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!

There is no way to guarantee that in law. OP could always change her will so that the kids would inherit nothing.

This is the whole purpose of the trust - to guarantee that his half is ring fenced for his children if he should die before OP, but with OP owning her 50% and having the right to live in the property for the rest of her life. The children cannot force her out or make her sell it. They don't actually have any say at all over what she does while living there and OP is responsible for all upkeep and for the choice of decor despite what her partner seems to be suggesting, which I believe is a misunderstanding on his part. This could easily be set straight by a solicitor, if he and OP would only LISTEN to one.

At the moment OP is just fixated on the trust giving her partner's children his half of a joint property. She seems to believe that this gives them rights to dictate how she will live in her home. Which it doesn't. She still has agency over that.

Her partner has, I believe, misunderstood some of what these trusts are for if he is saying that his children would have any authority to dictate stuff to OP. Under a normal trust they wouldn't at all, so that notion is what needs to be knocked on the head here, not the idea of a trust itself, which is a very normal and fair way of doing things.

"What if OP wants to sell up and move elsewhere?" I hear people cry out in their self-righteous indignation! She can still do that. Nothing is stopping her. The trust moves with her to the next property, so partner's children still have their inheritance protected. They wouldn't have any say over what property she bought or where. That would remain her choice entirely.

OP has nothing to fear from the trust idea. Not if it is set up in a normal and proper way.

One of you needs to own the house that you both live in; then the other keeps their house / rents it out so you both still own a property each. Then if for example he bought the house you both live in, he leaves it to his children and you have a period of time to live there before moving out (going back to your own house or selling etc) then his children inherit. Means you both still own your own property and have that as a safety net if/ when needed

Did you miss the bit where she says their dad died years ago? I am sure his children would have loved to have been as lucky as you were.

Exactly. And what if you would like to get a reverse mortgage and travel the world and you can't. I would not get trapped into any sort of arrangement like this. Its different if you come from a family set up yourself but as you are a single woman with no children of your own the dynamics are going to be a lot for you to get your head around.
Kids today can be very grabby and think an inheritance is some sort of right when really an inheritance is only an inheritance when it lands in your bank account.
Its telling that even though he wants you as a wife he doesn't want you to inherit as much as a bean from him.

Except they are not LL. And if they were they would pay for the renovations IN FULL. Not a ‘contribution’

And tbh a new kitchen or a new bathroom is just a want not a need. They can easily replace them when the time comes to sell.
A leak in the bathroom, a gas leak, an issue with the roof. Even a boiler breaking down. THOSE are needs and essential. But I suspect the urgency side would mean it’s only the OP paying despite the fact them, as LL, should be dealing with it….

That would make one party subject to CGT and that property would not be covered by IHT relief on your residence.

A lot of this depends on the terms of the will (no trust required). You could definitely set up the will so that if OP sells then the children must receive their share of the property value at that point.

I think a solicitor has got involved and had to give dp the best advice for him as they have to do. It sounds like this was not actually his idea. Hopefully they will come to a resolution that suits everyone.

Usually a trust forms on death and those who have an interest in the house are trustees. The terms we have set up is that everyone in the trust must agree on major things like selling the downsize the RTR person (if that's deemed appropriate), or other significant matters. It's collectively owned even though only one has the right to call it home while they live.

I think the next step for OP is legal advice to iron out these wrinkles or find out that she can't set it up in a way that is acceptable to her, so she avoids it altogether.

Then the DH has to leave some money in the trust that will govern the house to pay for essential things. Then the trust pays for things. The share that should have been paid by the DDs for maintenance could be tallied up and deducted from the proceeds of the house and added to OP's share on her death (to leave to the cats home, friend, or whoever she chooses). You don't get to own a house, or part of a house, and not pay for it. It doesn't work that way. You own a house, or part of it, you have to bear the costs of it.

So then what happens? Your dad has to get mortgage to buy another house? Maybe hasbto relocate somewhere he knows no one?Good luck to him if he is too old.

