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!

OP I understand exactly where you’re coming from. It’s very tricky and in your position I’m not sure I’d move in together. I think I’d want to remain in my own home and not potentially be in an awkward position with kids waiting for you to die!

Also just a thought, is his previous partner, the kids mother, still alive to leave an inheritance?

Very normal for married couples, even when neither of you had kids with anyone else - you don't need a trust, you just need to be tenants in common. My parents and grandparents all did it, and there were no previous marriages or kids with anyone other than their spouses. The advantage is that if one spouse dies and the other has to go into care, the half that has been left to the DC can't be taken for the fees.

What do you see as the alternative - he disinherits his kids? How do you see this working?

Say no to complicated trusts, but yes to the entirely normal practice of being tenants in common (as opposed to joint tenants). He leaves his half to the DC, but they can't benefit in any way while you're alive.

This is very standard when there are children from a prior relationship. It is to ensure that his children get their fair share. I don't see why you're querying it. If you're that uncomfortable about it, nothing would stop you selling the house and taking your half to buy a much smaller property, then you would own it outright. Without this proviso, his children could lose out if you remarried or you could simply will the estate elsewhere. I've seen it happen.

It sounds like you haven’t really thought about what having a partner with children entails. I feel sorry for him and his kids. You need to tell him how you feel so he can back out.

Solicitor OP they are usually really helpful at thrashing these issues out. It’s not an uncommon situation BUT I would avoid the trust if you can and absolutely no way they have a say in your house whilst you are alive. OR just don’t do it at all, keep your independence

Sorry, @Itisallgoingtobeok this thread has become too long for me to check all through it. So I just hope I'm not wasting your time!

Have you had your own solicitor check all through your partner's will, or proposed will, as although what your partner's lawyer is proposing is on the face of it normal, in fact, good practice, I do not like the part where his half of the home becomes theirs on his death, and that you have to run any changes you may want to make, by them first.

The legalities should at the very least, say that until your death, or you moving from that property, you have full responsibility for the upkeep of the property, but any changes you may wish to make to it, eg adding an extension, or changing the loft from being an attic, into being another proper room, with the necessary staircase, and, of course, planning permission if needed. However, there would also need to be a section, or a codicil if already written, that stipulates that an agreed third person, perhaps another, but independant lawyer, has to agree that any changes won't reduce the value of the property as it already stands. Also, if any changes increase the value of the property, the beneficiaries of your partner's will, will in fact still receive half of whatever the property's final value when sold, is.

It might not seem fair to you OP, that any of your own money invested in the property should then be shared with your partner's beneficiaries, but that would be the expected outcome for the beneficiaries if they are not to have control of their half of the property as soon as, in this case, their father dies. This is because your partner always wanted his children to have half of his home's worth when he died, but if he agreed to your terms for the interem dates between his death and yours, he would, very fairly, feel the need to take account of the fact that they may have decided to not let you make any changes you may want to make to the home, if you were the only one who was going to benefit from those assumed improvements.

I certainly think that in respect of the above, your half of the property should not automatically be willed to your partner, if you were to die before him, but as with you, he should just have the right to live in it until he dies. So, I think that after you have both had meetings with your own solicitors, the two of you need to have an honest, and in depth discussion between the two of you.

Leaving his half to his children with you being able to stay in it for life or until you sell is reasonable on paper. The aspect of them having a say in what you do to the property is not reasonable. He could say you are to maintain the property in reasonable order but they should not be able to compel you to upgrade because it's what they fancy.

Is he planning on leaving anything to you? Because if not, why are you leaving him your half? That's not equitable.

If you go ahead with buying together can a plan be put in place that in the event of him dying first you will have sufficient funds to afford to buy out his children from their half? That would free you from them. Elder abuse from children who want to receive their inheritance is not unknown, so do be careful.

Totally fair his half goes to his kids

i get keeping the house up - my dads house needs updating and will reduce price when selling a lot

maybe a clause saying new bathroom /kitchen if hasn’t been replaced in 15yrs and all costs to be shared equally between owners

so that they have to pay half of any work they’d insist need doing

or sell after a year and split proceeds 50/50

he pays for home. You live in it and keep your own home and rent out.

you don’t live together

Because at that point, it’s their house too.

