Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

New wills - should i be wary

75 replies

WalkingFred · 10/03/2018 23:27

My dh wants us to sign new wills which effectively changes the legal ownership of our house from joint tenants to tenants in common. He inherited a large sum of money from his parents and "wants to ensure his kids get it, rather than me remarry and divert it from his kids". He is "protecting his family money".
His kids = kids from previous marriage plus kids from our marriage.
Each of us will be entitled to reside in our house without any kids forcing sale but ultimately the house goes to the kids.
I.e. upon his death i will have the right to reside in the house until i am no longer here or able to maintain it. The house plus all assets gets split between all our children. So that would include all "my savings" also.

Im not sure what i am asking but something here makes me feel uneasy.

OP posts:

worridmum · 11/03/2018 15:05

Did you not read the part about mirror wills?

blastomama · 11/03/2018 15:07

Yes, which makes no difference.

TheNaze73 · 11/03/2018 15:19

I think if anyone partner suddenly got money and then started talking about changing wills and keeping you away from his money, alarm bells would be going off

Really????

blastomama · 11/03/2018 15:20

Yes, really. A sensible and mature discussion about finances and wills, no problem. But "I want you to sign new wills because I want to change anything"....massive alarm bells.

blastomama · 11/03/2018 15:20

everything, not anything

blaaake · 11/03/2018 15:25

I would tell him to fuck right off. My great uncle did this to his second wife, and although I inherited quite a lot of money I was furious that she was forced to stay in that big house until she died, as I know she wanted to downsize but wouldn't have been able to afford it.

prh47bridge · 11/03/2018 20:29

I can't comment on your great uncle's second wife but you would be able to downsize in this situation. Being left a life interest in a property does not prevent you from downsizing, although it may prevent you from getting any of the surplus. In the OP's case, as her husband is severing the joint tenancy, she would get 50% of any surplus if she downsizes.

Original poster

WalkingFred · 11/03/2018 21:16

Mumblechum doesnt seem to be on here these days - have tried to seach

OP posts:

bimbobaggins · 11/03/2018 22:10

Can he not just ringfence the inherited money, why does your property need to come into it

teaandtoast · 11/03/2018 23:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

prh47bridge · 11/03/2018 23:34

Perhaps receiving an inheritance has prompted him to do some sensible planning for his children's inheritance. Not unreasonable.

kerryweaverscrutch · 11/03/2018 23:40

it is unreasonable, the way he has gone about it.

prh47bridge · 12/03/2018 00:04

So it is unreasonable for him to suggest to the OP that they sign new wills which will protect the inheritance of all their children? How else should he have gone about it?

kerryweaverscrutch · 12/03/2018 00:05

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

shouldwestayorshouldwego · 12/03/2018 00:22

prh47bridge is just giving his free expert legal opinion. It is up to the OP whether she takes it. As things stand if the dh was to die then all the assets would pass to the OP, she might chose to cut his dc out entirely and just leave to her own dc, she might remarry, forget to rewrite her will and all the estate would pass to the new husband and his descendents leaving all the children with nothing or she could rewrite her will and leave it all to charity.

He is just being cautious and would like some of his inheritance to pass to his dc.

That is before you start to consider the implications for care home fees...

PikachuHeadgear · 12/03/2018 01:58

It's been something of a theme today --> people who clearly have no legal expertise commenting on threads in Legal Matters. They really should leave it to those who know what they are talking about. (Like prh47bridge, who is a gem.)

Allthebestnamesareused · 12/03/2018 14:46

Wallingford you should ensure that your personal savings share is just split between your kids unless you want his kids from a previous relationship to get a share!

kerryweaverscrutch · 12/03/2018 15:54

They really should leave it to those who know what they are talking about. (Like prh47bridge, who is a gem

If he was that much of a gem he'd be backing up my advice for OP to get independent advice and not do whatever her husband has decided he wants without any consultation.

cptartapp · 12/03/2018 15:59

He is NBU. I inherited too and we have done exactly the same. I don't want to risk my family's money ending up on DH side. They have enough.

prh47bridge · 12/03/2018 16:51

If he was that much of a gem he'd be backing up my advice for OP to get independent advice

Are you blastomama? That is the only poster who has recommended independent advice.

I have never said she should not take independent advice. However, she cannot stop him severing the joint tenancy if he wishes, nor can she control what he puts in his will. All she can do is decide what to put in her own will. And yes, she should take proper advice for that.

I am, by the way, unclear as to why you think I am being obtuse. From the OP's posts, all he seems to have done is said that they should sign new wills and told her what he thinks those wills should say. I don't know how you think he should have gone about it.

You say you don't know the law yet you seem very happy to lecture people on the subject.

prh47bridge · 12/03/2018 21:17

Just to add some free independent advice from someone who does know the law...

The OP cannot stop her husband severing the joint tenancy in the house. However, it does not adversely affect her interests. He cannot sell the house without her consent. If they divorce the house will still be regarded as an asset of the marriage and will go into the pot to be split between them. She will be entitled to a fair share. The fact that she only owns 50% of the house will be irrelevant.

I am not clear if the OP's husband has done anything to ring fence his inheritance. However, this also does not affect her interests (beyond meaning that he won't be spending any of the inheritance on her, but she can't force that anyway). If they divorce the courts would take the view that it is his inheritance and would try to ring fence it regardless of whether or not he had done so. They would only dip into his inheritance if it was necessary in order to achieve a fair settlement. But they would dip into it if necessary regardless of anything he has done to ring fence it.

The OP may be adversely affected by her husband's will although she isn't if it is as described. The description is of a fairly standard will which will give her a life interest in the half of the house she does not own (which means she can go on living there as long as she wants and doesn't prevent her from moving to another house) with her husband's children inheriting when she dies. Even if she is adversely affected there is nothing she can do about it at the moment. She can challenge the will when he dies but not before.

What the OP has described is sensible inheritance planning by her husband. If the OP had sought professional advice about how she could ensure her children inherited it is likely she would similarly have been advised to sever the joint tenancy and alter her will, giving her husband a life interest in her half of the house with it then passing to her children. If she did not sever the joint tenancy the house would automatically pass to her husband when she dies. If he then cut her children out of his will they would not inherit anything and it is unlikely they would be able to do anything about it.

notthe1Parrot · 12/03/2018 21:38

mumblechum has an advert in Small Biz Ads (Marlow Wills).
She arranged our wills in the same format as your DH is suggesting.
She was excellent.

LittleMissPetty · 13/03/2018 04:29

I agree with everything prh has said so will not repeat it. I will just say however that a downsizing provision in a life interest trust would need to be specifically included and is not an automatic right of a life interest trust.

Just to reiterate that the composition of the wills suggested by your husband is extremely common with blended families. It is important however that you fully understand the Will before signing.

AbsolutelyCorking · 13/03/2018 04:38

I think he sounds very sensible.

Situp · 13/03/2018 05:19

OP I have a friend whose father remarried after her mother's death and when he died the estate went to his second wife. His first wife brought most of the money to the estate. His second wife had no children or other dependents so the expectation was that the estate would revert to the daughter on her death. Sadly when she died, her will was read and she had left the whole lot to a cats home.

I appreciate that you probably wouldn't do something like that, but he is sensible to protect his children's interests.

Obviously check that what he is suggesting won't screw you in a divorce and that you won't lose your hone upon his death but don't be offended by this position.

The world would be a happier place if people did their wills taking into account these scenarios.

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread