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?

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/paying-for-care/paying-for-a-care-home/do-i-have-to-sell-my-home-to-pay-for-care/

Will my home have to be included in the financial assessment?

In some situations, your home won't be taken into account in the financial assessment. There are a few circumstances where this applies.

Moving into a care home temporarily

If you need short-term or temporary care in a care home, your home won't be in the financial assessment.

Moving into a care home permanently

If you move into a care home permanently, your home won't be counted in the financial assessment if any of the following people still live there:

• your partner, spouse or civil partner
• your estranged or divorced partner if they're also a lone parent
• a relative who is 60 or over
• a relative who is under 60 who has a disability
• a child of yours aged under 18.

Local councils can also choose to leave the value of your home out of the financial assessment, even if someone living there doesn’t fit into one of the categories above. They don’t have to – but they should consider any requests.

Are you sure she won't be contributing to the running of the house? He's doing all the cooking, all the cleaning, all the organising of his children when they visit, all the washing, all the purchasing of anything to do with the house at all?

I bet he isn't.

It definitely does (assuming they're in the UK); nobody is obliged to leave anything to their spouse. If her name isn't on the deeds and he leaves the house to his kids (in a will written after they married), it goes to his kids.

If they're married it IS as simple as adding her to the deeds, though he'd need to decide if they were going to be joint tenants or tenants in common. If the former, and he died first, she'd become the sole owner. If the latter, he could leave his half of the value of the house to his kids, although they wouldn't see the money until she died too. But no, in England there is no obligation to leave anything to one's spouse; if he owns a house (or anything) in his own name only and leaves it to his kids, it goes to his kids.

Well not quite. Under the inheritance act (1975) a disinherited spouse could make a claim for reasonable financial provision from the estate of the deceased even if the will specifies the children get everything. They wouldn't necessarily get the whole house or even a lifetime right to reside in the house (what exactly reasonable provision consists of depends on the relative financial situations of the deceased and the surviving spouse). But being married definitely makes it substantially harder to totally disinherit your spouse in favour of your children, so if that is what you're aiming for, entering into a second marriage at all is ill advised (unmarried partner much harder to make any claim on the estate). A solicitor can advise further on making reasonable provision for your spouse if you are looking to also protect an inheritance for the children of your first marriage but simply not putting your spouse on the deeds of the house is not sufficient IMO. Also as others have said it would be very sensible for the wife to invest if she's able into some savings or a property of her own or other investment to protect herself in the event of the death of her spouse, as whatever the legal rights and wrongs no-one would want to see the whole estate swallowed in legal fees and all the other fall-out of being engaged in legal action with step-children...

Quite. As is often said on here, marriage is a financial commitment. Why get married if you want to keep all your assets to yourself and don’t mind your spouse being made homeless? Better to stay as lovers who live separately. Even ‘partner’ is too strong.

You are rifgt to some degree, however the 1975 Family & Dependants Act allows a claim if she were to be left little or nothing in the Will she would be provided for if she contests the Will.
if he doesn’t make a Will she would also inherit.

He’s being upfront and honest about his intentions for his property to be passed to his children. She hasn’t contributed towards it so why would she want to potentially take it off them?

Depending on everyone’s ages and health she could request he leaves her a life interest or start saving for her own deposit for an investment property.

if she won’t be contributing to the purchase or running of the house he’s right not to put her on the deeds. If he does and does first she can legitimately pass it on to her own children overlooking his. It’s not his job to leave a legacy for her children. That’s her job.

I don’t think he should have remarried. It makes it less clear that his assets are dedicated to his children. Have a relationship, certainly, but don’t make it legally binding. That is what is causing the issue.

I’m guessing g that by not adding her, she feels that he doesn’t see their marriage as permanent, whilst he wants the assets to his children.

Can the will include something to say she can live in the house until she passes away?

In his shoes I wouldn’t have married her.

She doesn’t seem to care either since she is not contributing.

She might be contributing looking after the children and home.
Why to marry someone if then you are not treating them as a partner? I don't get why live with someone, marry her and not making sure she will be financially protected if something happens to you. If he wanted his home going directly to his children don't live with someone and don't marry that person.
He could stayed single

They might be able to talk about it but if he's not interested, really, she needs to think about things from her perspective. She is free not to care for his kids if she doesn't want to. Also if she wants to turn down holidays etc because she needs to save to provide for her kids future, that's ok too. If they can talk it through and come up with some kind of a plan it would be good though

In her shoes I wouldn’t have married him.

I can only say that in our second marriage with separate kids, dh put me on the deeds to our house even though I hardly contributed. It wasn’t something I asked for, he did it automatically.

But the children might be adults? And who says he isn’t looking after the children and the home as well? Also why isn’t she making sure he is financially protected? Why is the onus the man to ensure that the helpless little female who must be looking after the children at home is financially protected? You are making a lot of assumptions and using lots of stereotypes by defining the role of a the man as a provider and the woman as a homemaker. You know nothing about them as OP hasn’t given any details.

Your friend is taking the p!ss.

This. They both have adult children so assuming they must be quite a bit older. Why doesn't she have her own house? Given she's contributing nothing she is BVU!!

Dh and I 2nd marriage. Adult dc , none together. I own the house outright..dh is not on the deeds as I do not want it going to his dc. If I die he lives in the house till he dies, and cannot remarry/ bring a partner into it. When he dies, my dd can sell it. Dd and dh are fully aware of this and it is all specified in my will.

If I were dying one of my last requests of dh would be that at least my half of our assets gets legally locked away for our children. It would be a reminder because I’ve already told him that clearly. Your friend is being very unfair.

Your friend wants a free house?

She could ask her DH to include a ‘right to reside’ clause in his will allowing her to live in the house after he dies for either a set period of time or until she dies. The house would still belong to his DC but she will have a roof over her head.

I bet your friend is younger than her partner, anticipating many years of providing 24/7 care in his old age, and then on his death, be made homeless by his children.