Managing house left in will but with partner resident after death

[FurForksSake]

This isn’t a unique situation but not one I have direct experience of. Family member dies and in will leaves house to her adult child but with the provision for family members partner to remain in the home in perpetuity. House has no mortgage, is in general good state of repair but may need a new conservatory.

who pays for the maintenance and up keep of the house? Are there legal expectations as with a landlord and tenant? I feel it’s sensible to draw up some level of agreement, day to day running and maintenance up to the inhabitant but any major work to be discussed / approved / paid for by the owner. We don’t imagine there will be any issues with the relationship between family members partner and beneficiary, but that could change and there are some mental health challenges which could progress.

We don’t want to be unfair, but we do want to make sure everyone is covered and it is transparent. Also considering that this is an asset and will be sold at some point and we’d like to make sure it holds its value as well as being a comfortable and nice place for partner to live. However, we can’t afford to be paying the running costs on a 4 bed house day to day.

family member has not passed away, but has received a terminal diagnosis and so everyone is trying desperately to make sure all wishes are known and she can not stress about what comes next for us.

No help but following as this will be similar for us. My mum has told me that her and her long term but unmarried partner have put this in both wills.

It’s a lovely thing to do, but it makes for a slightly complex awkward situation for those left behind. We just want to be fair but also not end up bankrupting ourselves or having a house that’s falling into disrepair.

The other concern is that partner is significantly younger and in good health so could live 30 years but with some orthopaedic issues which might make the house inappropriate for them. Part of me wonders about suggesting selling the house and then buying a ground floor flat for them to live in, but again I’m not sure how that works with capital gains and tax implications.

In my experience the will should stipulate who is liable for costs while the life tenant remains. I'm the adult child in this scenario and all ongoing insurance, bills rest with the surviving partner living in the house and the will also states the house should be kept in a good state of repair (or similar wording). At face value this is all fine but can see how there could be situations where it's awkward or not agreed the extent of any repairs needed but we haven't crossed that bridge yet! I imagine risks are higher if there is an expectation that the tenant will be living there for many many years.

Yes I’ve thought similar, mums partner is slightly younger her and even though old, I can imagine wouldn’t be great on his own and would probably end up with a new lady friend. Awful to say, easy to do anonymously on here, but I can’t say anything. He does own a smaller percentage of the property. But I wonder about access etc, very tricky. We are on pretty good terms and the house in ok condition but it is hard to know and things can change. They’ve both lived there together over 20 years and I understand why they wouldn’t want to move.

When I dealt with this the will stated that the survivor was responsible for financial upkeep of the property.

This is my understanding: the will should stipulate who pays for what

30 years is a long time isn’t it. Is the parent (owner of house) happy that their own child might not ever see their inheritance? A lot can happen in 30 years.

It would be absurd to expect you to fund the maintenance or any bills on this property for decades.

Itcan be a poisoned chalice. So much can go wrong for the child waiting to inherit. Who is going to ensure the house is insured? How is it seen by the tax man. Is it something the child will own but not be actually allowed to live in? A clean break is so much better

Beneficiary should pay for home building insurance and any structural work on house and person living there pays their own utilities, so gas, electric, water, council tax and contents insurance. That is the standard expectations.

Do the terms of the will HAVE to be honoured? How is this enforced?

My Mum has done this in her will for my stepdad, and I must admit to having similar concerns though they are both in their late 70s. My sister and I are the beneficiaries and are NC, so any communication would be an utter nightmare. The house has got quite run down in the last decade - it needs bathroom/kitchen updates, new carpets etc and Mum/stepdad just can't afford to do them. If Mum passes away first, I can't stepdad being able to replace the boiler for example. Nor my sister. I've tried to raise it with Mum but because my stepdad has been a bit of a cocklodger and not financially contributed to anything since he's lived there, she's very very defensive about it all.

My first will said my partner if he survived me, could stay in the house til he passed but the solicitor insisted on some provisos. He couldn't remarry or cohabit, if he wished too he had to vacate. He had to maintain house in good condition pay all bills and keep insurances up to date. My son had the right to check these provisos were being adhered too. My then partner now husband did actually have his own house we rented out mine was just nicer. Twenty years on we just have mirror wills all property in joint names with my DC as sole beneficiaries when we both go. It's normal that right of residency implies even if it doesn't actually state the financial obligation is on the remaining residen.

