What happens in the real world when a partner is given a right to stay in a property after a death?

[Beamsss]

This is often cited as a way to make sure DC get their inheritance whole partner does not lose their home, or is given time to find somewhere else to live, but I can't really see ir working on a practical level without causing a headache for all concerned.

What happems if the partner becomes to old/unwell to care for the place properly?

Doesn't it build resentment if e.g. children have to wait decades for their inheritance?

What happens if the partner has a new partner and children, and the place becomes their home?

I'm sure there are cold hard legal answers to all of that, but in the real world where people's lives are involved, aren't you just leaving a long term massive headache for everyone you love?

Fine. I'm giving it to him. He can do what he wants with it.

Happened to my Nan and her sisters. They were left their sister's house, which she had owned well before the partner turned up. She died, he could live in the house for his life time but his natural daughter then stripped the house of possessions and any fittings deemed saleable, the house was appallingly neglected, so what they ended up inheriting was a shadow of what it was.

My friend was savvy about this. Her partner moved into her house which she owned outright. It was a large house. He proposed marriage a few times over the few decades they were together, but she didn't want him having rights to her property. She also had a million pound business to protect. Her Will gave him the right to stay in the house for two years after her death. She died in her 50s from an illness and partner had to move and find his own place so that friends DC could get their inheritance. If you own the property, and you're not married, you can set terms in your Will - stay for a set period, not remarry or move a new partner in, etc. It's not compulsory that you have to let them stay until their death. This is why some people don't allow a partner to contribute towards the mortgage or pay towards renovations - to avoid them having a claim against the property.

Of course, the new "partners rights" they're talking about could change all that.

Entirely up to you. Just making sure you understand the consequences.

Watch out for Labour’s new proposals for giving unmarried partner’s rights to property though…

We’re living in this situation now. FIL (legally separated from late MIL and hadn’t lived together in 20 years) now lives in late MIL’s property. He has a lifetime interest. It was expensive for my DH to have that sorted out legally (no one realised except me). Flat had to be put in trust and DH will get those funds back when property finally sells.

We don’t need to release the funds associated with DH’s part of the will, but my SIL would greatly benefit from having her half. She’s renting and her half would be a fantastic deposit for a one bed flat.

FIL doesn’t pay rent but does pay service charge. He’s in his mid 80s and flat needs some cleaning/refurbishment to sell. Another cost that will fall to DH and I (SIL doesn’t have the means).

Late MIL was doing the kind thing for her ex, but it has ramifications.

best thing though is DH and SIL agree their Dad is in the best flat for his needs and SIL very pragmatic about it all saying if they hadn’t separated she’d have to wait anyway.

FIL has recently inherited from a friend (long story!) and should really be passing those funds onto his grandchildren or paying for flat maintenance but he wants to hold onto it all. 🤷🏼‍♀️

I don't think it's that complicated.

If someone else moves in with the surviving partner, they have to move out upon their death.

If the person living in it can't maintain it then the owner (who will be the person set to inherit the place) should do so.

It might well annoy the people waiting to inherit it but it's less inconvenient than them not inheriting it at all.

Or the will can require the person living in the property to maintain it - assuming of course that they have the means to do so

The owner is the trust, not the person who will ultimately inherit.

Routine maintenance is the responsibility of the life tenant. However, if major work is required who pays depends on the rules of the trust. Ultimately, if whoever is responsible cannot afford to pay for the work, the property can be sold and the life tenant can use the proceeds (all of them, not just their share) to buy another property. The trust will be a joint owner of the new property.

It depends on the terms of the trust. All the ones I’ve ever seen terminate when the survivor starts to cohabit with someone else, so they either sell and release their half of the equity, live separately or buy the other half of the house out of the trust.

Well that was his choice on how to spend his inheritance.

So... If the surviving partner has a right to live in the property, does that happen through a will? What happens in the absence of the will? And in either situation, do the children have any eight to object and force a sale?

Following for info. My mum (mortgage-free house) married a guy (with nothing to his name) both in their 80s, hadnt been together long, he wanted to rush into marriage (hmmm) and she was swept up in it. She created one these “he can’t inherit the house, but has the right to stay living in the house if I die” contracts. She said it was to protect us, her children. It just feels really weird - we barely know him, and what we know we dont really like, he doesn’t seem very nice tbh, and if she dies he could stay there for years, and what about her stuff that’s there, and some of our stuff is there.

If the house is owned as joint tenants, it automatically belongs to the surviving partner regardless of anything in the deceased's will. If it is owned as tenants in common, the deceased partner's will can set up a trust, allowing the surviving partner to remain in the property for life. If there is no will, the deceased partner's share of the property will be dealt with in accordance with the rules of intestacy.

The children will only be able to force a sale if the deceased partner leaves their share directly to them. They could try to claim against the deceased partner's estate, but such a claim is highly unlikely to succeed if they will get the deceased partner's share of the property when the surviving partner dies.

I knew a woman in this situation, who was a fair bit younger than her DH. Some time after her DH died, she actually negotiated with her step DCs to sell the house and take some of the proceeds to buy her own, cheaper place with her new partner.

It seemed like a good approach - the step DCs were able to receive their inheritance earlier than they otherwise would have done whilst their own DC were still young, and she could move on and buy somewhere more practical with her new partner. I believe it was all done amicably.

Dh’s dad died 4 years ago. The house is owned by his partner (1/2) and the other half DH and his brother. They are happy for their dads partner to remain in the house as long as she wants as per their dads wishes. That said, they do not need the money.

My mother died expectedly in her late 40s. Left her house to myself and siblings with the proviso her widower could stay in the property for 2 years after her death. We paid him thousands to leave early as he was an asshole and we just wanted to sever ties. We would have been left paying off the last of the mortgage whilst he trashed the place. Thanks mum.

Yes, you are leaving a headache for those who will eventually inherit but the reason you do it is so your DP/DH or whoever else is not thrown out on the street when you die and actually is able to stay in their home until they die. The eventual inheritors just have to accept that although they own the property it isn’t theirs to do what they want with until the person who lives there moves into a home or dies. If the will is drawn up properly everyone should know where they stand from the start.

I have to admit, I don't understand leaving someone the right to stay in their erstwhile home but putting conditions on it. Either it's still their home and they can do what they like in it, or they become a lodger in, e.g., the DCs' new home and the DC can do what they like, which may be fair but often isn't very nice. I know of a case where, after a minimally decent interval, the DC suggested moving in one of their number to 'help' the surviving spouse fix up the place, which had fallen into a bit of disrepair. She read the writing on the wall and negotiated leaving before she was pushed!

How awful of her to give you a house bloody cheek she sounds awful

Because on MN writing a will that benefits your young adult children is exceptional.

We are back to that weird MN thing where children should be thrown onto the streets and never spoken to again at midnight on their 18th birthday….

As you seemed to have missed it, the awful thing here is PP losing her mum in her teens or early twenties.

Teena or early twenties? That's a stretch. The mum sounds kind and thoughtful the poster hit so much

DH grandfather married again in his 80’s and left his house to his adult children but with the proviso his new wife could live there for a further two years then it must be sold and the proceeds to his children. This is what happened. I think his new wife was struggling anyway and went into care. No problems. No inheritance lost. Everything discussed upfront beforehand.

Why do you think it is a stretch for her mum to have had her in her mid twenties to early thirties? That is when most women have children. If her mum had her children in her late thirties, which again is pretty common, then OPs siblings could still have been in primary school.