understandably do.

Yes I imagine so!

But do you not think it has the potential to be really messy?

I can picture the responses I'd get now in however many years time about chucking SC and potentially even their family out of "their home" so I could sell it and give the proceeds to our child (which has always been the plan).

Nevermind the fact that renting at a lower rate also lowers the savings for our DC too as the rent currently goes in an account for them.

I think as PP suggested I'll go over the trust and check that we can't rent at lower rate anyway so it's a moot point then. Fingers crossed!

The house is in trust for the benefit of your DC? And presumably you are a trustee? As such you have responsibilities to that beneficiary. I would sit your husband down with a solicitor to explain quite plainly why his plan would in all likelihood go against the terms of the trust. Which was presumably in place when you met. Or did he assume a trust was no big deal? In law it really is

No, I was referring to your circumstance re. Treating children differently and your dh treating your children like is own.

if the roles were flipped would you treat his children like your own? To the point your children would suffer financially because your assets, earned before you met dh, are now split between all children’s, step or biological.

To do what the o/p is suggesting is effectively taking money from o/p’s dc, and giving it to the stepsiblings. Would you do that?

would you leave your house to step dc as if they were your own?

just making the point that’s it’s easy to say you’d treat them all the same when it’s your kids that will benefit.

Fortunately the rights and wrongs will be laid down in black and white so there'll be no need to debate the rights and wrongs. It'll be as it is!

YANBU op.

It's your DC's property and any decisions regarding it have to be made in the best interest of DC to maximise the benefit from the asset. I think the rules of the Trust will be pretty clear what you can and cannot do anyway and I would be very surprised if renting at lower rate to family would be in it t!

Regardless of that I think your DH is displaying a bit of a lazy attitude to providing for his DC. If he wants to give them a leg up he should be saving, not assuming he can piggyback on your good fortune.

Stick to your original plan.

Speak like you are more than willing to be generous with your joint family home and welcome DSC living there for lower rent for a set number of years while they save.
Your DH should be putting aside a sum to help his children too, given that you are agreeable.

To be honest I don’t really see the problem with what DH has suggested, as long as it was an official arrangement and they paid market value (or slightly below if you choose). If the house is being rented until such time that it will be sold for your DC then why would it make a difference if it was rented to them?

They would obviously be fully aware that it is never going to be theirs and it is a temporary living solution (same as if they rented anywhere) as the long term plan is to sell it when you need to.

the only sticking point would be the rent, he’s unreasonable to expect them to rent it cheap as you’d then be losing out on that rental income, but if you take family ties and emotion out of it, it could easily work as a business arrangement with terms in place.

I’m in your position OP with a separate rental property earmarked for my DC, I’d be annoyed if I was your DH and you refused to even consider having them as tenants for the reasons you have given (slippery slope etc), especially as it’s just a hypothetical conversation at this point anyway, they may never want to live there!

But that's not what this thread is about so you're derailing.

I answered based on what was asked not all kinds of theoretical situations. I have no issue at all with giving any children in the family a leg up by way of 'mates rates' for want of a better term. Kids these days need all the help they can get as it's a lot harder for them than it was when I bought my properties.

The kids in my immediate and extended family are treated equally.

No I don't tbh. We've done it before a couple of times. Never had an issue.

OP I’m with you on this one.
Your DH and his ex can give your step DC help.
You have a good plan.

Don't do it OP! This is a good deed that you know you'll be horrendously punished for, you'll never hear the end about "kicking them out" when the time comes.

If his kids inherit from a maternal grandparent or aunt are they expected to share it with your child? Of course not.

Id actually be really careful that with his half of the house and estate he doesn’t cut out your child in a misguided attempt to make things more equitable. Just because you are financially sorted doesn’t absolve him of responsibility to your joint child.

It wasn't financial savvy that got the OP the house in trust, it was an inheritance.

Honestly, I think this would never happen so I would not argue about it too much.

The chance a 15 and a 17 year old will one day both want to rent a house together where this house is - is surely slim? Maybe one would want to rent but it would be unfair one has cheap rent....plus they could go anywhere when they want to do further education get jobs.

I do think your hubby is being cheeky raising this - I think he is testing the waters to how much you see this house as a shared thing in the future or how much he thinks you'll provide for stepchildren in your will etc.

If I was you I'd probably rent it out to the SC, assuming you have a good relationship and they aren't (to put it bluntly) the sort of people who you could forsee would take the piss in a few years. But also, if I was your DH or SC I wouldn't expect you to rent it out to me either. If you did I'd think, oh that's really nice, but I wouldn't be pissed if you didn't either!

I have two sets of step parents - if they had their own other properties like you do, I wouldn't expect them to have rented it out to me when I was a young adult. If they did, I'd have been super grateful, but it wouldn't ever have crossed my mind to ask/demand they do it...

I’m with you here.

My partner has 3 children, I have 1. Granted there’s no shared child nor is there likely to ever be.

I have been very clear there will be no “sharing as one of four” for my child from very early on. How we own our property, how our wills are written reflects that.