Re-marriage when house is my sole name

[approachingretirement]

My partner and I have been together 8yrs and have recently talked about getting married. He moved in with me and the house is solely in my name with it going 50/50 to my children upon my death. He knows that and that he will need to move out of I go first. I dont want that to change as he's younger than me and I would like my kids to get their inheritance sooner rather than later. Can I specify in my will for that still to happen even if we get married? TIA.

Absolutely.
Even if you have a Deed of Trust your husband can still try to take part of the property from you on divorce and a judge may agree.
My ex husband threatened this and I couldn’t afford to go to court nor was I well enough to fight it so I ended up paying him off on my solicitor’s advice.

The way many older couples do this is to say the surviving spouse can have the house for life, but when they die the estate goes to the owner's children.

It's a straightforward process usually, so don't take notice of the 'scare' tales.

A good friend of ours did this. She married a widower in her 50s (she was widowed too) and sold her own small house which was worth less than his.

The agreement was she could have the house for life then his children would sell it and it would be their inheritance.

In effect, she went into a care home for a couple of years, at which point the house was sold and his children inherited.

Does your partner own a home? If he does, he'd be wise to rent it out.

If he doesn't where would he live if you die first? Would he have to start renting in his 70s or 80s? What's his income like?

How old are you both? Unless he is significantly younger the odds are you will outlive him.

Watching with interest as I have a friend who is just 40 who owns her house. Her partner of 7 years has just moved in (at her insistence, she has been trying to persuade him to for years) She wants to marry him, but he won’t propose. He has no property of his own and is 5 years older. He would potentially benefit from being married, but refuses to.
I am divorced have a lovely boyfriend but we have our own houses, and if we were to
move in together we would keep
both houses so as to leave them to our children and neither would be homeless when the first one dies.
One thing I have considered is equity release to give the money to the children before I die /is that an option?

It’s not the best option.

@LupaMoonhowl Equity release is fraught with issues and you need legal advice.

This has recently happened in my family where the partner is contesting the will on this basis. I would get legal advice even if you don’t marry to ensure your children are protected.

Op my aunt died 10 years after separating but not divorcing
she had a will leaving her half of the house to her kids but it’s hasn’t happened . Her H is still in the house and it doesn’t look like her kids will ever see a penny.

People often say Equity release is a bad idea becuase it can be bad news for inheritors who were expecting to receive a parent's home and end up with very little because of accrued interest charges, but it's not necessarily bad in itself. This is quite a balanced article.

Is equity release a bad idea? The pros and cons

www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/ac8fb7c780e73743

There’s also the problem of shafting your kids by allowing your partner an indefinite stay if you die. Your kids might be renting and your partner live until he’s 100 in their mortgage free asset. Then if it needs a new roof for eg, do your kids have to pay for it?

This.

And the kids can’t buy anywhere without paying higher second-home rates of stamp duty becaude they already own a house! They would also be ineligible for the exemption from stamp duty for first time buyers.

OP: just live separately to each other but in nearby properties, and have a ceremony of commitment to celebrate your relationship if you wish, but don’t marry. Presumably he can afford his own place to live as he must be doing so now? If not and he’s struggling financially then that is even more of a red flag and reason not to marry because he’d be financially dependent on you and have a strong claim on your assets if married and living together regardless of what your will says or any prenup.

It is far too risky. I can’t understand why anybody marries again if they have children already, putting some idea of romance above their children’s security and future.

It is usually a very bad financial decision: the interest rates are extortionate and the interest compounds over time, eating the equity far in excess of the cash released. It would only make sense if you were terminally ill and guaranteed to die in the next few years, and really broke.

The chances of man living to 100 are very rare indeed.
The chances her kids will be renting in their 70s in not likely but Op can clarify.

The home they would inherit would not be classed as a 2nd home - so do you mean if she gave them the equity out of it?

If she's in her 50s or older her children may already have houses.

