AIBU to feel uneasy about my partner's inheritance plan?

[Itisallgoingtobeok]

My partner and I are planning on moving in together. We will each sell our separate properties and buy one together 50/50. He is a widow with 2 DC in their mid twenties. I don't have children.

We are starting to talk about how we would set up finances, and one issue that has come up is that if he dies first he wants his half of the house to pass to his children in trust, whilst I remain able to live in the property until I sell or die. They would then inherit their Dad's half when I die, or get their half if I sell. My half is for me to decide who inherits. FWIW, I would leave my half of the house to him.

This doesn't sit well with me. If he dies first, then half of my home is owned by others. I get on well with them, but I have no idea if they would want to maintain a relationship with me after their Dad's death.

Part of me completely understands why he wants to leave his children his share, but it leaves me in a really tricky position. I really don't like the idea of this at all. AIBU? What have others done in this position? I can't be the first person to have this problem!

Just the admin sounds awful, never mind the emotional stress! I worry about what happens as I get older too, and I have no family of my own.

The more I read all the posts (thank you!) I think the idea of being a life tenant is the issue for me. I have worked too hard to get my independence, and I don't want it taken away, even if we get to a more typical solution.

This has been really useful, thank you everyone.

They can demand all they like - but she is not legally bound to do so. DP’s will cannot contractually bind her to full maintenance costs of a property she only owns 50% of - but neither can she enforce his DC to meet 50% of the costs either, so the property will fall into disrepair.

This is why she absolutely should NOT mix her finances.

I think you and others who understand how these things work legally are wasting their time here. The OP is not engaging with any of these posts but prefers to engage with the adding the fuel to the fire ones.

I think don't buy together that way your finances stay separate it's easier and less stressful.

If you do want to buy together still then you need to talk about terms of what happens when one of you dies.
If his children inherit a 50% share what does that mean in terms.of.influence? I would argue they contribute proportionally to major repairs / upkeep why should you cover all the costs?

Also what can and can't they have a say on? Painting and decorating no say selling half the garden to a developer they Def have to be involved. Etc...

I’m not sure whether this is different to the “norm”. I own the house as tenants in common with my husband. If he dies before me then his half will go to my step-son if I move house, go into care etc. I know I’m responsible for maintenance.

if DH did die before me my plan would be to downsize anyway. We have a large house which is basically a storage warehouse for all DH’s stuff. I’m fairly minimal.

i would be more than happy to sell and and for step-son to have his half.

DH and I have our own separate savings.

This situation has happened in my family and it’s horrible. The adult kids visit regularly to inspect the property and pressure the elderly lady into doing home improvements. They are resentful and can’t wait for her to die so they can sell the property.

That's what her DP wants included in his Will ...

I would disagree with that. It is normal to have provisions that one co owner will not do anything to diminish the value of the property including a failure to maintain. That is logical and reasonable if you think about it.

Otherwise the person living there could (in theory) demolish the house which would be completely unfair on the ultimate co owners.

If he’s going to do this, which I think is fair, and amount should be set aside within the trust to be used for maintenance. And you should agree now how that is decided. Whether you have autonomy over that pot, and fund everything thereafter, or something else. This way, you can continue to live in your home, and the property is protected for the DC.

If I was in this situation I would not get married and I would not live together.
Then again thinking about it I might be prepared to get married but only if we could live separately, but that would cause problems with capital gains tax if either if you wanted to sell your property.

I repeat - he cannot unilaterally contractually bind her to being legally responsible for all the maintenance of a property she only owns half of. She would have to sign a contract to state that she agrees to this arrangement in the event of his passing - and if remaining in the property after his death/disallowing his DC’s to sell while she is alive is the condition then it is not a valid contract in law as it is a coercive clause.

If the house needs a new roof, or underpinning - ie major works - the result of doing it or not impacts the value of the asset. It is not equitable in law to require her to be financially responsible for those costs (and therefore liable for the impact on the value of the asset if she is unable to do so). It is a legal minefield.

She is best to keep her finances separate.

