I want the house. AIBU?

[HouseFair]

I feel like this might be controversial…

My boyfriend and I are buying a house. We have been together three years and I’m pregnant! Happy surprise. I own a flat but we live together in a rented house as he has three older kids so my flat isn’t big enough for us all. I’m selling it to provide the deposit on the house.

Part of the mortgage discussion is on life insurance. I have told him I want mirror policies in place which pay off the mortgage which leave the house in the surviving person’s name. He seems reticent about this and I think it’s because he thinks it should be left to his kids.

AIBU?

You would be financially protected. You’d have your half of the asset, and the right to live in it.

Your will shouldn’t leave your half to him either btw. Your half should be left to your child. Not him. You only have one child, so your child should inherit the full share of your assets, including your full share of half the house if you buy together. Leaving him the right to live in the house.

That is how you both protect your assets and ensure they go to your own kids, whilst making sure your partner is protected with the right to live in the house.

No, he wants to die intestate because he can’t be bothered to put provisions in place.

Then why on earth are you even contemplating moving your relationship forward. The man's a muppet!

This thread has gone mad. He has no assets to leave currently. Anything he's getting is off the back of his partner and then he wants to just leave it to his kids. Screw that for a game of soldiers.

Keep your financial independence and buy the house yourself. If he feels that strongly he can buy his own house on his own (but oh wait. He can't as he has no deposit and is relying on Op). Leave your house in trust to your own child so it can't be split four ways next time. He can make arrangements for his own kids.

I agree!

Under what I’m proposing, if I die, his kids are in for a much bigger payout because they’d eventually get 3/4 of the house. And for the scenario that he dies, I’m pushing that he sets up significant payouts for them too.

They currently would get nothing.

Yet I’m the big meanie?

Once you pay into a mortgage, you have an asset. They are future planning.

If they buy together and he pays a mortgage for 10 years, he has an asset. It doesn’t all belong to OP, despite her being a woman and this being a man hating forum.

This thread has been done hundreds of times on this forum. And the replies are the total opposite. The only difference is that the woman is usually the one with the kids from a previous relationship, and all the advice is to protect her share of the house and only own as tenants on common so that her half can be left to her kids.

The only difference here is that OP is the woman. So as usual, mumsnetters change their responses based on sex.

But he can only pay into said asset if Op provides the deposit. Which she was seemingly happy to do with some conditions, and he has disregarded.

Im not a man hater at all and I equally think guys who buy with a woman and them having no protection around it are insane too (obviously not for the nuclear family set up).

In Ops position I absolutely wouldn't be putting my financial security at stake, with someone who seems completely reluctant to do any future financial planning. I would buy on my own and he can pay bills/rent. If he doesn't like that he's happy to stay where he is renting (which leaves him in exactly the same financial position he is now), or buy his own place to get his own asset.

One person having the deposit is very very normal. And makes no difference to the other person then owning half the house (minus the deposit) if they pay half the mortgage. It is really very very normal. He will still have an asset.

Her financial security is not at risk. Her deposit will be protected, she won’t lose it. And she will own half the rest of it so will have an asset, and can have the right to live in it for life even if he leaves his half to his kids.

This is all really normal, standard stuff. No one is at risk. That’s the whole point. Your share is protected, your deposit is protected, your right to live there is protected. Your kids inherit your share. As it should be.

Thanks to this thread and posters like you, @Trusttheawesome, I’ve decided not to buy with him.

He will need to move back to a smaller two bedroom rental instead of the 4/5 bed we were planning, and his kids will inherit nothing.

Did you miss the part where I said I would will the house (paid off by a policy) to him?

I’m asking that he makes the same provision for me that I’m making for him. He doesn’t want to so the offer is off.

Did you miss where I said that you shouldn’t do that?

Your half should be willed to your child (and any future children you may have with him).

Your child shouldn’t have to split your assets with their step siblings. And you don’t need to provide for them. Your asset (you half of the house plus deposit plus anything else) should go to your child. Not his.

You need legal advice. You need your deposit ringfenced, but beyond that if you are both contributing to the mortgage on the house going forward, it is only fair that he gets to dispose of his share the way he sees fit, which might well be to split it between his children. If that happened and the house had to be sold you would still have your deposit and your share of the equity to fund somewhere else for you to live. You could also have a legal arrangement whereby you could live in the house until you died, or some other relevant date (like your child turning 21 perhaps).

I don’t think you can reasonably expect him to agree that his children will get no benefit from the major asset you own between you and which he will also be paying towards.

Speak to a lawyer - they will be able to suggest options that protect you both.

Also let me add - you may wish to ensure your share goes to your child, rather than your partner. That way your child gets a half share, whereas if you will your share to your husband, your child will get a smaller share split between all of your partner’s children when he dies (presuming he leaves his estate equally among them).

It’s the principle for me. If he doesn't want to consider me at all then I don’t want to facilitate buying a house that I’ll provide the deposit for and pay the lion’s share for. Why would I? I can afford my own house.

Realistically, if I died, he’d need financial support to raise our DC, which I am putting in place. Why shouldn’t he do the same?

Legal advice is essential and work out a way to safeguard your home if he dies .
Ask him directly what he would like to happen should he die that allows for provision for his children,your child and for you.

