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.

This is why I am currently thinking about having a ring but not marrying again! It is so tricky with a second marriage where they and you both have kids, because I would want nearly everything to go to my kids. However if my partner and I stay together until we're old (currently 50), I would like to give him some security, not just literally treat them like a parasite who gets kicked out on day zero. Of course it would be great if all second partnerships had equal assets, could be a dating criterion lol. My partner is lovely but has few assets. Would not want to risk marriage but I would like something somehow to mark the commitment, hence the ring idea.

Don’t get married if you want to leave your house to your dc on your death.

Yes. If the OP’s children inherited the house it legally becomes theirs at that point. If the OP’s husband is given a lifetime interest to live in it then they now own an asset they cannot sell, which makes them liable for second-home rates of stamp duty on any purchase of a house for themselves to actually live in.

All assets are subject to CGT from the point where ownership begins until the point where they are sold unless there is a specific exemption as there is for a primary residence. All the time the OP’s husband remained in the house after her death the children would be the legal owners and it would not be their primary residence (given they do not live there at all) so of course the increase in value in between would be subject to CGT.

There’s no way CGT is going to decrease in the foreseeable future, realistically. There have even been floated barmy policies about attempting to apply CGT on top of inheritance tax to assets at the point of inheritance and removing the exemption on death to avoid this effective double taxation (it would make more sense to abolish IHT and apply CGT to inherited assets instead, but there we are); and even more nutty economic illiterates suggesting the exemption on primary residences should be removed meaning hardly anybody would be able to afford to move house at all.

CGT has always applied to all assets unless specifically exempted and an inherited house in which you do not live and has been owned for years before you can sell it because it’s still occupied by your parent’s partner is not one of those exemptions, never has been and is very unlikely to ever become an exemption.

As multiple posters have explained, the sensible option here is not to marry and not to cohabit either. If they are determined to cohabit then the OP’s best option is to rent out her current home and rent or buy a separate property with her partner jointly, leaving a clear will that any equity in that new property if they choose to buy (assuming that they put down equal deposits - and she can do this without taking out a mortgage on the existing house - and that they pay the mortgage equally) will go to her new partner but everything else to her children. And not to even considering marrying him: it would be madness to do this at this stage in life and potentially financially ruinous for her in the case of divorce, aside from the very real prospect of accidentally disinheriting her children.

Again, fraught with problems. It doesn’t protect the house if they divorce. It also means there are tax implications for all of you as well as responsibility for maintaining and insuring a house that you do not live in and cannot sell, potentially for decades. Given she’s already married him this may be the least-terrible option, but it would have been far wiser never to remarry in the first place for the myriad reasons explained on this thread.

You can mark your commitment to him informally without marriage as you say. You can also in your will leave him a specific limited sum. But marrying him would be completely mad if you have children of whom he is not the father and he has fewer assets than you do. It is simply not possible to protect your children’s inheritance under UK law if you marry him, regardless of any pre-nups, signed agreements witnessed by solicitors, wills or anything else.

You’d also be making yourself very financially vulnerable if you ever divorced. Nobody thinks it will happen to them, until it does. Whereas, conversely, all of the aspects of marriage that you might want to replicate (such as power of attorney etc) can be replicated easily in watertight agreements valid in UK law without getting married.

It really is a no-brainer and you absolutely should not marry him. It’s totally unnecessary and would be reckless for your own future and your children’s future, particularly because he has fewer assets.

Do your children already own a house @approachingretirement ?

The only reason to marry again in later life is usually so that IHT won't apply to your house when you die, and to make is easier for the remaining spouse to inherit assets like the house and pensions.

Unless you are deeply religious and feel marriage is the only way forwards, why bother?

Equally however if this man does not own a house now , where will he live if you die first?

How big is the age gap?

I think the onus is on your partner to ensure he has income or assets to live on his own if you die first.

What does he intend to do?

Prenups in the uk aren’t worth the paper they are written on

Not true

I got legal advice on exactly this situation a couple of weeks ago. I'm in a non-cohabiting relationship with DP, but we are likely to move in together. Initially I had wanted to get married because if I hadn't been married when my late DH died I'd have been totally buggered financially. I contacted a family law solicitor to check whether being married would be more secure than co-habitation in my current circumstances.

The answer from the solicitor was that, in my circumstances (which are similar to yours in that I have more assets than DP and want to leave those to my children), it would be safer not to marry but to co-habit with a good cohabitation agreement and wills in place. She stated that, while after a year or so he could in theory claim dependency and challenge an asset split if the relationship ended, his claim would be far weaker than if we were married, and especially unlikely to succeed with a good co-habitation agreement in place. She seemed to think it was safe enough to co-habit when done with that safety net.

My bigger worry is widowhood rather than divorce as that's where I nearly came unstuck before and, given our ages, I think that's the most likely ending to our relationship. It does work both ways though; if we buy a house together without being married, his family will have far a stronger claim on his share than I would and I could find myself having to sell at a time of bereavement.

There's pros and cons to everything, but anyway. The solicitor I spoke to advised not to marry but to co-habit with a good agreement and wills in place, and felt this would be a low-risk arrangement.

This is exactly how I feel and the predicament I am in. I could not have worded this better 😢

DH and SIL lost all of their inheritance as his Mum owned a house outright and moved her new husband in. She'd left "wishes" in a will but it turns out that they mean fuck all legally. When their stepfather remarried, he moved his new wife in and the house went to her on his death. It was a nightmare.

Please take legal advice. Wishes in a will mean very little in terms of law.

DH and I made wills recently and the solicitor advised leaving our assets to our children not each other. He said he often sees children missing out as the bereaved remarries and the assets go to them and their family.
We talked about it seriously and both agreed we would not remarry to protect our assets for our children.

Don't get married. Wear a nice ring as a sign of commitment.

You could die first, he marries again, she gets the house and eventually her children get it.
Not yours.
Sorry to be such a doomsayer. 😶‍🌫️

So what happens to the house you jointly own? Are your kids going to own 1/4 each? Tenants in Common? This is also a way to avoid selling a house for care fees as the children own half, between them.

If you've agreed not to remarry why do you need to leave it to your children?

@LadyGreyTeaforMe the solicitor advised it but after discussing it we decided it wasn’t necessary. You are right though if we left our half of a tenants in common held house to our children it would be protected from care fees.

But written in legally do.

Not always.

He is a parasite though. He has nothing and is moving into your house. Im not saying he's not a nice person but I can't have much respect for a man who has nothing and moves into a woman's house to be looked after for the rest of his life. It's very cosy for him but doesn't benefit anyone else.

I meant write it IN the will.

Will can be challenged. If you move a financially dependent into your house they can challenge your will leaving all of your assets to your children when you die even if the will is properly drafted.