Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

660 replies

Itisallgoingtobeok · 17/07/2026 10:02

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 posts:
SweetnsourNZ · 18/07/2026 15:34

Writer034 · 18/07/2026 13:18

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!!!)

I agree. All it seems to be doing is stopping people living their best lives as they are obsessed with leaving children an inheritance and children tallying up their parents wealth or resenting them enjoying their retirement.
I think it's down to high home ownership of the 55 plus age group, more 2nd marriages and the high cost of housing.

Allseeingallknowing · 18/07/2026 15:38

Obanotters · 18/07/2026 15:32

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.

Better to sell the house then and divide proceeds equally.

Obanotters · 18/07/2026 15:39

SweetnsourNZ · 18/07/2026 15:34

I agree. All it seems to be doing is stopping people living their best lives as they are obsessed with leaving children an inheritance and children tallying up their parents wealth or resenting them enjoying their retirement.
I think it's down to high home ownership of the 55 plus age group, more 2nd marriages and the high cost of housing.

What is it about MN that there are so many posters who seem to think it outrageous to want to support your children or that ‘living your best live’ doesn’t include doing so?

Obanotters · 18/07/2026 15:40

Allseeingallknowing · 18/07/2026 15:38

Better to sell the house then and divide proceeds equally.

Agreed (or by whatever proportions the contributed).

Keepingthingsinteresting · 18/07/2026 15:48

Itisallgoingtobeok · 17/07/2026 10:24

Why is it fair that the wording allows his children demand anything they want done to the home I half own though? That doesn’t seem reasonable either.

But that isn’t generally how these things work @Itisallgoingtobeok. Usually you have the right to live in the house, do what you want with it and that usually includes selling it and buying a replacement.

What you cannot do is half half the value of the property you haven’t paid for, do you really think that’s fair?

outerspacepotato · 18/07/2026 15:55

The issue here is OP's partner seems to be leaving her a bit at the mercy of his children. He says he wants to live with her and marry her and he wants her to sell her biggest financial asset to move in with him and if he dies first, that could become problematic for her. There's already been monetary gifts so the kids can get on the housing ladder. If he became ill, OP would likely be the main caregiver.

For many, a house is their biggest financial asset, and in these days when it's very difficult for the younger generation to get on the housing ladder, I can see wanting to leave their house to their kids. But that's when you don't move a new partner in to new partner's financial detriment.

OP's partner wants it both ways. He wants her to buy a new place with him and share his life, but it's only for his lifespan if he dies first. Then it becomes conditional.

Bereavement is horrific in itself, to have to sell the home right away, that's such a huge life stressor in itself.

I just wouldn't do this if I were her.

pikkumyy77 · 18/07/2026 16:06

This idea of half ownership is quite common but I don’t see the advantage to the OP at all. Hypothetically she might “get” a larger, nicer house than she could afford on her own but in a traditional marriage (with all my worldly goods I thee endow) she would be entitled to consider herself a full owner. If he were not intending to ring fence the house she wouldn’t be entering a rather cold, business, co share and would be sharing weal and woe together assuming both the potential risks and rewards of the asset and the relationship.

Its reasonable for him to ask and want to make this disposition of his wealth. But its foolish to enter into such a selfish, suspicious, relationship under the guise of marriage. Since she’s not going to inherit from him (though he plans to inherit from her) there is no tax advantage. And he’s structured it so that she is ending up acting as manager and housekeeper for a half of the property she doesn’t own.

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 16:49

As is often the case when life interest trusts are discussed on Mumsnet, there is a lot of misinformation on this thread. Unless this is not a normal life interest trust, some of OP's posts suggest she has misunderstood how this works. If she is uncertain, she needs to consult a solicitor.

If this is a normal life interest trust, OP's partner's share of the property will go into trust when he dies. It will NOT go to the children at this point. They will NOT own it - it will be owned by the trust. The fact they will ultimately inherit his share of the property does not give them any rights. The only people with rights and responsibilities are the trustees. This may be the children or it may be someone else. People often appoint their executors as the trustees. If the children are not the trustees, they will have no right to interfere.

OP will be responsible for day-to-day maintenance and upkeep of the property, keeping it in good repair, just as she would be if she owned the whole house. The trustees are responsible for ensuring that the property maintains its value but, beyond that, they cannot interfere.

If major works are needed such as a new roof, what happens depends on what the will says. It may be OP's responsibility (as it would be if she owned the house) or it may be up to the trustees to pay.

