Not adding second wife to the deeds of our new house

[Nancygrewnotdrew]

Would it bother you if your husband didn't want to add you to the deeds of our house, if you both have children from previous marriages?

A friend is in this situation: , her DH doesn't want to add her to the deeds as he wants the house to go directly to his children. She is upset, which I can understand, although she won't be contributing to the purchase or running of house.

Is my friend being unreasonable?

If they are married I don’t think it makes a difference does it?

No, your friend is being very unreasonable!

Surely if they’re married it’s not as simple as not adding her to the deeds. Won’t she have a claim by virtue of being his spouse?

It’s often advised on here. If he were to die first (statistically likely) and have the house, the kids could be left with nothing from their dad.

She can make sure her own assets are safe in the same way.

If she's not contributing to the purchase or running of the house then is being very unreasonable. Why doesn't she contribute and then it could be split between her dh dc and herself?

although she won't be contributing to the purchase or running of house

So long as she keeps it that way then it's fair enough that the house isn't registered to her.

She needs to save the money she would be spending on rent/ mortgage for herself and her kids, and / or buy a place to rent out. Then she’s got her own security, and her husband / partner should be encouraging this.

Although if they’re married it doesn’t go straight to his kids, it would go to her anyway.

So she's paying nothing ?

If she won't be contributing to the purchase or running of the house, why does she think she is entitled to any equity?

This situation depends on so many things that I don't think it's possible to answer based on the info you've given. It's completely different for example if he is expecting her to give up her job to look after his kids, and sell her house to finance an extension on his house (which would be completely unfair), to a situation where they are both work and are financially independent, he pays for his own kids, and she is effectively living with him rent / mortgage free which is enabling her to save a load of money to do whatever she wants with (in which case I'd ask why she thinks she is entitled to it)

There isn't a 'one size fits all' answer here

depends on what the will states.

What happens to your friend if he dies young of goes into care and needs to sell the house. Why isn't she contributing to the house, is it the house they live in. What if they have a child together.

Are you the husband or the "friend', does she have her own property and money, what about any other assets he might have when he dies.

It's her husband. I would be upset. Hes at ease because his biological kids will be taken care off. He's not concerned about hers if he's not thinking of a plan for that. I know they're her kids but they are married and it shows that it's not a problem for him if they're not provided for in the future. In that case, she needs to do some thinking from her perspective and act on whats right for her and her kids. I personally think it's a bit sad that they have to separate their kids like that. In my opinion, if they married, the future security of all the kids should be taken into account

Why doesn't your friend buy another property in her own name that she can let out and then move into if the situation ever arrives that he predeceases her. This gives her a home to move into or to leave to her children.

What assets does she have that she brings to their marriage. Sole assets remain sole assets and can willed where they want to be. It's only in divorce that they may considered in terms of a financial settlement including properties in sole names.

Has he made other financial provision for her perhaps in the event of his death such as life assurance?

He’s right. His assets should go to his kids. I don’t even see the point of people getting married in this situation either. Your responsibilities to your kids rests on you. He’s taking care of his kids, and you should do the same

if he dies she will be homeless, why her husband doesn't care about that?

also you say "running of house" but she will be looking after the children, not just hers also his children when they are visiting (unless they live 100% there then she will be looking after them 24/7).

In these situations is often a lifetime interest in the will so the remaining spouse can stay there after the first one diesbut the house belongs to the kids of the original owner

I think your friend is being a little unreasonable, if she hasn't contributed anything to the house. How old are she and her DH and their respective children? Does she have any assets of her own?

Her new DH could offer her some protection in the event of his death through taking out a life insurance policy, or writing his will to leave the house to his children but allow her to continue living it for a period after his death.

Is she planning to save or invest the money she would otherwise be spending on housing? Sounds like a good deal to me. No housing costs, stick it in investments or pension depending on her age.

There are so many variables.
I'm middle aged, late 50s. In my circle there are people that are widowed. They would see it as entirely appropriate to keep assets separate and make a will to ensure that assets built up by them and their deceased spouse are ring fenced for those kids. In reality marraige is only sensible if both parties have similar value assets.
I also have a friend who shared everything with her new spouse and they have written wills leaving it between their children from previous relationships, 1 from his, 3 from hers. But that involves a fairly chunky mortgage so they will build joint assets together.

I'm certainly not an expert (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong), but looking to the future, if he goes into a care home for some reason and the house isn't shared, I think the house will have to be sold to cover the costs. Then she would be homeless and his kids might end up with nothing as well?

But WHY would she think she would be entitled to an asset she hasn’t contributed to at all? Neither by finances nor unpaid role. Unless there’s something like her looking after his kids going on, then it’s really money grabbing of her. Why has she not/can she not contribute to her own assets?

You don’t see the point in people getting married again, in later life, life doesn’t stay the same people move on, good for them.And no not all assets should go to his children, when you’re married, legally won’t she be entitled to half.

He shouldn’t have married her if he feels like this because if it ends up being a long marriage (about 10yrs) she’ll have rights.

Your friend needs to save the money that she would have spent on a mortgage/rent so that if the worst happened, she’d be ok. Are there assets like savings or life insurance policy where she is the beneficiary?