Buying a house with partner who has children with ex

[Kjv83]

So I am just about to buy a house with my partner. We are going in 50/50. He has children from his ex partner but I dont have any and we wont have any of our own in the future. Am I being unreasonable by saying I want his half of the house signed over to me in the event of his death and not the children? They only live with us 8 days a month so its not like they will be homeless. As far as I am concerned, if one of us dies then it should go to the other person to alleviate the pressure of selling the house whilst grieving etc which is ultimately what would have to happen. Plus if he left his half to the kids then I would want to leave mine to a third party meaning we could both be in a situation where we would be homeless in the event of death. If its signed over to the survivor and we had a life insurance policy covering x amount to pay towards the mortgage to reduce it by the half that the deceased was paying then all would be good. The added complication is that I am needing heart surgery due to a childhood defect so getting life insurance is going to be a mission..... I have a group life policy through work which he is a beneficiary of which I guess may have to do? Basically, I am stuck in quandrey as I feel like people will think im being selfish but I relinquish any responsibility for the children and he knows that, I dont see why they should benefit from me. He can have a separate life insurance payable to them. Is it as straight forward as I think? Legal advise is just a minefield 😫 has anyone been in same position?

They have money in trust already and will have his life insurance plus the proceeds of their grandparents etc. They will still be good even he died tomorrow, I have said this! There isnt that much time left before he stops paying cms if they dont go on to eduction therefore isnt really that much contributing towards their bringing up left to do. They already have money for cars and a deposit for a house and that shouldn't be a given anyway. People should make their own way in life

He/you can leave each other the right of tenancy until death then leave to kids. You would need to buy as tenants in common, each owning a 50% share of property.

It would be a deal breaker for me to not leave to my child/ren.

Say he died in ten years, you'd likely meet somebody else ... and if you then died possibly his half would go to somebody he didn't know rather than his kids further down the line.

If you are buying 50% it's for each of you to decide who to leave it to.

A divorce where the ex wife gets no share of his pension?! She’s probably been shafted then. I would have been far more difficult than she’s been! Op and partner just don’t seem like pleasant people. He cannot be bothered to see his children and he’s got a new partner who actively dislikes them and clearly won’t facilitate better relationships. Doesn’t make you feel warm towards this couple and rather makes me think: am I surprised he’s in the police?

Lets clear this up shall we...
He only has them 6 days a month which is all she will allow or it goes into next cms banding and it was near on impossible making it work for any more than 8 days a month due to his career. People aren't always in the position to have them 50/50. The ex knew before having the kids this would be the case. What they have agreed should be no concern of yours. They split for the sake of the children and she was in a new relationship first, not us! So again check your facts. What happens to the kids if she were to die is priority, its been weighed up with everyone's interests in mind and respecting her wishes so again no concern of yours. I do have their welfare in mind hence providing a comfortable warm safe nice home for them to be in when with us, just because I dont want to contribute to them financially directly this doesnt mean I dont care at all. Dead or alive. Partner does see the home as theirs hence we are buying together or we could have just stayed in my house but we need to accommodate them better and we are compromising on location and spending more than needed to do this. The ex has been vile since day one, she is manipulative and controlling so let's not sit here and take her side please! She is simply after his money which she gets in abundance. You must be one of these women who thinks that because upu birthed a child you can sit on your arse and be provided for as you are entitled..... I however am not like that and he doesnt believe people should be like that either. Make your own way in life, not everything is handed to people on a plate. The children are well looked after on both sides and thats the main thing and both parents do their bit whether care or financially. This thread was never about the arrangements, simply about the house element to protect me and him

No she chose not to take his pension so she could take more of the maritial home now as needed the money. She relinquished that right. She has never worked or contributed to the state so shouldn't get a penny from a pension he works for. By the time the pension pays out the kids will be in the 20s so therefore it was taken out of the settlement equation. Again not a case of not being bothered, the mother wont allow nor does his work, they are happy with the arrangement. Me and the kids have a good relationship that has never been an issue!

Yes we have resolved the issue I think now by considering leaving the survivor in the property til their death then it splits.

I don’t think the fact that they only live with you 8 days a month has any bearing on the situation.. it’s natural for him to want his children to inherit his money. Although I do think you should be able to stay in the home unless you co-habited.

Pleased to hear you’ve resolved it.

@Kjv83The pension in a marriage, whether you like it or not, is a joint asset. She was poorly advised not to go for a share of it.

I feel so sorry for those kids and wouldn't touch your dp with a barge pole.

Ultimately she was given a choice the pension or 70% of the house. She chose the house. She hadnt contributed to the Marital home since they bought it which was over 14 years so I think she walked about with more than she deserved really and so does he. He wasnt left with enough to restart and rebuy yet had put everything into it. Thats where divorce involving kids is unfair. As it was she couldnt get a mortgage and has frittered the money away and is in rented but drives a new car albeit a volkswagen! Again shows her mentality!

Luckily hes with me so isnt up for the taking 😂😂😂 men are not put on this earth to provide for women. Get into the right time period love!!!!!

I do t believe I said that men were put on this earth to provide for women. Can you show me where I said that?

I don t believe I said that men were put on this earth to provide for women. Can you show me where I said that?

He's a prince isn't he?

Money and career were more important than having a relationship.

But he gets to blame the ex saying "what she'd allow", neglecting that if he went to court there's every chance they'd say it wasn't up to the ex. What's lacking is the willingness of the op's partner.

Unless of course there's more to the story that he hasn't told the OP.

Either way he's not a catch. He doesn't care about his kids. He just sees them as a financial burden and a legacy to ease the guilt. He doesn't actually want to be their Dad.

Massive ick.

You are trying to put him down as a partner and father yet he does nothing to warrant that. Typical attitude with siding with the mother which makes it seem that you feel men should provide. Just because the parenting style doesnt fit in with how you feel things should be then it doesnt mean its wrong or should be frowned upon

You sound bitter and jealous of his children, almost as how dare they be his children and inherit half the property. No one is after your half anyway, his children are an extension of him and will always be I dont expect you to understand that since you dont see anything worse than to have children.

That is not what you articulate in your previous post and is very different to joint tenants which you say you are considering.

Just making sure you properly understand!

I think it is maybe because I have children myself. It would devastate me if DCs dad was like your dp , honestly. I think if you did have your own children, you wouldn't have the opinions you do now.

Yes he never wanted kids. Just cos you are married it doesnt mean you have to produce. He gave his wife what she wanted so badly. I respect he did that for her. Again just because it doesnt fit your narrative then dont knock it. He likes our life as it is and the kids fit in around that and his career so he is happy. The kids are happy. No one needs to contest that. I like someone who is career minded luckily and he is exactly that. He provides for the kids and is a good dad.

Not bitter or jealous just dont think kids should be bought up feeling entitled to inherit from their parents and should find their own way in life.

I never wanted children as I just see them as a drain on my life and finances 🤣 the set up here between me, him, his ex wife and the kids work which is the main thing

He still stuck his dick in her.

He's a twat and a dead beat dad.

I hope you two will be very happy together.

And I still feel sorry for his kids, must be lovely to know how unwanted they are.

This is not protecting his children.
You need to be tenants in common, he leaves his half to his children, and you deal with yours as you see fit.
He can decide to give you a life residency or not.

We are considering JT, i get the house and a life policy payable to me and one payable to the kids on his death along with any money held in trust from his parents. Then also TIC with the survivor remaining in the property til their death then it split between my choice of party and his children. If he went first they would get whatever was in trust to tie them over til I went and they got half the house