The trustees cannot demand changes to the house. For example, they can insist that the kitchen is kept in good repair, but they cannot insist on a new kitchen, nor can they insist on building an extension.

If OP wants a new kitchen or bathroom, or to extend the house, she will need the approval of the trustees who will need to ensure that the planned change will not damage the value of the property. That does not allow them detailed control over the change. If, for example, OP wants white kitchen units, the trustees cannot insist on green, nor can they refuse to approve the change just because they don't like white.

If OP wants to downsize or move elsewhere, she will be able to use all the proceeds from the sale of the house to do so. The trust will own a proportion of any new property she buys. Any surplus funds that belonged to the trust would be invested and OP would receive any income they generated.

If OP needs to go into a care, she will be able to use the equity in her portion of the property to pay for care. The equity in that belongs to the trust will not be taken into account in determining whether LA funding is available.

The above assumes this is a normal life interest trust. As I say, if she is in any doubt OP should get proper legal advice.

This arrangement generally works well. Unfortunately, sometimes it does not and the children harass the surviving partner. Sometimes the surviving partner does nothing about this, either thinking there is nothing they can do or being unwilling to take action. However, if the children make unannounced visits to the property, make threats or engage in alarming behaviour, the surviving partner can get an injunction to stop them. If the children are also trustees, even if their behaviour does not cross the line into harassment, the surviving partner can apply to have them removed as trustees if they are hostile or acting unreasonably.

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 16:56

pikkumyy77 · 18/07/2026 16:06

This idea of half ownership is quite common but I don’t see the advantage to the OP at all. Hypothetically she might “get” a larger, nicer house than she could afford on her own but in a traditional marriage (with all my worldly goods I thee endow) she would be entitled to consider herself a full owner. If he were not intending to ring fence the house she wouldn’t be entering a rather cold, business, co share and would be sharing weal and woe together assuming both the potential risks and rewards of the asset and the relationship.

Its reasonable for him to ask and want to make this disposition of his wealth. But its foolish to enter into such a selfish, suspicious, relationship under the guise of marriage. Since she’s not going to inherit from him (though he plans to inherit from her) there is no tax advantage. And he’s structured it so that she is ending up acting as manager and housekeeper for a half of the property she doesn’t own.

In many traditional marriages the property is owned as tenants in common with the surviving partner getting the right to remain in the property when the first partner dies, exactly as OP's partner is proposing. This is not selfish or suspicious. It is a normal way for a partner to ensure that their share of the property will be inherited by the children whatever happens. If they don't do this, the surviving spouse could remarry then die without making a new will, in which case everything will go to their new partner and the children will get nothing.

She will inherit from him. She isn't going to get his share of the house, although she will have the right to live there, but she will presumably get all of his other assets, or at least a share of them. She is choosing to leave her half of the house to him, but she doesn't have to. She can do whatever she wants with it. There is nothing to suggest he is insisting on her leaving her portion of the house to him.

He's structured it so that she can continue to live in their home as long as she wants.

mommaham · 18/07/2026 17:18

I've reread my will in this respect and my husband can stay in the house until he dies or remarried. My stipulation. He pays for all day to day maintenance eg annual boiler service. If there is any large repair which is essential to the house eg a roof then that is shared 50/50 or whatever the percentage share of the property. Eg I own 98% of property so he would pay less. He cannot sell the property and use the sum to buy a new property. He can only use his own percentage. He can sell it at any time and take back his percentage eg he may decide he would rather live in a smaller place in a different location and the balance would go to my heirs.

Topseyt123 · 18/07/2026 17:43

SweetnsourNZ · 18/07/2026 11:10

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.

Thank you so much. I get all of that too.

I was just starting to (barely) deal with the loss of my DH, who was just 62 when he died of Motor Neurone Disease. Then, barely 3 months later my mum also died.

My mum was an important listening ear to me after that as we had lost my dad five years previously so she had some idea what it was like.

She would have been 91 next week. Losing her so soon after my DH did knock me back again, almost to square one.

I've barely finished the admin on DH's estate and now we have had to start on my mother's. I couldn't tell anyone when, or even if, I will be able to consider whether or not to move from my current home.

SpaceRaccoon · 18/07/2026 18:09

Obanotters · 18/07/2026 15:28

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?

Would you want to be forced to move right after a bereavement? Several people on this thread have said they didn't feel capable of making large decisons for a significant time period after, and she might be elderly and not wanting to move.

The point is her DP (said DH but he isn't yet) is the one wanting this, yet he's offering her shit terms. Leaving his half to his children, fine, but it needs to be on the understanding that they have no right to do anything other than leave her alone until she passes away. And that's not what he's proposing.