He should leave his half to you if he dies first,then when you die his half goes to his kids

There is no way to enforce that. OP might decide to leave it to cats protection, or get married again and leave it to her new H, or need care and have to spend it all on care fees. That would be essentially disinheriting his children.

I don't see why the "children" should pay for any maintenance on the house. The OP could live longer than the children due to inherit and all they would have got from the house is bills.

One of you move in with the other and keeps their own house - either to rent out or just simply keep it for use as and when by themself or family. You both sign an agreement that both of you will have no interest/stake in the other's house/estate unless explicitly stated in the will. You split all household bills 50/50. When one of you dies, then the other stays put (if it's their house) or moves back to their old house.

Well, yes, but if OP doesn't have the money and something happens that is damaging the house, then it's understandable they'd want it sorted. Roof has a leak because it needs repointing, for example. The daughters should definitely be on the hook for half the cost of any ongoing expenses (rates and insurance) and all essential repairs to the building. It's half theirs after all.

I think I'd just run from this if another solution couldn't be found.

From the other side, my Uncle divorced and later married his second wife. They were both living in separate homes but sold them and bought one together. He'd had an inheritance when his father died and always said that money would pass to his children on his death.

He hadn't bothered writing a will, so everything including the house and the inheritance money went to the second wife who chose not to carry out his wishes and his children got nothing.

It makes sense for him to protect his interest so his children do get something eventually.

Thrashing out the ways and means of doing this is up for debate though. It needs to be something you are comfortable with.

Unlikely, unless the death of the daughters is premature. In that case, their share passes to their children, if they have any, or to the other daughter if they don't.

They should pay their share of insurance, rates, taxes, essential maintenance because the house is theirs too and they will benefit from it being maintained when it's eventually sold. If they aren't contributing, then they should have no say and should leave OP in peace.

I think in the OPs case, DP is saying that she can't fit a new bathroom without asking or if she wants a new kitchen they get an input in to the kitchen but they don't have to pay. It's either her home or it isn't. A kitchen in good working order is all they should expect I think. Just like any house you inherit.

Leaving someone the right to stay in a property for life, even if you state it must be maintained, is accepting that the property will likely deteriorate before the ultimate beneficiaries will inherit. It is pretty much inevitable as the occupant ages that they will no be able to maintain the building to the same standard in their last few years or cope with the type of upheaval significant works require. On the upside, old kitchens don’t impact value all that much as, unless it is brand new and to the buyers taste, they may well factor in replacement anyway.

I think that sounds reasonable. That is maintaining in good order. I think they should be contributing to the kitchen (if it's a need rather than a want due to age/functionality/deterioration) but that might come with the trade off that they get a say in what is bought (they might want a cheaper one than OP wants, in which case they could always agree to pay half of the cheaper one and OP pays over that for the more expensive one).

It is OP's home but it would be half their house, just as much as hers. I couldn't put a new kitchen in a rental without the agreement of the LL, so this is similar when you have co-owners.

It is not reasonable that the deferred beneficiaries be required to pay for anything either - they might simply not have the money and be struggling to afford rent on the places they live. It could be decades before they inherit.

but my uncle's children still havent had their inheritance even though their dad is long dead. They are in their early sixties themselves now.

My mother died when I was 65. I think I was very lucky to get to my mid-60s with both parents alive. I’d rather have my mother alive than the money she left me, even though it was a pretty substantial sum. I didn’t see my mother’s house as “my inheritance.”

They could take over her affairs though or compell whoever is her POA to spend money on it.
What is OP getting out of a marriage to him anyway? He isn't even sharing his half between her and dc, it all goes to dc as they are his "family". Obviously he doesn't consider a wife family too. I just don't see the point in this whole arrangement.

I would arrange a joint meeting with the solicitor drawing up your wills so they can explain the meaning of this set up.
https://osborneslaw.com/blog/life-interest-trust/#life-tenant

Exactly. They get a say then they help pay for it or no say and they don't contribute although it remains in trust until she dies so they don't technically own it until then.

TBH I just think OPs partner feels guilty - either his partners misses out or his kids do, so he is making a poor effort to keep everyone happy which isn't sustainable in the long run.