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?

But she had the equity from the sale of her marital home. That has to be substantial and should have been used as a deposit on another house, not on gap years and uni fees and holidays. I would never do that - indeed, I did not. What an utter waste of money. Also, she works part-time and says her salary is 35k. She's a civil servant so if she is working half time then it's pro rata. Had she not given up full-time work she'd be on something like 70k, ample to service a mortgage. I have little sympathy for someone who could secure her future but didn't.

I wonder how you would have felt if your mother had died when you were young and her savings handed to your step siblings

I don’t see why you would be entitled to any of the house. It was an asset from his previous marriage and was paid off before you came on the scene. It should go to his son. It’s not about how much you decide he needs it.

Presumably the fact that it is paid off has benefitted you- no rent and has allowed you to go PT etc? It was up to you to be responsible and invest for your future appropriately. But you haven’t - you’ve reduced your working hours instead which I’d argue was quite irresponsible if you’ve done that at the expense of your own financial independence.

Afraid another one agreeing with your DP.

It sounds like you've had a lovely life since moving in with your DP - both sons adult aged, working part time, no housing costs, supported by your DP to have a nicer lifestyle than you'd achieve on your salary.

It's then too much to expect your DP to provide an inheritance to your DS. You need to save and find a way of giving yourself security if you ever split up. This can be left to your son if you don't end up needing it.

You haven’t said if you are paying rent or not.

On an emotional level - the death of his DS’s mum has meant house was paid off - that’s a heavy emotional thing for him and his son. I can see why he wants his DS to have the house outright on an emotional level.

On a practical level - it doesn’t sound like you are paying rent. Quite frankly on your salary it would have been very hard to get on the property ladder - and you yourself said you spent your savings on your DS’s uni and holidays I think? So I am not really sure you have missed out on anything.

Really, him offering for you to live in the house rent free if he dies is a good option and what else he has suggested is shared between the boys. I think he’s offered you a fair deal.

If, for both of you, money is really not why you married, then I think you should put it to your DP that had you been married, you would receive half of his share quite fairly, so you should discuss this seriously.

If he wants nothing to go to your son, then I do think he also has little care for your son. I have known step parents to leave something substantial to their step children, even those who were adults when they became step'children' so that is an issue here I think.

If women think that they are air-heads. This is what marriage is about. It's a contract that confers rights. If a man won't marry think about why that might be before you leap into living in his house. Marriage - much derided - is one way in which women can protect themselves financially. The other is working full-time, buying own property etc.

I think he is being very fair telling you this now and guaranteeing you the right to stay if he dies first. I’m sure his late wife would have wanted her life insurance to benefit her son and not a future partner of her husband.

You have been able to make choices about holidays / part time working based on having no housing costs, and to pay your son’s uni costs too. Those costs be seen as part of your son’s inheritance from you, which he got early, and he could still inherit more from you and your ex if you choose (and perhaps if you start saving / investing more now).

I’m sure it’s come as a shock but I think making a plan for your future based on this information is the best and fairest approach rather than trying now to make your partner change his mind and disinherit his son.

I think that this has made you realise how he values your relationship and your son as part of that.

I don't think your son should get a part of the house. But I do think that you should start investing in something, property or other assets for your son. And if you've contributed to household improvements then an equivalent sum should be transferred into savings, which can then be used by you or used by your son.

And you need a watertight will to make sure that you are not homeless when your partner dies

It’s hilarious. Same poster that also didn’t read another thread the other day and I corrected them on. I think they just don’t read.

OP - another vote for your partner’s view on this

You're getting a hard time here OP

Several things: You say "We have agreed though that however it is split I should be allowed to continue living here if he were to die first"

So it seems regardless of what anyone says here, you have both agreed to some form of split? If you can wrangle that then good for you , although I don't think it strictly fair, you are nonetheless this man's partner and have provided him with comfort and solace after losing his wife. I think that should stand for something. The responses had me confused thinking you were still quibbling over whether you would receive some asset or not.

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.

Hmm🤔. I think you should fight for some of his pension and life insurance if nothing else is possible. My sister's MiL and her DP lived together for decades and although he didn't receive all of it as not married, he did still get a not insubstantial amount from her pension. Mind you they had children together....

The lifelong stay in the house may be the more precarious option as his DS may make things difficult for you in event of his fathers dying before you. Go for as much as you can.

The house should be inherited by your DP’s son - his mother paid for it with your DP and her life insurance paid the rest. Nothing to do with you at all and certainly not your sons

I agree with your DP. It’s his house and it’s only right that he leaves it to his son. As you aren’t married you’re not entitled to anything, unfortunately, and if he dies without a will his entire estate will go to his son.

If my mother has been rich, I would gladly have shared. I never lived with my stepfather or step siblings but once our respective parents were married we were a family.

I wonder if the comments would be different if OP was married to her DP? There are many relationships where women are in a weaker economic position and not treated as lodgers in their own home. I often see the phrase ‘family money’ on here.

Personally I earn £20k+ plus more than my DH but I don’t treat him as a lodger.

Well of course they would be different if they were married - because there would be different legal entitlements at play. A contract would have been entered into.
But they aren’t 🤷‍♀️

Your DP is right. Your son has two parents to inherit from, he shouldn't get a share of a house paid for by your new DP and his late wife.

Surely what you’ve contributed in improvements is less than the value you would have spent in rent over that period of time, had you not met DP? As others have said you’ve been able to live mortgage & rent free so have already benefited financially.

If you wanted an asset you could have bought a property to rent out (and still can). It sounds like the reason you haven’t is because you can’t afford to buy a property on your own, not because of living with DP.

Much of your DP’s finances is actually his wife’s inheritance which I’m sure she would have expected to pass to her DS when her DH passed away, not to his new partner’s son! Your DS will benefit from inheriting from two parents. Your DP is custodian of his wife’s inheritance and he owes it to his wife and DS to make sure that reaches his DS as presumably intended.

I wonder if the comments would be different if OP was married to her DP?

Of course they would. Because that would be an entirely different legal situation.

I'm sorry but you're not even married. Of course he would want to leave all his assets to his DS.
It's your own fault that you don't have any assets, the time you have been together has not stopped you from buying a flat or something and paying it off or renting it out but you have chosen not to do so.
He doesn't owe you anything.

Yes of course they would be different because marriage is a legal contract. OP should have married this man at the beginning or moved on. She chose not to do so. Mumsnetters are ALWAYS banging on about how important it is to get married in this situation but people keep choosing not to.

My advice would be the same. Blended families are not the same as nuclear families, and don’t have to operate as if they are.

Actually I’ve found that posters are generally advised to protect their assets upon remarriage in order to preserve them for their own biological children. Also, that marital property is split 50/50, with each leaving their share to their children.

Agreed. This is the fairest option.

I'd say you don't really have a claim to the house as you haven't financially contributed. You lived there rent free. What you should have done is saved a nest egg. What would you do if you and your dh split? As it stands you will be ok as you can stay in the house but you won't have much to leave your child.

From what I can piece together you haven't contributed more than the repairs for your share of wear and tear, benefited from free rent but want part of his house to pass on to your child. If it was the other way round I.e your house, should he get a significant share of it to leave to his son?

So the only thing that's keeping her from inheriting is that she's not married to him. OK. I hope it works out ok for her.

Seriously I do - I do think that participating in a home life whether it's with cash or cooking or being there when someone's got to come out and do whatever to the windows or drains deserves some recompense. Maybe that's me being crazy. OK.