If I was in your position OP I would ensure that I never got married to this man who won't put things into place to protect all his children. And I wouldn't will half the house that you have the deposit for, but he has no assets at all! Your idea of buying the house yourself and he pays you rent makes sense. YANBU

Why would you?

Because the arrangement I’ve suggested is the bog standard arrangement when there are children from a previous relationship. It’s nothing new or exciting, it’s nothing offensive to you, it isn’t putting you at risk. Everyone is protected, everything is legal and all the kids inherit from their respective parents so they get what they should get (including yours).

You do it because that’s how you make it fair and safe for everyone. And because you love someone and want to live with them and share your life. But maintain security for children in death.

You are the one who wants to do something different from the norm. And different from all the advice for people in this situation.

You seem hell bent on the idea that he isn’t caring for you and you aren’t looked after, but you are. You just can’t have everything left to you. You are secure, you will have the home to live in, no ex is able to take anything from you, no one will be able to kick you out. You will be secure. But his kids will also be secure and get his share when you pass or choose to sell or your kid ages up - whatever benchmark to two of you decide on. You will be looked after, just not in the way you want because you “want the house.”

Thats not how it is usually done. Go and see a lawyer together, and find out. You won’t like it but this is how it’s done.

If you don’t like it then don’t do it. Live on your own. But it’s really really weird that you’ll give up a happy joint life together with your child just because you don’t want his kids to have his share when he dies…

Tell me how this is fair?

If I die, he gets a paid off £800k house to raise our child, and his, in.

If he dies, I am left with nothing, and have to give 3/8 of the equity to his kids.

I would not agree to your request

id agree to ringfence deposit
hold as tenants in common in unequal shares
right fir you to remain for x years
my share in trust to split between all children equally

No, he doesn’t. And you get the exact same. Literally, the exact same.

You die — your half of the house is left to your joint child, with him given the right to live in it until all kids are 21 (or whatever you choose). Then the house is sold and your kid gets half plus your deposit, he gets the other half minus your deposit.

He dies — his half of the house is left to all his kids (including your joint kid), with you given the right to live in it until all kids are 21 (or whatever you choose). Then the house is sold and all the kids split their half between them and you get the other half (plus the deposit).

It is literally exactly the same for both you, expect you get that bit extra because of the deposit (or your kid get it if you’re the one who dies).

This is a totally bog standard arrangement in blended family with previous kids. So everyone is protected and no kids end up cut out of the inheritance.

You are secure. You don’t lose anything. You don’t get kicked out. The ex can’t get anything. Your kid is secure. He is secure. His kids are secure.

You may be providing the deposit, but that doesn’t mean everything belongs to you. He will have an asset and it should be split between his kids to protect them. Your half should go to your kid. It’s all totally normal.

You are not being pushed aside or left with nothing. He is not coming out winning. Everything is fair.

But is it fair that he pays into an asset that his children will not benefit from? If he leaves the house to you, he disinherits them. Whereas you can be provided for in terms of having a right to remain in the house for the rest of your life without his kids losing their inheritance.

He doesn’t have to be the beneficiary of your share. You can will to your own child.

I have the feeling that you’re going to read that and still just say “well I want the house even if he pays into it for 30 years, so I’m going to go and live as a single mum instead.”

Totally pointless thread from someone who didn’t seek legal advice, didn’t consider the wider picture, made up things to worry about and kept going on about them as an excuse for getting everything (the ex suing which is literally not possible).

You want to deviate from the normal advice for people with kids from a previous relationship. So go and speak to a solicitor. But you’re not going to listen to anyone who doesn’t agree with you so totally pointless.

Just buy as tenants in common - hardly rocket science. Unless of course you want a grabby 'survivor takes all' way forward (which it seems to you). But red flags here - he needs to run for the hills

So if you had a child or children from a previous relationship.. Are you honestly saying you would leave the £800k paid-up house to your new partner? The house that you have paid the large deposit into from liquidating an asset you owned before you were even with him?

What a load of cobblers.

Why are you expecting the same from him when your circumstances and responsibilities are completely different? You should be doing the same as him and leaving your share to your child, with stipulations about the surviving partner remaining living there (THAT is the fairest way for BOTH of you, many people have explained it!).

I'm not surprised he doesn't want to make a will if you are insisting he needs to leave everything to you and cut his kids out of his assets.

Buy your own house esp if you can afford to

don’t marry him or you will end up losing half if divorce

you are obv the richer one with common sense esp if he won’t take out life insurance or have a will

what parent wouldn’t do that - to look after their kids if they die young

I would almost say why are you still with this man ?

if you did buy a house together - his 50% needs to be split 4ways for his 4 kids so 25% each of his half - which is really 12.5% each of the house - this meaning your child will had 62.5% of the house profits when comes to sell it and divide the cost - your half and then his half into quarters so his own kids get 1/8 of the house

think that makes sense

yes no one wants to be a single parent. I didnt but I am now

But if he died, I wouldn’t want the house for 21 years. I’d have no need for a 5 bed near his ex. I’d move away to be near my support network which would mean I’d have my own deposit and equity only. My child would get 1/4 of whatever he’d paid in.

He’d get a paid off house in a location that he chose for his convenience that my life insurance policy, that I paid for, paid off.

If I leave everything in trust to DC without DP being a beneficiary, that’s not providing for my child. He couldn’t afford a house big enough for all his kids. I wouldn’t feel at peace knowing my child wasn’t protected if I died, why does he?