Inheritance argument with DP

[Closie]

I’ll start with some background. DP and I have been together for 14 years, lived together for 10. We were both married before and had a son each from our previous relationships. His son is 28, my son is 27. I got divorced, my ex is alive and involved with DS always has been. DPs wife passed away.

Our current home is the home DP and his wife bought together before their son was born. When his wife died the life insurance paid off what was left of the mortgage, covered his sons uni costs and took them on holidays etc.
When I got divorced we sold our marital home, I saved my half and lived in a rental for 6 years as I couldn’t afford a mortgage alone. The money I saved has since been used for DS’ uni costs and gap year.

DP has decided we need to get our wills in order and a point of contention is the house we currently live in. He believes it should be left to his DS in entirety when we both die, his argument being that it was paid for first by his and his late wife’s hard work, then by his late wife’s life insurance so I haven’t actually contributed anything. I disagree, I’ve lived here for 10 years which has prevented me from having an asset of my own and I’ve contributed to upkeep and repairs. I think at the very least it should be 25/75 though ideally 33/66. We have agreed though that however it is split I should be allowed to continue living here if he were to die first.
He also thinks we should leave everything else we have (life insurance or pensions) to our respective children, I think I’m ok with this.
Now I’m not sure if this is clouding my judgement so I will mention that his
DS has recently inherited from his grandparents on his mother side, a 7 figure sum with which he has bought a house outright. Now I know that technically isn’t relevant but it certainly influences how I feel.

So AIBU to think the house should be split between our children in some way, or is he right?

I’m curious as to why you believe living what appears to be rent free in his house for a decade and contributing to general upkeep (you say yourself nothing major has been done to the house) has ‘prevented’ you from purchasing on your own? You couldn’t afford to prior to your relationship. Your own financial decisions. - nice holidays, working less (facilitated by your rent free living) are what has prevented this. I don’t know why you think you partner should buffer these further by gifting your son inheritance because you didn’t plan for it?

A man didn’t pay for it; a woman did.

Are you mad?

He paid off his mortgage with his dead wife’s life insurance!

She contributed her share of the bills while living there. Not comparable!

How has he "prevented" you from buying a house?. Why didn't you buy a house. If you never met him, where would you live?

The man owns the house. It was his and his alone, fully paid for before the OP moved in. He let her live in his house for free, saving her at least £50k, probably quite a lot more, over the last decade. And now she thinks she's entitled to some of it? There is no way the OP has put more into it than she has saved.

I own my house outright and I have one DS. My full intention is for that house to go to my son when I die. Obviously I can't see the future and the house may need to be sold for my care or a similar reason. But it will never, ever go to some man I may have a relationship just because I let him live with me for free.

A bit of decorating cost ia an awful lot less than 10 years of rent. You need to sort out your own finances and stop trying to nick your DSS's inheritance, you have done nothing to earn that money and it is not yours.

She could have done so for the last ten years. Ample opportunity to save.

You cannot say you are entitled to part of the house just because you have lived in it . You got the benefit of no rent or mortgage. And now working part time .
You should have saved if you wanted to leave your son somthing.
It doesn't matter that his son has already inherited alot. It's not how these things work.
You didn't plan well.
But I bet you will cause damage to your relationship if you continue to insist he puts your son in his will

Another way to look at it - if he had used the life insurance money to invest in stocks and shares, would you feel entitled to any of it then?

I suspect not, I think you would see that as your step son's inheritance from his mother.

What makes this different for you?

I’m also with your DP on this and I hope he sticks to his word. There is absolutely no way in hell anyone would be getting my children’s inheritance and I also wouldn’t agree to a partner continuing to live there if I died before them. It is my children’s inheritance alone.

Has this thread changed your view on this @Closie?

@Closie it's not too late to start saving for your son. You have very little expenses. Reduce the holidays and go back to work full time.

He's not selfish. It's his house and he is leaving it to his son, whose mother worked to buy it and whose insurance paid off the mortgage. She should a) have got married, b) secured her financial future by staying full-time at work, buying her own property and paid a mortgage on it. One is reminded of Aesop's fable of the ant and the grasshopper.

I’m really surprised at some of the comments. I think you should split it equally. In general I actually believe in giving ‘poorer’ relatives a bigger share.

I think you should make mirror wills and pool your assets, leaving each son an equal share.

It’s no longer relevant who paid for what, you are a family and should share equally.

FWIW my step-father treated me and my sister as his own daughters. My Mum contributed less to the financial assets but we were his family in all but genes. They married when my sister and I were in our 20s so we weren’t children either when they got together.

