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?

It depends on her financial situation. He could put in his will that she has a life interest in the house, but that on her death it goes to the children. If, under his current will, upon his death, she will be homeless and destitute, then it is very unreasonable.

Tbf aren’t your friends kids going to inherit off their father ? So why should they potentially inherit twice off their dad and stepdad while the husbands own kids only get what their dad is leaving them ?

I meant I don’t see a point if you have children, and no joint children. You can still be in a relationship, you don’t need to get married because it doesn’t benefit his kids in any way. That’s his priority. And he is placing his priority of his kids first which I fully agree with. why isn’t she doing the same?

That depends on
1- what their arrangement is finance wise. Fully joint account? Paying according to their wage or 50/50 regardless? And who will be paying for the house/repairs and upkeep etc….
2- what does he say re the fact she’d become homeless on the day he dies
3- she actually has the possibility to put money aside to get her own house/they decide to buy somethimg else for her etc…..

Basically, he decided to get married but seem to be want his cake and eat it. Ie I want to share everything but not what I see as my inheritance regardless on the impact on my wife
i think that a shit view of marriage personally. If he wanted to protect the inheritance, he shouldn’t have got married.

Your friend is the one being unreasonable. She’s not contributing to the purchase or running of the house, so he’s doing the right thing not adding her to the deeds. Hopefully he has it written in his will that the house is yours go to his children. She sounds a money grabber.

It sounds like a bad situation from both sides if married.
If he dies - she becomes homeless.
If they divorce - she has a claim on the asset he wanted to protect.
If either end up in a care home it may have to be sold to pay for their care.

No one seems to have got legal advice.
If not married then he is protecting his assets and she needs to think about her own security.

All assuming it’s in the UK (definitely England)

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.

If she's not contributing to the purchase or running of the house.

Completely unreasonable to expect to be on the deeds or inherit when her DH dies. Although he will have to specify in his will that the house goes to his DC.

She might be upset about losing her place of living on her DH's death - yes, that's reasonable to be upset. But she's a grown up and presumably has her own property or can plan to acquire one, so she has somewhere to move to, given that she'll have no accommodation expenses!

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

Not if her DH writes his will specifically to leave the house to his DC. If there's no will, then yes.

So she wants the house to give it to her own children and her husband’s children should miss out?

Even though she has contributed nothing to the house whatsoever?

CFery…

The DH will have to make some provision for his wife in a will that is secure enough not to be contested, but he is perfectly entitled to leave the majority of his assets to his children, even if that means the wife has to move out of her home. At least, that’s the advice I received from a solicitor.

These debates on threads like this always puzzle me. He’s buying a house and she’s not contributing. It’s reasonable not to put her on the deeds.
The most straightforward, decent thing is to leave it to his children, but with a lifetime interest to the wife if he dies first. It’s not unusual to have this arrangement; and it is fair all round.
surely he would have a solicitor dealing with the sale who would advise him.

I think we'd need much more information, everyone's ages for a start, and even then TBH I think you should ask to have this moved to the Divorce/Separation topic or legal. I am recently divorced both ex-H and I in our 60s I made sure the split gave him enough for a decent place to live, obviously in the hope that our children would inherit as much as possible. Only to find now that he may move someone else in and as I understand it even if they don't marry, even if she contributes nothing other than some grocery money, and even if she has her own property, she may still have a claim on the house. Worried sick, so I am getting advice (financial order not done). So I don't think it matters whether the person in question is on the deeds but as I say, everyone commenting here including me is missing quite a lot of information.

Who has paid for the house?

If he paid for it, why does she think she should get to own it? Its perfectly fine for him to want it to go to his own children - if he gives her a share, she may well pass it to her own DC and disinherit his kids.

She's gaining a huge amount if she is living there rent free, she can save that for herself/own kids

She's getting free accommodation for 20/30 years. Massive saving compared to if she never met this man.

I think it's more important that her DH writes a will which if it gives the house to the kids on his death still allows her to live in the house until she dies or remarries

Why? Their father may not want them to have to wait until someone unrelated to them dies before they can receive their inheritance.

I don’t own my home yet but there’s no way I’d put a partner on the deed if I did.

I assume it’s his home and she’s moving in with him, so why would she be put on the deeds.

He has made plans for his kids when he dies.
She needs to do the same and not rely on someone else to do it for her.

Hes absolutely right to do this. He would be screwing over his own children otherwise.

Maybe their children are adults.

And why wouldn't he be looking after his own children? If she's looking after them all the time then she must not be working right so that feels fair enough if he's supporting her to be a stay-at-home parent then she parents the children.

I'll say depends. What is he expecting her to contribute? Will she be able to buy her own property? Will the kids kick her out? Will the house be treated as a home or is he allowed to make 100% of the decisions and she's a lodger? Will she feel like it is her home without any ownership? He is being sensible. But I also understand the wife.

Honestly, I am a bit supporter of livign apart together for older couples to avoid all of this (assuming both can afford their housing).

He is right to want to leave his house to his kids and not a new wife

As people have said its more complicated with them being married but we have a similar set up to your friend in that I own the house and it will be passing to our son on death. I pay for the house and all renovations to it and my partner has a lifetime interest to live in the house until he dies. This is the sort of thing your friends partner should be putting in his will so she isn't left homeless if he dies suddenly.

Then your friend needs to save the money she would be spending on rent/mortgage and her husband should be supporting her in doing this. ie not saying well now she pays all the bills and food shopping as hes paying the mortgage and leaving her with no money to save.

He probably should have stayed single then and not remarried.

Where did she live before they married? Did she have her own house?

So what does it state?