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:

9GreenBottles · 13/03/2018 05:40

My DP and I have this type of arrangement too, and have the added provision that I can downsize once with all costs paid for by the estate (thereafter I could move again but pay the costs). I can also cohabit or remarry and remain in the house but, on my death, my new partner has 6 months to move or buy the other share. We have a deed of trust which identifies what percentage of the house we both own.

mumblechum0 · 13/03/2018 16:02

Sorry OP that you couldn't find me. As others have pointed out, I have an advert on Classifieds running at the moment, but rarely have time to do much MNing these days!

I haven't read the full thread but strongly recommend that you read what PRH47Bridge has written, as he knows what he's talking about!

Here if you need any further info

pawpatrolearworm · 13/03/2018 16:44

The OP cannot stop her husband severing the joint tenancy in the house. However, it does not adversely affect her interests

How is that true at all? If he dies as they have it now, she owns her half of the house and his as well. If he changes it and then dies, she only owns her half of the house, and not the other half.
This change directly removes her inheritance of the other half of her house. If she sells, she gets half the money instead of all of it, which could be hundreds of thousands of pounds less.

In what way does that not adversely affect her interests?

mumblechum0 · 13/03/2018 17:03

If he makes a will including a life interest trust (which sounds like the plan; I have only skimmed the thread), he's protecting his children from being disinherited by their step mother, whilst at the same time providing the security of her being able to live in the property for the rest of her life.
The trust will include a portability clause allowing the OP to move to another house, and the trust will then apply to the new property.
It's a completely standard and sensible thing to do in step families.
The OP can of course make a will giving her half of the house to whomever she likes; presumably that would be her bio children. The trust would not apply to her savings.

pawpatrolearworm · 13/03/2018 17:10

yes but she does lose half of a house in inheritance, yes?

mumblechum0 · 13/03/2018 17:15

Well, it works both ways. The trust will apply on both wills, meaning that if she dies first, her share is guaranteed to go to her children, even if her husband remarries and gives all of his estate to a new wife.

pawpatrolearworm · 13/03/2018 17:17

Yes, but she doesn't want that. So the answer is yes, she will (if he dies first) lose half a house in inheritance, possibly worth a lot of money.
So again, how can you tell her that it does not adversely affect her interests?

Sounds like very poor advice to me, since its not true.

mumblechum0 · 13/03/2018 17:24

Actually PawPatrol, you're quoting the wrong person, it was prh47bridge who said that, not me.

SpringHen · 13/03/2018 17:28

DH and I have done the same. Sensible. Have no intention of remarrying but also have no intention of having a house fire but am still insured against it!

prh47bridge · 13/03/2018 17:35

It does not adversely affect her right now. Yes, when he dies she will only own half the house but she will have the right to live in it. I did note in an earlier post that she will only receive 50% of the equity if she downsizes. The post from which you quote was largely aimed at a poster who appeared to think the OP's interests are adversely affected immediately.

BrexTit · 13/03/2018 17:37

I think the pp was talking to both. She's right, its not the case that it does not adversely affect her interests, and you shouldn't really have told her that.

mumblechum0 · 13/03/2018 17:44

It's always a matter of trying to be fair to all of the family, which can be tricky!

By making LITs, the children of the first marriage are protected from the risk of being disinherited (and potentially making a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975, whilst at the same time, providing security for the new spouse.

It's a balancing act, and this type of trust is designed to provide a solutuion which is fair to everyone.

Worldsworstcook · 13/03/2018 18:00

Prh47bridge

Your advice is excellent, I especially liked the part where you stated that under a joint tenancy if the op dies first and her DH inherits her share he can cut out her kids.,

I’d be for anything that stopped my own dc being disinherited after my death!

mumblechum0 · 13/03/2018 18:09

Agree with WorldsWorst; Prh47bridge is one of the few people on this thread actually qualified to advise.

Collaborate · 13/03/2018 18:30

Agree with WorldsWorst; Prh47bridge is one of the few people on this thread actually qualified to advise.

Absolutely agree.

The point some posters are missing is that it is OP's husband who is entitled to do whatever he wants with his estate. OP is entitled to do likewise. What the husband wants to do is very common, and the sensible thing to do in blended families. He is not making her homeless in the event of his death. Far from it. The criticism aimed at Prh47bridge has been astoundingly misplaced.

BrexTit · 13/03/2018 18:35

I don't think anyone is missing that. I'm just slightly appalled at everyone lauding a poster for giving untrue advice.
"It will not adversely affect OP".....is not true. At all. Categorically not true.
Why is everyone saying what great advice it is?

mumblechum0 · 13/03/2018 18:48

Brextit, perhaps because we're all qualified lawyers with decades of experience?
We have all, I'm sure, seen dozens of cases which have had to go to court precisely because a testator was not advised to make a life interest trust in these circumstances, or ones where disinherited children haven't ended up litigating but the lack of a properly drawn up will has caused massive rifts in the family.

mumblechum0 · 13/03/2018 18:49

By all, btw, I mean prh47Bridge, Collaborate and myself. I don't know about anyone else's qualifications.

BrexTit · 13/03/2018 18:54

Ok so pr47 whatever said "It will NOT adversely affect her" and then when pointed out that it completely will he says "oh well yeah but I meant not now".....you all say "brilliant, excellent legal advice" and give a round of applause?

Remind me never ever to get legal advice from anyone on MN, ever! Where "experts" tell you that potentially losing huge amounts of money is not adversely affecting you and is a sensible idea!!

Collaborate · 13/03/2018 19:21

But it won't adversely affect OP. It will only adversely affect her children in the event that she was otherwise planning on disinheriting her husband's children. And if that was her plan (and I'm sure it isn't) then that would be appalling. OP would not be losing huge amounts of money. She would obtain a life interest in half the house, which currently does not belong to her. It also means she does not run the risk of dying first and then having the husband disinherit her kids.

Collaborate · 13/03/2018 19:22

BrexTit Please by all means don't ask for advice on here.

BrexTit · 13/03/2018 19:22

But it will, if he dies before her! She will be in a worse position than if things are left as they are now.

Collaborate · 13/03/2018 19:24

The operative word in your last post is "if". It may be equally likely that he'll outlive her.

And she won't be any worse off if all she wants is to be able use, but not squander, his half of the house.

MissBartlettsconscience · 13/03/2018 21:32

It also isn't about the wills per se. The op will potentially be worse off due to severing the joint tenancy, however her dh can do this without her consent at all. The wills are a consequence of severing the joint tenancy.

Collaborate · 13/03/2018 22:51

If she would be worse off it is :

only to the benefit of her step children, and
only if she wasn't going to make provision for them in her will.

In fact, the only people who would be worse off would be her own children, and even then only to the extent that they would not be able to have an unfair share of their father's estate at the expense of their half-siblings.

Flip

1 2 3

Swipe left for the next trending thread