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?

The only surprising thing about this is that he has remarried. I completely understand why he wants the house to go to his children and marriage puts that at risk, whatever the deeds and will say. A a spouse she'll be entitled to a share upon divorce or may be able to challenge the will for a "reasonable provision" amount if she's dependent on him (it's not clear if she is or not). If I was widowed or divorced I would never remarry for these very reasons.

Also maybe I'm being pedantic about vows but I'm sure there is something like "all that I have I share with you". If you don't mean it why say it? Did he make clear before the wedding that he wouldn't be sharing the house?

Practically speaking your friend needs to wise up and make a plan. All these "homeless" comments are a bit silly. Where did she live before she met this bloke? She must have housed herself and the children somehow. Does she work? If not she needs to and then she can buy an investment property of her own. She isn't having to contribute financially to the house so she should be able to raise plenty of surplus cash from earned income.

If she’s that bothered why doesn’t she contribute to the house? Not contributing to the purchase or the running is nuts.

This is exactly why i will never remarry...I own my house outright and it will be split equally between my 3 children when i die (if not needed to pay care costs)...no way would i risk my house going to a new spouse and his kids if i died first...absolute insanity.
Ive worked my whole life to be mortgage free no way would i risk my kids not getting it.

@honeylulu”Also maybe I'm being pedantic about vows but I'm sure there is something like "all that I have I share with you". If you don't mean it why say it? Did he make clear before the wedding that he wouldn't be sharing the house?”

Well I’m married and those weren’t my wedding vows.

Remember those wee things called marriage vows?

Does the friend have any assets?

Ah thank you. I married in church and that bit was definitely included. I did wonder if civil/other denomination vows were different, evidently so. I will listen harder next time I go to a wedding.

Your friend is being unreasonable and greedy. If she is contributing nothing, she deserves nothing. She should make her own plans re savings, pension etc...
However DH hasn't thought this through as although he won't put her on the deed, marriage gives certain rights. She might not end up with half but his will would have to state that she made no contributions and it might end up in court!

But won't their father also provide for them? What grandparents might they inherit from? I don't think it's that simple that all of his assets should be split between his and her children. I think that it's great if he puts them first.

Presumably this is the house that was bought with his first wife - was it a divorce or is he a widower? I think that would make a difference (for me personally), as if he adds her to the deeds and then dies before her, he risks his children inheriting nothing from either their mum or their dad.

I think it sounds wise but I can see why it would be hurtful.

This is exactly what my uncle's children did.

He needs to make provision for her to remain in the house for a time after his death. If she has assets of her own he could include a provision that she must be able to buy the children out. This should have all been agreed before they got married.

She is BU to want to be on the deeds, NBU to want some provision made for her. She is not an unpaid housekeeper providing sex for bed and board, she is his wife and he should recognise that.

It really depends on the set up. Has she got her own property which she is renting out?

If she is just living in his house and has no property of her own and no ownership of his, then she's in a very precarious position if they split. Although, as his wife, she could make a claim for assets in the event of a divorce.

Your friend is being unreasonable.

There are at least 3 in my social circle at the moment challenging their former step mothers/her children where their fathers have died and they have been disinherited out of the blue. 2 have seen their mother's money go to the new wives from short marriages. Its been devastating for them.

It's a mess that is entirely preventable. A life interest by all means but otherwise the children should inherit directly so they aren't at the mercy of a 2nd spouse.

If he's made a will after marriage he can leave his property to whoever he wants.

Would you be better off moving this to legal?

I’ve no idea but presumably if she divorced she gets a pay off of some kind.

She should pay some rent though, otherwise she'll be a cunt lodger

So, as well as providing her a free place to live he should do all the housework as well?

You missed the point spectacularly.

If she pays rent she’d will the father of her kids Akso provide a house for her when he dies??

Because well before taking about inheritance fir her dcs, Theres tge fact on the day he dies, she’ll be homeless.
Can you imagine? You loose your dh AND the roof over your head.

Thing is we know nothing whatsoever about the financial situation of the OP's 'friend' and her husband, what assets they each have, what their salaries and earning capacities and pensions are, or why the wife is not contributing financially to the house (is it because she can't because she has no assets or income or because she will be maintaining her own separate assets and property and they will be keeping finances entirely separate, or because she's lazy and greedy). We don't know the number and ages of the couple's respective children (independent adults huge difference Vs pre schoolers) and if they plan any joint children. We certainly don't know how they split the housework and child rearing Vs out of the house/paid work and how that has affected their conversations and agreements about finances. So any discussion about all this is pure speculation and projection really.

All the OP asked was whether we'd be annoyed to not be on the deeds of the house if we were the wife, and it's very hard to answer that without knowing the full circumstances. I suppose in a vacuum I'd say yes I'd be annoyed, because at its heart marriage is a legal contract that entails committing to share assets fairly and to supporting one another financially, so in general I think I would expect to share the house, and for my part to share my own house and assets with my spouse and/or contribute equally or within my means financially to the partnership. But of course where there are (step) children to take into account everything does become more complicated...

To the PP that asked about vows, there's nothing about sharing assets in the minimum legal vows for either a marriage or a civil partnership, they really are very brief and just essentially cover the fact each party agrees to legally marry the other, but it doesn't matter whether you explicitly agree to dividing your assets fairly on divorce or death, by agreeing to legally marry and signing on the dotted line that's what you've signed up to. All the various Christian forms of marriage ceremony including the book of common prayer version, and most traditional civil vows however do include a financial commitment ('with all my worldly goods I thee endow' being the book of common prayer version although only the man says that bit, the woman traditionally having no goods other than herself with which to endow him) alongside promises to be faithful and loving and caring and so on...

I think the key point is that this is something everyone should discuss before marriage, particularly a second/third marriage, and before buying a house, and before writing a will.

I am currently helping deal with the mess resulting from a third marriage, in which the wife ended up with not only her late husband's house and personal effects but also family heirlooms belonging to his first and second wives. Luckily she didn't change her will after her husband died and before she died, or she could have left it all to her children from her first marriage, who have no blood connection whatsoever with the original owners of any of the stuff, rather than the direct descendants of the first two wives. As it is, her children will inherit a share of a house paid for entirely by a man who was already in his 70s when he married their mother.

This is one reason why I am never going to get married again.

Why should the guy not be able to put his own kids first? Your friend sounds like a bit of a freeloader TBH.

It sounds as though he wants to protect his assets so that his children will inherit them, which sounds reasonable to me. As his new wife she would inherit anyway unless he has made a trust Will stating that his children should inherit the house and his widow made a life tenant. My husband and I have just set up a trust Will just in case one of us dies and the other remarries and the children lose everything that both of us have worked hard for.

No the DH is right. If she isn't contributing to the house she can't expect to be put on the deeds when he has his own children.