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!

But they shouldn't have the right to dictate what she does. It's not actually " theirs" until her death

I agree with @AnotherForumUser . Its funny how many posters assume that OP (and all new wives/women are “evil stepmothers “ in the make. This is not the case here and her DP is clearly using marriage to gain access to her funds rather than the other way around.

What if he gets sick during the marriage? Or god forbid she does? Is his money and support sll still going to be reserved to his children? Is she expected to carry the costs of her husband or her husband’s care or the upkeep on his half of the house while still being treated as a not wife for the purposes of the will? Why marry then?

Seems reasonable that you should pay for maintenance and bills of the whole house if you are living there. The alternative is that you pay rent for their half.

"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."

I thinks she is fixated on that because its what her partner has told her will be the way his will is set up. Of course she may have misunderstood but from what she has said I doubt its a misunderstanding.

Not maintenance though. Or not all maintenance. She doesn’t own half the asset. I don’t pay the LL’s share on a property I am renting. Why should she?

I am not sure why you keep talking about trusts. There is no need for a trust and no suggestion there will be one. Of course you can own a property and not maintain it. Lots of people do. It could simply be written into the will that OP can continue to live in the house without releasing her partners share of the equity until her death or sale of the property on the condition that she maintains the property at her expense. If OP doesn’t want to do that she has the option at that point to sell the property and give her partners children their inheritance.

Isn't there some kind of problem caused with regards to care home fees? I've read something somewhere...I can't remember how it works. I definitely read something where it became very disadvantageous to the person who was not living in their own home, from what I can remember. Or the other way round. Ah, this was of zero help, sorry (but one to check out - what are the implications around care home fees)

All I would say is that inheritance isn't some kind of God-given right, something which a person expects by a certain age in life so if takes longer, it's some sort of injustice. Do we seriously wish a person to die a bit quicker so we could have some money????

The British middle class obsession with inheritance seems like a fairly recent thing because in the past it was only the aristocracy that actually had anything to pass on, but it's really taken hold in that many people now seem to have this attitude of absolute entitlement ("I'm in my 60s, why haven't I got my inheritance yet?" Well, because the person who's got the legal right to live in that house isn't dead yet, sorry about the inconvenience!!!)

Oh, well said 👏🏼

But we aren’t talking about wanting inheritance ‘now’, we are talking about someone who wants his money to benefit his children. Why shouldn’t he seek to ensure it does so?

You can burn your stuff before you die for anyone on here cares. Knock yourself out.

But people wanting to provide something for their loved ones after they’ve died is perfectly usual and has been for hundreds of years.

How do you know the house value will have gone up? The OP and partner have still got two houses to sell, and they have not even bought the house yet! If they bought now and interest rates go up the house value will go down not up.

But the children should not expect the OP to pay for all the maintenance and renovations. Eventually they will get the property without paying out a penny. That what this thread is all about- the unfairness of it all.

Seems entirely reasonable to me. You get to live there till you die, or you can opt to sell. That's fair.

Can u move in with him and rent yours out? So you have security if u split or if he passes away before you? Or just keep as is and split time between both houses?

Can you not see it is unfair if OP has to pay for all maintenance and renovation, yet the children can have a say in it and don’t pay a penny?

Do the children even know about this plan? They probably aren't expecting anything.

I would be very annoyed if someone put in their will I was responsible for paying for maintenance, upkeep, council tax (someone said they should pay this)... for a house for potentially 30 years so their spouse could live there. How is that right? It could end up costing them more than they'd ever get back from selling it.

OP has her own home now. Why on earth would she change that, as her DH wants her to, for that substantial downgrade in circumstances?

Well he has the option to simply gift “his money” to his children now but chooses not to.

I wouldn’t combine finances and assets at all with someone who was more concerned with his adult children's inheritance than my comfort and safety in widowhood. He’s basically saying when he can’t benefit from my services as his wife he has no interest in my well being.

It would be fairer for OP and the children to share those bills, or at least contribute to them. They are going to inherit a nicely maintained and updated house eventually.

What if they can't afford to? Surely someone else's will can't compel them to. Would they be able to force a sale if they couldn't contribute to bills?

Presumably she would get to enjoy living in a much larger/nicer house with the man she loves? When her DH dies she could always sell up, take her share of the equity and buy a property similar to her current one?

Do you actually want to live with him. I'm also mid 50s and financially independent. I cannot imagine ever giving that up to have to live with a man again. Even someone who appears to be wonderful, you simply do not know someone properly until you have to live with them and women rarely benefit from cohabitation. It's a huge no from me. Who is driving this change to live together? Guard your peace and independence, it is precious beyond anything else.

Eventually could be when they their own families have flown after growing up living in overcrowded accommodation/dealing with a long commute/no holidays/only managing to rent not buy because they have liability for the maintenance of a large property/paying half the cost of new kitchens their step mother gets to enjoy with subsidised maintenance costs for decades.