Then you can only reverse mortgage to the share of the house that is yours. You can only do what you can afford in life.

Exactly, those last things are examples of needs that need to be shared by all owners of the house (where insurance wouldn't cover them). If the DDs don't or can't pay, then the amount outstanding should be deducted from the share of the house the eventually get and left to whoever OP leaves her share to. Owning a house isn't free of responsibility, even if it's just a part share.

I mean this kindly, as someone who was widowed 6 months ago I am nowhere near normality and the idea of having to move house would be horrible. You shouldn't really make any big decisions in the 1st year anyway.

So you want him to leave you some of his assets and he has made it clear this isnt his plan?

He isn’t going to marry you for the above reason.

He wants all of his assets after his death to go to his children. The maintenance criteria is so that you/anyone can’t erode the asset he has built up for his DC. It’s very generous of him to allow you a lifetime interest whilst denying his own DC access to their inheritance after his death.

The way round this is for you to have sufficient funds set aside to buy his DCs out immediately after his death - or that you own another property that you will move to or that you own this one outright and he pays you rent. In this scenario would you leave all your assets to him if you died first?

This. You don't have DC so can't leave your share to them but he does and it's understandable he wants to leave his half to them.

If OP moved back into her own home if her partner passed away then no CGT as would revert to being her primary residence again. Obviously if it was sold having been rented out without moving back into then you’re correct.

The inheritance tax would stand regardless for his children if they owned half and then it was sold at a later date anyway.

Happy to be corrected on tax law!

I totally agree with this, and I was widowed four months ago. You cannot put time constraints on when a person will/won't be ready to move on.

My mother also died only three months after my DH so that makes things doubly sensitive and difficult. I haven't fully finished dealing with DH's estate yet and we are now having to start on hers.

I am nowhere near ready yet to decide what to do about my own house and where I will live in years to come. Ready to get some necessary work done on it and to make it more how I personally would like it to be, absolutely yes, but not to make bigger decisions on it. Not right now.

I might stay here. It is still home and has been for many years. I might downsize, buy myself a bungalow etc. All decisions for me in the future, but not yet and I won't have a time constraint put on me.

Don't think you can loan on a house that isn't all yours. If if you could the other owners would be up in your business. I would keep own houses and not get married.

In these situations it is normally the case that you cannot use the value of the house to purchase another property. There are all kinds of limitations in place.

Sending you hugs. My dad died before my husband and I just can't believe I lost my father and husband in the same year.
Nothing prepares you for how you are going to be. I thought I would be further along in my grief journey by now but nowhere near. Other people I know are onto another relationship within months. We are all different I suppose.

This.

My partner's mother died (she'd remarried after divorce from his dad). All her money went to new husband. He then remarried, lost contact with his late wife's 2 children. Partner and sister will receive nothing from late mother, its gone. The sad thing was she died from cancer and said when he died she assumed her half of home would go to.her children. Hes remarried and long gone with tge money. Sad.

Seek legal advice re this

Ok but the point is that she is thinking about what choices she will have under different ownership rules. She doesn’t have to accept this ridiculous will and trust situation. And she shouldn’t! Because it ties her hands just when she might want more freedom. And all for the benefit of his children. She could soend 39 years taking care of him, wiping his ass, and keeping him from a care home and the minute he dies she becomes his children’s pensioner? Her interests take a ack seat to theirs? Ridiculous!

Wrong. He is the one who wants marriage and he wants the OP to sell her house so he can invest in a bigger nicer house. And you are wrong again on her will - the OP has stated he and his children will be getting her assets in her death. Try reading her posts rather than assuming she's the one on the take and on the make. Here it's daddy dearest looking for extra resources to supplement the life he wants for him and his children. So what is wrong with her wanting to protect her security and assets. I do agree they should have separate homes and she should find someone else to leave her assets to. Wonder how long daddy dearest will hang around then without a solvent woman to mooch from.