So this is why your DP has a lot more capital assets (as well as suffering the death of his wife - not an easy thing, I'd imagine). He's been prudent.

YABU.

Unless you earn a bit more and start to buy into your DP's house, or buy your own as an asset.

What is your pension provision? There's a subtext to your posts that you expect him to subsidise you somewhat - shifting to part-time, nice holidays etc. Not a good look.

You're acting as if it's a lotto win, this young man was without a biological mother growing up, now his grandparents have passed and he has inheritance, I'm sure he'd give it all away to have had and still have his mother, stop being so grabby, your son still has both parents perhaps his dad will leave him something

That is what we have in place. My house, bought from my divorce settlement and mortgage paid off by me. DP can live in it for life, but must maintain it, pay bills etc.
My DC’s inherit on his death.
If this weren't the case and I willed the house to my DP, there would be nothing to stop him leaving what becomes his estate to his DC’s only. Mine would get nothing.

DP is in agreement and accepts that if he and his ex wife had planned their finances better, he would have a house to leave to his DC’s. But they didn't, and he knows that as a family they enjoyed fantastic holidays every year (for instance) that me and my boys couldn't afford ( because I had a mortgage to fund).

We have made similar sensible arrangements around pension pots.

Continuing to argue doesn’t make what I said wrong at all. It is irrelevant whether someone owns the house outright, and there’s even been almost this exact scenario posted in the past, where a man lived with a woman in her house while renting out his own place and she never saw an penny of it. That didn’t go down too well, yet OP is being told this is what she should have done.

So if you knew what it meant why were you saying I was calling her a lodger? Oh, just to be obtuse and try to argue against something that can’t be argued against. Really strengthens your position that 😂🤦🏻‍♀️

If you want to be a hypocrite, that’s up to you. Doesn’t mean you have to drag others down with you.

You living with him hasn’t stopped you having an investment asset of your own. Unfortunately you spent your savings on something else (your son) and now you have the privilege of living rent free in your partner’s home and just make a (modest?) contribution to the upkeep. Presumably this means you have had a more comfortable lifestyle than you would have had otherwise. But it doesn’t change the fact that the home belongs to your partner and should be left to his son.

They're not married, and her son hasn't grown up or even lived in the house. A house that was paid for with the ex-wife's life insurance. She has no right to it legally or morally, and her son really doesn’t.

I’ve lived here for 10 years which has prevented me from having an asset of my own how so? You could have set aside the equivalent of monthly mortgage repayments but instead you chose to go part time. I’m not blaming you, I would have done the same if I’m being honest, but you can’t claim you couldn’t have an asset of your own because you are living in your DP’s house.

Unfortunately OP, I agree with your DP but the time for him to make this crystal clear was when you first moved in, and certainly before you made the decision to go part-time. Sounds like you both made assumptions rather than properly discussing it. I would be quite (irrationally) annoyed with him about that given that you're in the weaker position, even though it was equally your 'fault'.

I would try to rationalise it with your son not being in a worse position that if you hadn't met your partner and remained single and renting. You've already given your son more than what most people can afford to do - don't just compare to your partner's son.

I also agree with your DP. Not completely the same but I own 86% of the house he lives in. I paid for it when I was single all by myself and I'm not happy to just split it with him. He went and bought another home so he also had a foot on the property ladder.

The fact you were able to have nice holidays and go part time means you benefitted now from no rent or mortgage. It doesn't mean you should have a % of the house.

The fact your DPs son inherited from he GP is irrelevant

@Closie

The house should go to DP's son. The fact is that you chose not to reinvest your divorce settlement in another home that could be left to your own DS. Your DP needn't make that up to him by leaving him a share of his house, paid for due to the death of his late wife.

As far as you living there, you'll have a life estate which is pretty fair and places a considerable burden on DP's son who would probably prefer to either sell the property on his dad's death or move into it himself and either sell or rent out his current home.

If you've been paying a share of the household bills or have contributed to upkeep, consider that a fair payment for living there. You'd have most likely been paying more in rent if you lived elsewhere.

How you deal with it moving forward is up to you. You could always tell DP that you were going pay your share of utilities since you do use them, but stop contributing to house maintenance and upkeep in order to fund an inheritance for your son.

That was your stepfather’s choice, it doesn’t have to be anyone else’s. Also, who paid for what is entirely relevant - it isn’t OP’s asset.

Whether OP’s son was a child or adult when they moved in, he isn’t the partner’s son and shouldn’t expect to inherit.