I was responding to a post saying the children could end up renting but owning the OP’s house and responsible for maintenance if she were to leave the house to them but give her partner a lifetime interest to remain in the property until death. I was pointing out that in this situation (even if he did not challenge the will to obtain a share of the house and the children inherited it as intended) their name would be on the deeds of the house that they inherited from her but couldn’t live in or sell because it was still occupied by her partner. This would make them ineligible for the first time buyer exemption on stamp duty if they ever tried to buy a property that they could live in themselves, and would mean instead they’d be subject to the elevated rates of stamp duty on second homes because they technically already own one house.

In short, it is a terrible idea. The only sensible option here is for the OP’s partner to buy a property very close by, within walking distance. They can spend as much time at each other’s houses as they wish but live separately, keep assets separate, and not be married. Any other option risks (to different degrees) disinheriting her children or creating a nightmare situation for them with lots of unintended consequences.

Why get married? Marriage is primarily a legal
contract securing rights for the individuals. Those rights could cause huge problems down the line.
So why get married
You wont be having any joint children.
The IHT rules aren't relevant as you want to leave your estate to your children.
If you die first he can still make a claim on your estate irrespective of your will and disinherit your children.

If you want a party to “celebrate your love” get a non legal blessing ceremony or similar.
If you want to live together and your children have flown the nest downsize and buy a smaller joint house where you each have half and ringfence your equity.

Or, indeed, if the children already own their own homes, then inherit the OP’s house but with her partner still living there, if the children decided to move house they will have to pay the second home rates of stamp duty on their onwards house purchase. They would also have to pay CGT on the house they inherit from the OP for any increase in value between when she dies and when the partner finally dies or vacates. And, as stated, they may be responsible for maintaining and insuring the property in which her partner might stay living for decades.

There’s simply no need to do any of this. Just don’t remarry or cohabit and avoid all of it.

To be honest if they are determined to live together the best option would be not to marry, to rent out her own home and to rent somewhere together.

And you didn't care about passing anything on to your children.

This is correct. The other person has the option to buy out the children at this point in time too.

Don't get married OP. Marriage involves a degree of mixing up finances and taking each spouse's needs into account. If you don't want that sort of relationship, continue living together and help your partner plan for the possibility that he'll lose his home at some point, possibly after he has stopped earning.

My mother is putting her house in a trust as her husband then can't sell it and run if he outlives her. Thus isn't his home country. She wants me and her grandkids to inherit it once death happens but her husband will be living in it until he dies and he is younger than her.

Well... you can specify that in a new will written after you marry, but as pretty much everyone else has said, if you marry him and then divorce, you lose half your house as it's a marital asset. You are - assuming your username is reflective of your life stage - coming up to retirement. Do you have a nice pension about to kick in? Again, he could have a claim on part of that. Same with savings. In short, if he's now wanting to marry you after 8 years, what's happened to prompt it? Is he a gold-digger looking to be kept in his old age?! Even without marriage, he may have a claim on your home as he's been living there.
In your situation, I would get legal advice and speak to a financial adviser / wealth planner, and be very sure of what you stand to lose if he decides in a few years time that he doesn't want to be married to you after all.
I would only be marrying him if he has equivalent assets to bring, whether that is his own property, savings, trust fund, millionaire banker or whatever. It sounds businesslike and not at all romantic, but you need to safeguard the wealth and assets that you've worked hard to build up.

I think it would be wise to assume that in the current climate, anything can and may happen with CGT and stamp duty. It's not always going to be the same and the OP may have another 30 years of life.

You may be right, but I'm not sure that CGT is payable on an inheritance, even if, as you say, the surviving spouse lived there while the adult children moved house. Are you absolutely sure on this?

Not in a million years would I re-marry as a house owner with Dc, unless the man had the same value of assets and pension as me. Or more.

And I wouldn’t give more than 2 years after my death to stay in the house. Men often move on very quickly and over my dead body (!) would he move a new wife / partner into my house while my children look on.