To want to leave my assets to my family

[Dilemmalarma]

Im coming up to mid-forties, no children, DP (divorced) is 53 with one young adult daughter from his marriage.
We've been together just under 3 years and have started talking about buying a home together. We'd put equal amounts into the property purchase, a small house with no mortgage.

Im very close to my sister and would like to leave my assets to her...we had a difficult childhood and shes always been there for me, shes worked incredibly hard but doesnt have much...she's the same age as DP.

I proposed that DP and I purchase a property as tenants in common with some kind of clause enabling the remaining partner to live in the property for 3 years or so before selling so my sister and DPs daughter could inherit something while young enough to enjoy it however DP got quite angry and said it was a mad suggestion and that he wanted either a joint tenancy or right to live in the shared home for the rest of his life.

DP has a number of healthy pensions and savings meaning potentially moving after my death or buying my sisters share wouldnt be an issue financially. I dont have much of a decent pension but would be happy to downsize if he died before I did to enable his daughter to inherit her Fathers share of the property.

AIBU? DP is making me feel i am...I pointed out the arrangement would benefit DPs daughter too but he said she has enough already and will also inherit from her Mum.

I understand that - so then, you should probably buy somewhere modest enough that he can easily afford to buy your estate out were you to pass - and maybe vice versa too?

The OP said the issue there is that her sister might never benefit.

Personally I think it's a sensible arrangement. Plus - he might die first and it might be the OP getting turfed out for the daughter. 3 years is a decent length of time and if you are 80 and infirm, you probably need to be in a sheltered flat anyway.

Or - you could buy somewhere smaller and give your sister some money now and at least then you know she's had some of her share while she can still enjoy it.

Or just keep your own houses and independence.

@Dilemmalarma I would just live separately! 🙂

The problem is not the inheritance, it's how you handle conflict in a relationship.

Instead of thinking about your proposal and offering his thoughts, he became angry with you.

This is a red flag.

Is this normal for him? Do you usually bow to what he wants? Do you often question yourself when he gets angry?

Very surprised at the voting here. You have no idea if he’d be in a position to move physically / emotionally after your death (and the other way around, too, if he goes first). I absolutely understand wanting your sister/niece to ultimately inherit your asset but to not give him a lifetime tenancy (and him you) is, imo, very unreasonable.

For the record I say this as someone in a similar position to you. I was widowed five and a half years ago and am remarrying this year. The portion of my house that I have paid off before I marry DP (because I did that alone/with DH’s death in service payment) will be ringfenced and left to my daughter, with DP having the right to live here until his death. (DP’s will leaves everything to me / my daughter.)

Except if you're in your 90s and infirm, having had the house adapted to your frailties, the last thing you’ll want to do is move. Does your dsis have any children? It’s likely she’d never inherit from you given she’s older in any case, so what would you like to happen if she dies first?

What is your current housjng set up, do you each rent or own separately?

I agree with @Happyjoe living apart but being very much together at a later stage in life is perfect. You could end up being nurse and carer. why not stay the way you are?

What is the reason for buying together, and do you plan to marry?

Im older and have a DP for more than 20 years now. We each own our own houses and that wont change. Not married either.

People in their 50’s and 60’s do tend to have a lot of assets. The point being a lot of it will be used in retirement and old age. There comes a point where capital starts to erode. As does the willingness or ability to move house.

If you are thinking of become partners in your retirement and old age you should be thinking about committing to joint finances. Is this meant to be a forever home that takes you into retirement? Or would you want to sell it and downsize closer to your retirement ages? Are you even on the same page with that decision?

One option is that he buys the house as the place he will stay out his years and you invest your personal money into another vehicle. He would be in his rights to expect you to contribute rent for living there if you are growing your capital in another way and he isn’t benefiting from it.

Im with your partner on this. If my husband died I definitely wouldn’t want to have in my mind that I needed to sell our home within a time frame. Potentially this could be your home together for 40 odd years, why would you expect him to have to think about moving ? I would be so upset to have to think of moving out of the home we’d built together. Plus it might go in care home fees anyway so your children wouldn’t get anything.

His reaction would be giving me cause for concern OP.

There's no way I'd change my plans for someone who used anger as an objection. I think, given the fact he has assets of his own, your proposal was just fine. Don't tie your finances to him unless you can be 100% sure about him.

