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?

She isn't married to him. She has no rights.

No solicitor in the land would agree with that.

Why does she? She has lived there rent free, and made no major contributions towards the upkeep of it. Anyway, it’s rather a moot point because he isn’t offering her it.

Nope sorry OP you're wrong. Both legally and morally.
why should his son give up his inheritance because you've lived there and contributed to repairs? It's their asset. You haven't even contributed to a mortgage (because there was none) which left you with disposable income to invest with as you wish. You haven't lost on any asset, because with that money you could have built your assets elsewhere.
if you have made significant improvements to the property then this could perhaps be recovered and carved out of any value to which that has contributed to. However, if it is just general upkeep (which would be similar to the upkeep required to a rental property) then I don't think this would be recoverable.

@Dibbydoos they are not married

That’s my point!

@AnonKat * was replying to the OP saying that her partner’s opinion would be the same even if they were married. I was pointing out that his opinion might be the same, but the position in law wouldn’t be.

Why? Squatters rights?
Is a free ride not enough for some people?

Even if they were married there is every chance OP would have no stake in the home. It’s not a given when one partner owned the property outright before marriage. There’s a lot going against OP in that regard, it was never a family home, it was a second marriage, a relatively short marriage if they divorced soon etc. A property by no means automatically becomes a shared marital asset just due to marriage alone.

Yes, why? That makes no sense to me - favouring a step-child over your own.

I'm with your partner on this one. The house has been paid for in full by him and his first wife. Then the outstanding balance by his first wife's life insurance.

You've lived there RENT FREE for 10 years, contributed to some upkeep and now want to claim 25-33% of the house. You get to live there for life. Why should you get to claim a % of the house? Speaks of money grabbing to me. Unless your contribution has increased the value of the house by 25-33%, then no, you shouldn't get a share of the house.

You could have saved the money you would have paid in rent and bought yourself an investment property to pass onto your own son but instead you chose to work part time and go on lovely holidays, pay for gap year. You will just have to live with the consequences of not having foresight to build something for your own son. However, if you are still working, it's not too late to buy something now to invest.

It also sounds like you are jealous of your DSS who has just inherited 7 figure sum. Regardless of whether or not he needs this money, the house you live in represents his dead mothers inheritance/share. Sorry if it sounds brutal.

If the house was paid off by your children’s dead father then that would be extremely unfair

Think you are going to need to keep working OP. If you and your partner break up you could be in a tricky situation.

Hang on, so you lived there with no rent or mortgage. Decided to work part time and now believe you are entitled to a third of the property for your son? In the basis this set up has stopped you having your own assets?

You could have had you own assets by not working part time. You have benefit hugely from the situation. The fact that you didn’t take advantage of that, still doesn’t mean you should get a third to pass on?

and you say decorating came out of joint money? How much do you both contribute to ‘joint money’.

It’s a bloody minefield…
get legal advice - it’s so unfair that DP lives with you and yet hasn’t married you - why?
But I agree spend the money together and make memories for you both and DC and future DGC

What exactly is unfair?

Yes, I'm wondering that too. If I were your DS, I'd be raising an eyebrow ....

OP- what savings and rainy day fund do you have?

Put the inheritance aside as there’s a wider issue here.

As it stands- if you separate you have no assets. I am not sure how old you are, however you need to build an asset as your own back up.

i have friends who sold up and lived with partners; then have nothing once relationship has ended. I am not saying your relationship will be the same, but we should all make sure we have something to fall back on.

I have put my own feelings about living together (unmarried) onto my comment.
Being married clarifies certain things legally but nothing beats taking legal advice .

I agree with your husband. Possibly a split of 80/20 with you able to live in the house if your husband passes.

Sorry DP not DH

I think that your ingratitude is appalling. You will receive a life interest in the house during which time you can choose to live in it or rent it out. Your step-son will not receive his inheritance until you pass away but will be liable for contributing to any costs. Your poor Step-Son

There is nothing inherently unfair about living with someone and not marrying them. You didn’t say why it was unfair, so I asked.

and given he wants to keep his main asset for his son, why would he get married?

Op is fully aware she lives in a house not in her name and isn’t married. She is fully aware she has benefited greatly from an asset that isn’t hers. I can’t see what’s unfair.

Let's be honest. You DP already DID try and get half of your DC's inheritance moved over to his children. He was just more sneaky about it.

If you don't think, that if your DP is still living in your house and you sadly pre-decease him, that he won't do everything he can to keep the house? That your DC won't have to pay a considerable amount to get him evicted?

I wouldn't trust him as far as I could toss him using a catapult. With a high wind behind me.

He is right. The deceased wife’s money goes down her bloodline, what a cheek to want it for your own dc.

You lived in his house and therefore could not buy your own. Your choice, plus it must have bumped up your savings. Are you going to leave any of your savings to his dc? Doubt it.