It's really NOT normal to make the surviving partner, ie the OP, responsible for ALL maintenance and update costs.
And to also give the DP's DC the right to demand specific works are done eg fitting new bathrooms, kitchen, roof etc etc.

That is very unfair, and leaves OP at the mercy of her dead partner's children, who may or may not be reasonable.

That unfair, there are a lot of posts, and I am trying to answer them as best I can.

I wrote a post earlier to say that there have been a lot of helpful comments here and thanking people, and that I will take these to a solicitor.

Would you be happy leaving your half of something to someone else who then has full control over it and can give it all away to someone else? A new woman? His children ? Who are your beneficiaries ? Nephews etc ? Would you risk this ?

You never once said oh really that's good to know to the numerous people who offered their own experience. Yes a lawyer will be well versed in this.

Perhaps to be clearer. In addition to the will arrangements it is usual to have a contract dealing with these points.

This is important for everyone including the OP to ensure that her rights to stay in the property after her partner's death are fully protected.

I'd expect in a sensible discussion between lawyers that the ongoing obligations would get watered down to limit them to avoiding diminution in value. Certainly it would not be normal for the beneficiaries to be able to require improvements.

The OP is doing the right thing to see a lawyer and I think all this should be capable of being worked out amicably.

I think provided you have your concerns about maintenance discussed, I think it’s a fairly normal situation. I have to say I never really looked at the detail of my husband’s will but I think it does say something about me having to maintain the property. I think I assumed this just meant me not allowing it to fall into huge amounts of disrepair. I don’t think there’s anything about step-son having a say in what is done. Fortunately for me I know he wouldn’t be that interested anyway!

I agree. Some people want the drama and will create some if it isn't already there.

Quite frankly, if he thinks youre the type of person that's going to let the house you live in fall into disrepair to the extent he needs to give his children legal rights to dictate what works get done to the house then why would he want to buy a house with you.

You buy a house with someone in the faith that they will respect and look after it with you

OP, if you have enough to buy a property outright, do so. You can get advice from the solicitor about entering into a cohabitation agreement with your DP, whereby he foregoes any potential claim to your property if you do choose to live with him.
But whatever form the trust takes, it could be quite unpleasant with your stepkids waiting for you to die once your DP goes, so I wouldn't entertain it. Much much better to remain financially independent. I am pleased that it sounds like his proposed arrangement would not be enforceable but I'd be concerned that this was what he wanted for me in the first place. I get the wish to benefit adult children but I think the idea that you want to share your life with someone but you want to make sure they get nothing from you is quite unpleasant. If that's how you feel, stay single/financially independent. Don't try to make them enter in to agreements that will make their lives miserable.
I think that in mid-life, marriage is more beneficial to men rather than already financially secure women. Your DP would be gaining companionship, care, your share of your sales proceeds, your share of the house if you die before him. You likely wouldn't gain the same by the sounds of it because he does not even plan to share his estate with you at all (despite you saying it's quite significant). Why should you marry him if he wants the benefits of marriage with none of the obligations?
Stick to your guns and protect yourself.

To reiterate what other people have said, and I have personal experience that this is doable.
He does leave his house to his children. This is fair and reasonable. However, the caveats are that you have an obligation to maintain the property to a reasonable standard, without interference, and you also have the right to transfer the equity to another property that better suits your needs, again without interference. This is very important because you don't want to be stuck in a property that doesn't suit you, but you can't sell because you don't have the funds to buy a suitable replacement. You need to not be hog-tied and unable to live as you wish.
If he cannot see that this is also fair and reasonable, don't buy together and keep your assets separate.

I’d be fine with his share being left to kids. I would not be fine with being told what I could or couldn’t do in my house with the remaining years of my life. That would be a firm no.

I wouldn’t buy a home together. Keep your two separate homes, live in one, and rent out the other. That way you keep control of your own property.

That’s reasonable he’s saying you can stay living in the house if he dies first. It’s not like you will be kicked out on his death. Would you not want the same for him if he dies first?