I know someone who has been left in a similar situation with a partner in the home that's been left to family members and it has turned into a HUGE row. Friend and their family are lovely, tolerant people and it's unlike them to have fallouts.

I think possibly the deceased thought that because they got on with partner and their family, then the family and partner would be able to iron things out - but with that key person gone, it hasn't worked out.

I'd get your relative to sit down with a lawyer to go through all the eventualities - house needing major repairs, house needing adapted, partner gets remarried/finds someone new and they want to live in house, other people move into house.

Lawyers aren't cheap but this sort of thing causes so much expense and heartache when it goes wrong, and it could save a lot in legal expenses later.

I think the expectation that the house is sold and everyone gets a share is much cleaner tbh.

Is The parent happy that their own child might not ever see their inheritance?

Perhaps you need to reframe this as the parent is happy that their partner is not turfed out by grabby kids wanting “their” inheritance! Yes, partner should fund maintenance and bills, but I have this clause in my will to ensure that my husband lives on in security but the house eventually goes to my kids. so he can’t remarry and leave my house to a new wife.

Ok - you choose to prioritise your husband over your kids, not everyone would agree with that.

And - allowing a partner to remain in a house for eg 5 years is a very different thing to 30 years.

If I thought my partner (not parent to my children) might outlive me by 30 years, I’d be wanting my share of assets to go to my kids so they could use that money to benefit their own lives while it could still really make a difference.

Different situations mean different structures may be needed.

Seems quite extreme to be expected to pay buildings insurance and any required structural work on a house you can’t live in for 30 years.

Well no, you can refuse the inheritance which is exactly what I would do if it were going to cost me money in the short to medium term.

Stamp duty becomes a pain for the children too because they already own a home. Also potentially no access to benefits / scholarships etc because an asset is owned.

A will leaving a home to a child with a survivor right to live is a complete PITA. Luckily my living parent seems to understand this so is retaining a separate home to their partner. They live between the two.

The problem is that it’s quite problematic to move once advanced in age and that the equity that my mums partner has wouldn’t be enough to buy a 1 bed flat where they live.
It’s very tricky and I’m sure becoming more and more common.

If a person owns the house it's not unreasonable to expect them to pay for structural maintenance and building insurance. Surely you pay to protect your investment.

That's the problem though. It's committing the family to paying out for maintenance, insurance etc for years while not being able to access or sell the asset.

There is a way to actuarially value an exclusive right of residence. and there are formulae out there in actuaries/solicitors offices for this! Ballpark is 10% of the market value for a right to reside (others own it, but he can live there), or 20% where he has exclusive use of the property which is the same as a life interest.

If I were in that situation i.e. having a partner for whom I would like to provide accommodation after I've gone, I would get the proposed right valued, then direct that the house be sold within say six months or a year of death and leave the value of the right of residence to the partner to start again himself.

I have seen so many cases of this type of arrangement (granting a right of residence or limited interest), and very few of them have worked out well. Except when the surviving partner also died pretty soon after the first one died, sorry to say!

This has happened to my father's property. The will states the parter living there is responsible.

We're in this situation. When parent died, their partner was given life time interest in living in parent's home. Partner is responsible for maintaining the property to a reasonable standard. Eg, they mend a leaking roof, but don't have to modernise the kitchen.
It hasn't affected our property purchases and tax/stamp duty owed, as the property is held in the names of trustees. So we don't officially own it yet.

We are in this situation and have been for 3 years now.
I haven't been to the house in round 2 years but I am kept informed (by spies) that it is in ok condition. However, the resident is stuck in a house not suitable for his needs because he has somewhere to live so SS think he can cope with 3 15 minute visits per day and his family won't do anything as they don't want him to spend their inheritance. He really needs to be in residential care. My Mum said that before she died and as I had his POA I could have gradually organised that. However, somehow his daughter got a new POA which I only found out about by accident - God knows how as he isn't competent.
Its crappy situation all round and I advise anyone considering it to put a time limit clause in so aarrangements can be properly made