I wouldn't buy a house with someone if I couldn't live there for the rest of my life in the event of his/her death.

I wouldn’t buy with him.

What jumps out is that he is much better off than you and would be fine in the situation you suggested, but he's only focused on what will happen to him.

I think he sees this as just another investment.

Absent illness or accident, the probability is that he will die first, then your DSis, then you - leaving only his DD.

Maybe he's just thinking practically that, if his DD is the only (adult) child that either of you have, it makes sense for her to end up with the whole thing in the end. It's kind of odd leaving your assets to somebody older than you or even the same age - unless they're your spouse or long-term partner - if there are people of younger generations in the family.

I don't think either of you is necessarily wrong or being unreasonable; but you clearly aren't on the same page - so maybe buying a house together might not be a good move.

I agree with your DP. He does not want his hands to be tied in this way from the moment the house is bought. The only solution is not to buy together. He sees your “baggage” as a liability. Neither of you is wrong, you just have different histories.

I think it's too blasé to say people in their 80s who are frail/infirm shouldn't stay in their homes anyway, like it's some boon that they'll be booted out into sheltered housing or somesuch. That can be the worst thing, causing confusion and spiralling health issues when they could've been much happier staying the home they know with a support network around them, esp if they can get care in the home which sounds likely in his case. Such posts and the OP are too flip about how humans actually feel in old age and bereavement and it's bizarre to me to be getting sentimental about an older sister enjoying her inheritance while giving no shits about your supposed DP. I don't think this relationship has what it takes to go the distance so maybe it's good that this issue has revealed that now and they can not make the mistake of buying together when they're so misaligned.

This sounds like a good compromise.

Except that the reality for most people when a partner dies and they grow old, is that they sell up to downsize? Even where they are actually married and the asset is a shared asset. There is a bizarre expectation no doubt fed by SM that people have the right to live in their homes until they die. They don’t and historically they rarely have unless they were/are in a life-time tenancy that can be inherited by relatives - these are very rare.

In the case of a DP, not a DH, OP is absolutely right to arrange her affairs this way, esp if she wants DSis to benefit from the request - the asset is of absolutely no use to her if she has to wait until DP has died to access it and she -being the same age - could easily predecease him.

In this case, OP, I would keep your finances separate. You buy/keep a property of your own and move into his and pay rent. When he dies, you can return to your home and if you die before him, then your flat is left to your DSis.

Statistically you’re the one who will die last and you would be the one facing homelessness in old age. I’d not want an arrangement of the sort you’re suggesting but would understand it if someone had children they wanted to benefit but even so I’d not be very happy with it. Not if it was someone’s sister. If I were him I’d tell you to get lost and then buy somewhere on my own.

Agreed, but it's also telling that they've changed it to lifetime anyway. So despite time restriction not being unusual, it was only temporary and the reality is that lifetime is the better option in the long-run for committed partners.

It sounds like the arrangements for inheritance are too complex to make it worth buying a house together.

Have you considered just buying a house with your sister, and you and your partner visit one another?

TBH I can see his perspective- an enforced house move after the death of one’s partner would be a stressful upheaval.

Don't buy with him until you both agree what will happen to joint assets if one dies or you split.

Except that the reality for most people when a partner dies and they grow old, is that they sell up to downsize? Even where they are actually married and the asset is a shared asset. There is a bizarre expectation no doubt fed by SM that people have the right to live in their homes until they die. They don’t and historically they rarely have unless they were/are in a life-time tenancy that can be inherited by relatives - these are very rare.

Odd to think this is some recent SM trend and that historically everyone's downsized. As if family properties (as in staying in the family for generations, whether mansions, farms, council houses or backwood shacks) haven't always been a thing. Even in your example, it's key that the adult has a choice. Fine to sell up and downsize when you're ready as part of the grieving process. Very different to set the clock now.

It’s only a 2 person house in the first place so why would you need to downsize? It’s not like you’d have empty nest syndrome.

I don’t think it’s common for couples to downsize when one dies at all. maybe more common when the children move out, but generally they do that to chose a 2 person home together to spend the rest of their lives

I don't know how to work it financially, but I wouldn't want to live in a house at that age knowing if my partner dies first I would shave to pack up and move. That just sounds depressing, what if he dies first? Do you really want to have to up sticks and sell and move house when you are potentially in your 70s and have loved there for 20 years? That doesn't seem reasonable to me.