SpaceRaccoon · 18/07/2026 18:13

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 16:49

As is often the case when life interest trusts are discussed on Mumsnet, there is a lot of misinformation on this thread. Unless this is not a normal life interest trust, some of OP's posts suggest she has misunderstood how this works. If she is uncertain, she needs to consult a solicitor.

If this is a normal life interest trust, OP's partner's share of the property will go into trust when he dies. It will NOT go to the children at this point. They will NOT own it - it will be owned by the trust. The fact they will ultimately inherit his share of the property does not give them any rights. The only people with rights and responsibilities are the trustees. This may be the children or it may be someone else. People often appoint their executors as the trustees. If the children are not the trustees, they will have no right to interfere.

OP will be responsible for day-to-day maintenance and upkeep of the property, keeping it in good repair, just as she would be if she owned the whole house. The trustees are responsible for ensuring that the property maintains its value but, beyond that, they cannot interfere.

If major works are needed such as a new roof, what happens depends on what the will says. It may be OP's responsibility (as it would be if she owned the house) or it may be up to the trustees to pay.

The trustees cannot demand changes to the house. For example, they can insist that the kitchen is kept in good repair, but they cannot insist on a new kitchen, nor can they insist on building an extension.

If OP wants a new kitchen or bathroom, or to extend the house, she will need the approval of the trustees who will need to ensure that the planned change will not damage the value of the property. That does not allow them detailed control over the change. If, for example, OP wants white kitchen units, the trustees cannot insist on green, nor can they refuse to approve the change just because they don't like white.

If OP wants to downsize or move elsewhere, she will be able to use all the proceeds from the sale of the house to do so. The trust will own a proportion of any new property she buys. Any surplus funds that belonged to the trust would be invested and OP would receive any income they generated.

If OP needs to go into a care, she will be able to use the equity in her portion of the property to pay for care. The equity in that belongs to the trust will not be taken into account in determining whether LA funding is available.

The above assumes this is a normal life interest trust. As I say, if she is in any doubt OP should get proper legal advice.

This arrangement generally works well. Unfortunately, sometimes it does not and the children harass the surviving partner. Sometimes the surviving partner does nothing about this, either thinking there is nothing they can do or being unwilling to take action. However, if the children make unannounced visits to the property, make threats or engage in alarming behaviour, the surviving partner can get an injunction to stop them. If the children are also trustees, even if their behaviour does not cross the line into harassment, the surviving partner can apply to have them removed as trustees if they are hostile or acting unreasonably.

But why would OP want that? She already owns a property, why would she enter into an agreement where there is all the complications that you set out above?

Whereas the partner gets to inherit her share if she dies first. The advantage is entirely his in this arrangement.

I've said this before, probably many times, but this is why I woulnd't even have considered a relationship with a man who already had children. It's too complicated, and you don't come first.

SweetnsourNZ · 18/07/2026 18:34

Topseyt123 · 18/07/2026 17:43

Thank you so much. I get all of that too.

I was just starting to (barely) deal with the loss of my DH, who was just 62 when he died of Motor Neurone Disease. Then, barely 3 months later my mum also died.

My mum was an important listening ear to me after that as we had lost my dad five years previously so she had some idea what it was like.

She would have been 91 next week. Losing her so soon after my DH did knock me back again, almost to square one.

I've barely finished the admin on DH's estate and now we have had to start on my mother's. I couldn't tell anyone when, or even if, I will be able to consider whether or not to move from my current home.

Edited

My husband was a week away from his 62nd birthday. We had not long celebrated 40 years marriage. He died unexpectedly and would not have even known anything which is a blessing in a way. Motor Neuron Disease is awful.

pikkumyy77 · 18/07/2026 19:13

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 16:56

In many traditional marriages the property is owned as tenants in common with the surviving partner getting the right to remain in the property when the first partner dies, exactly as OP's partner is proposing. This is not selfish or suspicious. It is a normal way for a partner to ensure that their share of the property will be inherited by the children whatever happens. If they don't do this, the surviving spouse could remarry then die without making a new will, in which case everything will go to their new partner and the children will get nothing.

She will inherit from him. She isn't going to get his share of the house, although she will have the right to live there, but she will presumably get all of his other assets, or at least a share of them. She is choosing to leave her half of the house to him, but she doesn't have to. She can do whatever she wants with it. There is nothing to suggest he is insisting on her leaving her portion of the house to him.

He's structured it so that she can continue to live in their home as long as she wants.

