What think you?

[SannaK]

I'll keep it brief.

I'm a woman, no real assets at all, apart from the obvious ones lol.

I've been seeing a chap, own home car etc. He has a grown son, the don owns his own quite substantial home and id looking to move abroad.
No prob. Heres the thing.

We talked about marriage. He says (the chap) that if we were to marry he would want the house eventually to go to the son on my death. He says he would get something legal in writing that I would be entitled to live in said home on his passing until I die and that he would also sign over a pension to me etc so that I could stay in the home (No mortgage).

Im not sure at all re this. A male colleague said it was cheeky and that I was just going to be a house sitter.

He is nearly 69 and I'm 55 soon to be. We have not been dating long just six months. Don't worry about upsetting me with your thoughts.

On the one hand I totally get where he's coming from. On the other this arrangement which would involve him drafting details, solicitors andy signing stuff leaves me cold. Not to mention not feeling romantic. Also if be concerned that down the line this could be contested by the son and his mother and I could end up on the streets.

Wise considered thoughts most appreciated.

SK x

He's being very generous with you. He's already making this arrangement to the disadvantage of his son, who could benefit from selling the asset or living in it himself. This is why I will never remarry if I were widowed. I want to protect everything for my children. YABU and only six small months?!

When I talk about paying in/building that pot of money I actually mean building that life together. That comes in all forms including working, SAHM, having kids and therefore a backseat in your own career, creating a home with them, the relationships that are built, the life that is created. Not just adding to a pot of money because I agree, women shouldn't be penalised because they financially didn't put in 50%.

Sounds normal to me. My step grandmother lives in the flat she shared with my late grandfather, which he owned long before they met. On her death or moving to care (which is sadly imminent, and arrangements have been made to cover costs of) it is to go to my kids, nieces and nephews iirc

What I'm pointing out to the sneery, nasty PPs who have leapt to 'why should you benefit a penny from a short marriage/ you haven't paid in' is that the law doesn't care who has paid in what. Nor should it! Women would lose out massively if that were the case!

Well, I totally agree that women shouldn't lose out in a marriage if they have stayed at home to look after the kids for example.

However, the OP appears to be implying she "should" get absolutely everything which is frankly, a bit weird considering he has a child. However, she hasn't actually clarified what she thinks is fair yet so maybe I am making assumptions. Its the way its been worded which makes it appears that way.

Everything I own is going to my kids. No man (or woman) is getting any of it. If it’s his house then I think he’s being pretty generous letting you live in it. I don’t understand your colleague’s comment about it being CF?

Personally I wouldn’t marry and I’d keep my HA house. Marrying when you (one) already have assets and kids just makes everything so complicated.

Phew, I hope that’s correct for my own peace of mind re ex’s remarriage.

You could still be perched in his house in thirty plus years' time. His son could die before you. It's a very generous and decent provision, apart from the pension payments.

Bearing in mind you are 15 years younger than him, you may end up as his carer should things go poorly with his future health. Such is life.

Thinking about this, if I died and DH remarried someone younger... of course I'd want DS to have some of the benefits of our shared assets on DH's death (and probably, to be honest, not after his new partner potentially lives to 90).

On one hand, a lifetime stay in the property is necessary and maybe the minimum, as you're in HA and he's asking you to give that up, and he probably knows you'd not bother if you were agreeing to leave on his death with nothing to buy a place with in your old age.

On the other - he could have easily told you it should be sold and split between you and the son on his death.

That’s nice of him. To be honest if you are 55 with no property assets you’ve landed on your feet and I’d grab it with both hands. To be honest this is how a lot of married couples with kids structure their wills - to the survivor for life and then to the children. He sounds very generous. He could leave you nothing and refuse to get married so that you risked ending up homeless in old age.

If you move in with an older man who is in a better financial position than you, marry him after a shortish relationship and then make sure he leaves all his assets to you it might make you look like a Goldigger and I am sure thats' not what you want

it might make you look like a Goldigger and I am sure thats' not what you want

It appears she wants more!

Im not sure at all re this. A male colleague said it was cheeky and that I was just going to be a house sitter.

What he is proposing is totally normal and, as long as the arrangements are properly drawn up by a solicitor, the son will not be able to contest your right to continue living in the house OP.

My DH was on the other side of an arrangement like this. After DH's mother died, DH's father remarried very quickly to a much younger woman. His new wife was very unwelcoming to DH and his siblings. After 4.5 years of marriage DH's father died unexpectedly. The new wife had a lifetime interest in the family home (and its valuable contents) and continued to live there. She refused to have any contact with DH and his siblings. She finally died 39 years after DH's father. When DH and his siblings were finally able to enter the house they found she had sold most of the valuable contents (which she only had a lifetime interest in).

So I wouldn't worry OP. If you marry this man - who sounds sensible and generous - your future will be quite safe.

I agree. I will never re marry if my H dies for this exact reason.

My kids are getting everything which is as it should be in my opinion.

A woman who has been married for 30 years to a man, brought up their kids and then struggles to get her fair share is not remotely the same as someone who is marrying someone at almost 70 after they have acquired their own assets over a life time, and has had no part in helping to build that life. Its very disingenuous to pretend they are equivalent or comparable.

If this is actually for real, if you don't want to be a house sitter get your own house. He's letting you live in his sons house effectively, until you no longer need it. If you don't like that idea get your own house and make your own decisions.

So what does OP bring to the 'team'?

Absolutely right that the DP wants to leave the house to his DC.

OP is being a gold digger.

Maybe the male colleague thought she was being cheeky!

It would be a different scenario if OP had helped him build his career by being a SAHM or reducing her hours to raise their children, she would not BU in that case. But she hasn't. She's met him after all of that.

I think OP is just seeing £ signs here. I expect her DP will come to his senses in time and not marry her anyway. It doesn't seem to be that he was actually suggesting marriage from the first post anyway. Just a chat/discussion.

@Beezknees and @Macaroni46 so you would have a surviving spouse meet some kind of test (set by someone as lovely and highly intelligent as one of you I presume) to determine if they'd brought 'enough' to the union to deserve receipt of what in fact already became theirs on the day they got married. 🙄

No. I would expect the person who will benefit disproportionately (in this case OP), to understand and accept:
a) that they are benefitting hugely from the union and
b) that the DS should not have his inheritance compromised.
I think the proposed plan put forward by the OP's partner is incredibly generous, especially considering the 14 year age gap and if I were the DS I'd be pretty upset with that arrangement ie he may have to wait 20+ years for his inheritance. CF from the OP to not be happy with the proposal.

I'm a 55 year old woman. This is my thought. Why in the wide world are you even considering marrying a bloke just shy of 70 who you've only known for 6 months?

Because she has no assets!

Better no assets than a liability.

True but it’s the husband/the husbands son who has the liability here! OP would be much better off than she currently is if she married this guy. Old age with no assets ain’t fun.

Nah, I just wouldn't get married if I was him.