property held in trust due to a will

Dora_the_Explorer_5

Although I wasn't responsible for the break-up, the marriage was dead long before I ever offered him the chance to move in with me, we had to pretend that I was just renting him my spare bedroom and he was paying me rent, rather than the true state of affairs

I get your drift Margaret, but I think you've just proved my point.

IMHO this is iniquitous, that a deceased spouse should lay these kind of conditions on a widow/er. No remarriage and no cohabitation, for goodness' sake!! So from beyond the grave, he is condemning her to a life of loneliness, no matter what possibilities may arise for her after his death

The OP says mirror wills were drawn up, so it cuts both ways and what each of them wanted for the other.

Mumstheword

margaretclare wrote:

IMHO this is iniquitous, that a deceased spouse should lay these kind of conditions on a widow/er. No remarriage and no cohabitation, for goodness' sake!! So from beyond the grave, he is condemning her to a life of loneliness, no matter what possibilities may arise for her after his death.

Margaret Clare

I saw this clause a slightly different way.
Each partner wanted their share of the house left to their children. But they also wanted their partner to have a home, and not to be turfed out with only half a house worth of money to rehome themselves, alone.
This clause just says that whilst they are in that position, they have a home. However, if they meet someone new, then the deceased persons responsibility to the survivor ends, as the survivor has a new partner, and the two of them can set up home together. That's the time at which the survivor's children should be able to realise their inheritance too.

Mumstheword

I also think that the fact that the survivor is the STEP parent makes a huge difference here, too.
Where trusts are set up to help out the eventual beneficiaries by using both sets of inheritance tax allowance, then I think you have to see the house or other assets as still 'belonging' to the surviving spouse, to do with as they please, whether you like it or not. The only reason the trust 'owns' them is because the parents have been extrememly kind in trying to reduce costs for the children on the eventual death of the 2nd parent.

With step parents, however, it is a different case. The deceased wanted to leave his assets to his children, and in this case the kindness shown was to the remaining spouse, the step mother, in allowing her to live in the house.

Dora_the_Explorer_5

Without knowing that this is the case, the property may well have been purchased as the result of the hard work and contribution of the deceased's first wife which would explain his desire to protect the inheritance for the children of the first marriage.
The will is fair, it expresses the deceased's wishes clearly and his judgement has never been questioned. If wills could be changed ad hoc by the beneficiaries there would be no point making them.

jenniferpa

My understanding of the OP's original post was that if his MIL remarried the house would be sold at which point the trust would be wound up. It's a fairly common inclusion in this type of will, and I believe, enforceable. What I question is if the lodger/cohabitee clause has any legal merit. However, even if it does, the remedy again is to sell the house.

Back to the OP. I really think you (or your wife) should consult a solicitor regarding this situation. Someone mentioned IHT, and although it sounds as if the portion left to the children of the first maqrriage is below the threshold, I'm not sure how 1) this would be treated when the trust was wound up in the normal way or 2) whether taking the value at the time of your FIL death might be considered to be deliberate devaluing of assets for the purposes of tax avoidance. If the latter case, you have your answer to your MIL right there.

While I understand her concerns regarding the maintenance of the house, she must also realise that she has been enjoying, in effect, an interest free loan of £100000 for the past 3 years, and it was with this understanding that she was responsible for the house maintenance.

Jennifer

Debras_Angel

I have to say that this thread has just convinced me of why I have done the right thing yesterday by putting our new house into joint names and not going down this route with our wills.

When I'm dead I don't care how much the tax man gets the kids will be well catered for. In fact much better that we ever were.

Our biggest concern is the change in circumstances and the fact one of us or both of us will need the money for care when we are older.

AS one poster said in a similar thread the kids have been looked after and it's now our money and our time to enjoy it.

Cheers

Debs

robnye

someone mentioned about the deceased FIOL first wife... she is alive and well and lives too close to me....
the first wife was well dealt with financially when they divorced and then again alter on when FIL was made redudndant a coupl eof years before he retired, so the first MIL has no claim on this estate at all. (she never lived there) the house was bought after FIL and 2nd MIL got married.

even if the house is put into joint names, when one of you dies, the deceased name has to be removed.... this is what happened when my FIL died.

also was mentioned about parents using their estates to live life to full, my mother lives in a 4 bedroom house, is active, drives, but the house is well maintained (come sof having 4 sons.... ) but i would dearly have wished for her to down size, purely becuase the house is too big for her to manage on her own...... mind you she does have 4 holidays a year.........

i hadnt thought about the IHT issue........

many thanks for all your replies, it is great.

gatita

I have found this post extremely interesting and informative, indeed it has caused me to urgently think about updating my will. My circumstances are as follows. A single 65 year old female owning own home no mortgage, very basic pension. Against all the odds I met and fell madly in love! He is younger 56 and still working. We are living together now in my house. he would like us to get married, but it really doesn't matter to me at my age. My problem is the following. He has no home of his own, or savings (everything went to his former wife) he has a reasonable salary, and will have a pension. I have a daughter, she does not live with us, and I would wish for her to inherit the house eventually, but would not want him to land up with nowhere to live! I had thought of making a provision as previously mentioned on this thread:

He could continue living there but: "no lodgers/ co habitees/ or able to re marry and continue living in the property."

but apparently this cannot be stipulated in a will? So, my question is how can I make sure my daughter (she is alone) gets MY property? and although I love my new man to bits, I have to try and be fair and sensible?

margaretclare

Hi gatita

'Against all the odds' - well, that was a bit like me, it was certainly 'against the odds' that I fell in love all over again aged 62 after being widowed at 56.

Getting married doesn't matter to you - it did matter to me, very much. I wasn't satisfied with 'living over t'brush' especially as we are both church attenders.

I think everyone will have their own ideas and own solution. Our solution has been to skip a generation - whatever's left after the second of us shuffles off this mortal coil, is to be sold and divided equally between 5 grandkids, 3 of mine and 2 of his. His son and daughter are doing well and need nowt, my one remaining daughter is doing OK as well. The youngsters are the ones who may need a bit of help.

BTW we were in a similar situation - my DH arrived on my doorstep like a refugee, and I was the one with the (mortgaged) property. But he's been willing to work, got a job for another 4 years doing shift work, weekends etc, we both have pensions income and we share. So although I had the roof over my head, he has contributed to it by his earnings and willingness to work.

I don't think he will want to remarry if I die first, but I couldn't think of laying that kind of condition on anybody. Even my first husband didn't. He knew he was dying, I was in denial, and what he said was: 'You must make your own choices and own decisions from now on, don't take me into consideration'.

Margaret Clare

robnye

gatita wrote:

He could continue living there but: "no lodgers/ co habitees/ or able to re marry and continue living in the property."

but apparently this cannot be stipulated in a will? So, my question is how can I make sure my daughter (she is alone) gets MY property? and although I love my new man to bits, I have to try and be fair and sensible?

i have a copy of the original will/revised will not sure which, i will look it up and see.

I think somoeone has already mentioned that the "no lodgers/co habiting" part is fairly unlikely to stand up to a court of law...... how likely/unlikely that is, who could tell....