What makes you think she will inherit from him? There is no reason to believe he won’t ring fence or leave away his other property/money to the children as well.

pikkumyy77 · 18/07/2026 19:19

Also: everyone smugly informing OP that she must not have understood what the proposal is or what the trust would say or what the limitations on the trustees would be are just incredibly rude and presumptuous. You have no idea what the proposal is or how the DP has worded it or plans to try to formalize it. People do shitty things all the time around real estate and inheritance. Stop assuming good faith on the DP’s part and stupidity/ignorance on the OP’s part.

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 20:07

SpaceRaccoon · 18/07/2026 18:13

But why would OP want that? She already owns a property, why would she enter into an agreement where there is all the complications that you set out above?

Whereas the partner gets to inherit her share if she dies first. The advantage is entirely his in this arrangement.

I've said this before, probably many times, but this is why I woulnd't even have considered a relationship with a man who already had children. It's too complicated, and you don't come first.

Edited

It is her choice if her partner inherits her share if she dies first. If she has children, I would recommend putting in place the same arrangement for her share of the property.

OP could stay single, or she could choose not to cohabit. If she does cohabit but they keep both properties, there will be additional tax to pay and other complications. If she wants to cohabit with him and he wants to ensure that his children inherit, this is a sensible way to go.

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 20:09

pikkumyy77 · 18/07/2026 19:13

What makes you think she will inherit from him? There is no reason to believe he won’t ring fence or leave away his other property/money to the children as well.

I think OP would have told us if he was doing that, but I agree that I'm making an assumption there. However, if he leaves her nothing she may well have a claim against his estate. I would expect any lawyer advising him regarding his will to make it clear that he needs to make adequate provision for her.

pikkumyy77 · 18/07/2026 20:14

Again:I see no reason to impute good faith to the DP with respect to supporting or leaving OP anything after his death. In fact she stated that she suggested he leave the children his money/investments in place of this overly complicated real estate scheme and he refused.

SpaceRaccoon · 18/07/2026 20:43

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 20:07

It is her choice if her partner inherits her share if she dies first. If she has children, I would recommend putting in place the same arrangement for her share of the property.

OP could stay single, or she could choose not to cohabit. If she does cohabit but they keep both properties, there will be additional tax to pay and other complications. If she wants to cohabit with him and he wants to ensure that his children inherit, this is a sensible way to go.

The cohabiting is being driven by him from what she's said. He might therefore not want to make it quite such an unattractive proposition.

hahabahbag · 18/07/2026 20:44

Totally normal, my half goes to my dc, his half to his dd. The kids know the situation.

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 20:49

pikkumyy77 · 18/07/2026 20:14

Again:I see no reason to impute good faith to the DP with respect to supporting or leaving OP anything after his death. In fact she stated that she suggested he leave the children his money/investments in place of this overly complicated real estate scheme and he refused.

This is not an over complicated real estate scheme. It is a simple approach adopted by many couples to ensure that their partner can continue to live in their house when they die and that their children will ultimately inherit. And I see no reason to impute bad faith to the partner given that all he appears to be proposing is what any decent lawyer with will-making experience would recommend.

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 20:53

SpaceRaccoon · 18/07/2026 20:43

The cohabiting is being driven by him from what she's said. He might therefore not want to make it quite such an unattractive proposition.

No, she hasn't said it is being driven by him. She said, "He wants to live together and get married. I do too, but not at a risk to my own financial security." So they both want to cohabit, but she is concerned about the effect on her financial security.

SpaceRaccoon · 18/07/2026 21:03

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 20:53

No, she hasn't said it is being driven by him. She said, "He wants to live together and get married. I do too, but not at a risk to my own financial security." So they both want to cohabit, but she is concerned about the effect on her financial security.

The point stands that she's - understandably - the more reluctant party, as she'll be the one in a poor situation if he dies first. He on the other hand won't have any issues.

Hopefully they'll have had a productive conversation and come to a fairer agreement.

prh47bridge · 18/07/2026 21:22

SpaceRaccoon · 18/07/2026 21:03

The point stands that she's - understandably - the more reluctant party, as she'll be the one in a poor situation if he dies first. He on the other hand won't have any issues.

Hopefully they'll have had a productive conversation and come to a fairer agreement.

I'm not sure how she will be in a poor situation. She will still own 50% of the house and she will be able to continue living in it for as long as she wants or, if she prefers, she can sell up and use the proceeds to move elsewhere. She will have to keep the property in good order. Unless this is an extremely unusual life interest trust, that is all that will be required of her.

Swipe left for the next trending thread