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!

This is exactly the set up we have with our Will. I have children and my husband doesn't. If I die first, my half will go to my children and they will own half the house. I would not have agreed to anything else. I want to be 100% sure my children get my share as this did not happen with my inheritance (both my parents were remarried).

They should go halves after discussing the renovations between them. They shouldn’t inherit a house where the maintenance and any renovations have been done all at OP’s expense. They should look after their future inheritance too.,

OP I don't think you're going to receive much sensible advice on this thread.

Repost in legal or - better! - see a solicitor.

He is a widow - so some of his money comes from his late wife. I can see why he wants to protect his children.

you could remarry and leave everything to someone else if he goes first. I think he is doing the right thing.

It’s a hard one - would it be better for you to sell the house in the event of his death and buy your own place rather than live on a house half owned by his children?

This is a good idea. Or even that OP takes out the policy so that it isn’t then included as part of his estate but she uses it to buy the children out of the house if he dies first.

You are absolutely right, it is a recipe for disaster. A situation could arise where you are at an advanced age and your step children are insisting you find the money to do major upgrades to the house so the value will have increased when they go to sell it. Or they could just tell you that they have organised for new windows, here is the invoice, you pay it.

As others have recommended speak to a solicitor.

Leaving children a property in trust is common and sensible. And it's important the property is maintained. It's not usual to write into the will that the joint owner and surviving partner is liable for all costs incurred if the children have a right to demand improvements. Yes he naturally wants his assets to go to his children but it does seem as if he wants it both ways. On his death he wants his children to be able to tell you they want a new kitchen/bathroom/sauna/whatever and you are meant to pay for all of it. Yet you have no rights to decide yes or nay. Fuck that.

His determination to marry you actually makes me suspicious as he's also keen to leave you with no control over the property you'll jointly own. If it's a deal breaker for him that you live together and marry ask yourself why? It's certainly not to protect you. Is he looking for someone to wipe his arse so his children can inherit all his assets whilst you do the grunt work of caring for him? Someone who can take on domestic drudge work? He seems to think he is in control here. And this prince amongst men also expects your own assets to go to his children. They're really raking it in with you aren't they? If he's so determined that his children can control you by forcing you to pay for upgrades and you just have to stump up tell him you will now leave your half to person X (a friend, a cousin, a charity) with the same restrictions on him should you die first. Then his children will only receive his half in the end (once your heirs have told him to fit kitchens/bathrooms/sauna at his coat to maximise their inheritance when he pops his clogs. See how he reacts.

If he thinks that's fair then he's simply misunderstood how leaving a property or part of a property in trust works and you can work something out that protects his children's inheritance but also ensures you are not bullied into paying tens of thousands to install whatever on the whims of his children. I'd suggest not getting married and having one house each. That means two properties, held separately. It'll be much easier to sort on the death of either of you. Sadly I suspect this isn't the case.

If he whines or disagrees you have a clear sign that you are a resource to be plundered, that he regards his relationship with your assets as the primary relationship. And if he wants to split after this then you have had a lucky escape.

There are too many men with children who conveniently find a woman with assets of her own (especially women with property and particularly if you have the nerve to be wealthier than him). That also includes men with their own property. They expect her to be another resource for him or his children whilst treating her a domestic appliance and an ATM. A nurse with a purse. Great deal for him and his. A shitty deal for the woman.

The exact wording is the real issue not the only giving you a life interest in the property.

As pp say owning a property as 50:50 tenants in common and giving a life interest to surviving partner is not unusual. The wording can give the surviving partner the right to sell and downsize, is clear on maintenance etc.

The difficulty is you have no right to even know what he puts in his will. What you can do is draw up a deed of trust that clearly sets out that you pay 50:50 for maintenance etc.

Your best option is to see a STEP solicitor and decide if buying a property 50:50 is the right thing for you.

You hope he'll leave it to you. What he says now and what he does when your mother dies are very different things. He may meet someone else and leave it to her and her children. I've seen this scenario play out.

I really think she just shouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t. I would rather be in control of my own assets than be treated like a regency widow living as a quasi pensioner on my husband’s children’s estate.

