Inheritance to new girlfriend over DD

[Citycentre3]

I just can't get over that a man who suddenly becomes in a position to buy a property instead of renting, due to a family inheritance would priortise a new girlfriend that he has known for around a month instead of his own young daughter.

This is exactly what my brother in law has done. Surely it is his duty as a father to provide a home for his child and not some latest piece he has met off Tinder

He split up from the mother of his child a few months previous. They both lived in a rented property, so he moved out and rented somewhere else to live on his own.

His own family home was sold due to inheritance reasons, and the money was split between 3 siblings. Surely any sane normal man would see this as an opportunity to give his child some stability?

his ex partner now lives in a rough council estate with a new partner and his dd, who he sees twice a month.

This woman that he had known literally for 5 weeks, got to decide where the house should be and what kind of property she wanted.

Just to be clear she never contributed to the deposit on the house and my brother in law pays the mortgage, but her name is on the title deeds.

Tell me people, are these now the normal actions of a decent loving father in 2022?

How do you know she's on the deeds?

What exactly has any of this got to do with you op? You sound like some bitter ex!

These values you were brought up with.... did they include calling a man's new girlfriend his 'side piece' but a woman's new boyfriend her 'partner'?

They both now have new partners. He has bought a house for himself to live in. Entirely reasonable. You couldn't expect him to buy his ex a new house rather than himself!

If he's put his gf on the deeds, that's his business although it sounds like a stupid decision on his part.

Well no.......but what a fucking idiot 🤣🤣🤣

If he really is your BIL you are waaaay over invested. I suspect @WrongWayApricot is closer to the mark and you're actually a grabby ex.

Think you need to go back and reread your own op. You stated he should have rented and provided a stable home for the child

It’s there in the first two paragraphs

“I just can't get over that a man who suddenly becomes in a position to buy a property instead of renting, due to a family inheritance would priortise a new girlfriend that he has known for around a month instead of his own young daughter.”

“This is exactly what my brother in law has done. Surely it is his duty as a father to provide a home for his child and not some latest piece he has met off Tinder”

It is really annoying when people without thinking or knowledge give opinion as a fact. Ie that daughter can challenge.If bought as joint this cannot be challenged, survivor inherits end of

I’m thinking the same tbh.
Why would some random in law give a shiny shit what someone spent their money on?

You sound like my sister - overly involved and nosy. Sometimes what we tell people like you is more for our entertainment to see how outraged you can get. Stop fb stalking him and get on with your own life.

You were at this first meeting as a witness to the conversation?

You sound like you already had a strong dislike for this person and are using made up moral arguments against him.

If you expected him to buy a house for himself, what difference does it really make to a small child if someone else is on the deeds? His ex and child are housed, they don’t need anywhere else to live and if they did he would be able to meet the obligation of housing his child. He has no responsibility to house his ex.

He’s made a mistake if he’s put someone else on the deeds of the house, but that will bite him on the arse well before it has any effect on his child. Or did you expect him to live alone forever so that decades into the future his daughter gets everything he has to leave? Do you expect the same of every woman that has separated from the father of her children?

It's much worse that the mother has moved an unrelated virtual stranger into the home her child lives in.

Unless the new partner is on the mortgage she will not have been allowed to be on the deeds of the house. Most mortgage companies don't allow this.

So she is probably contributing to the mortgage financially if that helps you.

I was brought up to believe a father should provide for his children and not random women they barely know.

Maybe it isn’t a case of either his child or his girlfriend.

Is he paying maintenance for his child? Is he having his child to stay with him according to whatever was arranged when he and his ex split up? If he is paying maintenance, and he is having her to stay, and he is looking after her when he is supposed to, he is doing what society expects.

Is it that you think he should have put his new house in his and his child’s name, not his and his girlfriend’s name?

Seems the majority of people on here were not instilled with these values. I think it demonstrates what is so wrong with today's society and why so many children of separated parents suffer, because their parents are so selfish.

You seem so upset that I wondered if you are his ex? If I were his ex I would feel outraged that a new woman was being given a half share in his family property rather than his child being on the title with him.

But maybe as another poster said he has protected his deposit legally. He may have made some sort of special will to say his child would get his share if he dies. Also, maybe his new girlfriend contributes to the deposit and will contribute to paying the mortgage and other bills.

She may be nice, and he may see this as providing a stable, loving, happy, home for his child.

This is incorrect. You can be on the deeds without being on the mortgage. But you can't usually be on the mortgage without being on the deeds.

I was brought up not to call random women I know nothing about derogatory names so maybe you should stop calling his new partner 'piece'.

As for providing for his DD, he's bought a house which gives her security when she visits. One day she'll part inherit it. You have no idea what other financial provision he's making in terms of what he gives his ex. His new partner may be the love of his life and they have a long and happy relationship. She may also be lovely and will make sure his DD is well cared for.

You seem determined to think the worst of them, which says more about you. Being judgemental doesn't not make you moralistic.

Oh, thanks.

3 mortgage companies have told me I can't be on the deeds. I'll have to look into it.

Looks like you were brought up to be a nosey cow and you were never taught to mind your own business.

@Movinghouseatlast Halifax certainly used to allow it - but they might have internal rules but certainly it used to be possible

You can’t explain what providing for his child would mean though. He has a house. She can stay there. Does he pay maintenance?

You are coming across very badly.

Nope that is incorrect. Usually they will go hand in hand of course, but unless there is a large amount of equity there is no way a mortgage provider would allow somebody else on the deeds.

On the other hand, the mortgage provider only requires one party to the mortgage to be on the deeds, so it is certainly possible to be on a mortgage and not on the deeds. Not sure why anyone would want that, perhaps a parent trying to help out or something.

He’s an idiot if he put his new partner in the deeds - but that’s his mistake to make, and do you actually know or assuming? He shouldn’t have to fund his ex choices, I’m 100% certain if she inherited money she wouldn’t be sharing it with him to help him provide a home for his daughter for when he has her.

Yes, I hope he pays CMS to his ex-partner.

The rest of it is no of any one business. There will always be 3 sides to a story.

@Movinghouseatlast

Medicatedgift was incorrect. The situation is far more likely as you have found, that the mortgage provider will not allow somebody else on the deeds as it would make it very difficult / impossible for them to repossess in the case of default.

Crikey you sound delightful OP 🙄

The mortgage provider may not allow it but legally you can be on the deeds and not on the mortgage.