Their inheritance, by the way, is totally notional until he dies. Brits are funny about land/houses—well that is why its called real estate—but I don’t see that I would be comfortable isolating the house from pensions/cash as “owed” to his children. What if OP ends up subsidizing his “half “of the house financially (new kitchen/extension/decor) but he insists that was optional? Do his children get the benefit if that added value while she bears the cost during the lifetime of the shared marriage? Its not easy to be married and share living expenses while one person isolates wealth for future heirs. It raises questions and turns OP into the one subsidizing the children’s inheritance because (supposedly) she has no heirs.

That would mean two lots of bills, though, plus lots of people feel the best part of marriage is being together nearly all the time. Unless you managed to find a house that was once detached, and made into 2 semis (there are a few like that), OP? So you effectively live together, but you each own one house?
Or, I'd say another property, but rent it out, so you effectively live in one but you each do won a property-but isn't being a landlord supposed to be very difficult now? You could look into it, though.

Yes I also suspect it’s a wish for a future nurse with a purse situation. Unlikely to need to spend money on care home fees when dutiful OP steps up and looks after him (relieving the children of the burden). But then as soon as he pops his clogs, let’s make sure she gets nothing.

It’s definitely not fair for his children to have a say in new kitchens, windows, decor etc but not to have to pay anything towards upkeep. Either they own half or they don’t, they can’t have it both ways.

No she doesn't want the luxury of a bigger nicer property. It's the DP who's pushing for that knowing she'll be leaving her assets to him and his offspring. Very nice for him. The OP seems to be quite happy as they are living in their own homes. She has said she's happy for them to inherit his assets. She simply doesn't want to have his children able to control her assets. For her own security she should stay where she is and not marry him and he can like or lump it.

The OP doesn’t have an issue with her DP leaving his half to his children.
What worries her is that this DC can have a say over any works that do/don’t need doing to the house and she has to pay for it, not them.
RTFT.

This is quite a common situation and on the surface seems fair but in reality I've seen this get messy when one partner dies and the surviving partner ends up suffering.

I would avoid it and go with one of the other options like keeping 2 house and renting one out.

I don't understand why you are so convinced that upon your DP's death, his children will immediately start wanting to renovate the kitchen? Do you actually think they'd care?

How old are they, surely they have lives and properties of their own to look after?

Perhaps the partner should state that the house be sold on his death and the proceeds be equally shared between OP and the children. The present arrangement is unfair to OP

He's being very reasonable. This way he ensures that his children, rightfully, inherit his assets. You can choose to not leave your half to your husband, too.

Alternatively, don't move in together, and you both keep your own assets, and can do with them what you like.

I don’t understand why someone would want their children to inherit everything and your partner or spouse to get nothing? If I was in your DPs situation I would want my partner/spouse to inherit as well as my kids. It sounds like his estate is big enough for that.

If I were you OP, there is no way I would agree to a set up which has the potential for my home to be 50% owned by someone else. As PP said, he wants all the benefits of marriage to you, but none of the costs. I wouldn’t agree to that. Keep your independence.

People on mumsnet are obsessed with the kids inheriting, but they didn’t work for that money, and no one has a right to an inheritance. OP could have 30 years of living in and maintaining that home and sharing a life with/caring for her DP/DH. Why should she get nothing from him, only the cold financial % she put in at the beginning?

The unfair part is expecting the OP to pay for all renovations and maintenance, so that the children will eventually inherit a well maintained and updated house without paying a penny.

I wouldn't like this either. I too would understand why he is looking at this though.

I'd hate it if I wanted triple glazed windows but his kids would only pay for repairs to the windows ...or vice versa. Or the roof was leaking and they wouldn't pay. Or what would happen if it burnt down, got damaged etc or what if one went bankrupt how would this asset be counted? Could they take out a mortgage on the property?

Would it be possible for him to leave the property to you, upon trust for his children, that would mean the property would be in your control until your death, then the property share can pass to the children?

He’s not-he’s being very unreasonable. If he’d said the children had to pay half the maintenance and renovation, that would have been reasonable!

👏👏👏 Good post!