Is having one weekend every now and again free of visitors that unreasonable?!

Rosemary7391

borkid wrote: »

I don't think it is jointly owned if the father is guarantor. It just means that if for some reason the son defaults on the mortgage payments then the father has to pay. In my husband and daughter situation his name isn't on the deeds of her house, he has no claim on the house at all.

Yes, but didn't the OP's boyfriend say the house would go to his father if he died? He must've had a reason for saying that?

Edit: One thing that was considered when my parents were helping me to buy was putting my father on the deeds and the mortgage. We didn't in the end, but if we had he would've been a joint owner, and in effect (not formally) 'guaranteed' my mortgage payments, as the intention was obviously that I would pay them.

gettingtheresometime

I learnt after many rows with my hubby is that the words you use when discussing a subject often determines whether it's going to end up as an arguement or a discussion.

Now I often ask what we're going to do about X rather than what he is doing to do about X and I usually follow it up with a suggestion ( even if I know it's a carp one).

If he won't make a will then make a big deal about you writing yours and at the same time talk to to him about the life assurance quotes you're getting - after all that's the responsible thing to do isn't it now you've got children.

I do think you need to lay off him for a while re the Sunday thing if only because I know if I go on and on about something, that's a sure fire way to cause an arguement. Now I just suggest something and leave it to germinate in OH's head....so what if he thinks it's his idea.

borkid

Rosemary7391 wrote: »

Yes, but didn't the OP's boyfriend say the house would go to his father if he died? He must've had a reason for saying that?

Edit: One thing that was considered when my parents were helping me to buy was putting my father on the deeds and the mortgage. We didn't in the end, but if we had he would've been a joint owner, and in effect (not formally) 'guaranteed' my mortgage payments, as the intention was obviously that I would pay them.

Maybe thinking back to when father was next of kin pre babies birth or maybe he just misunderstood the situation.

Mojisola

JReacher1 wrote: »

I think if there is no will then the estate goes to the children not the parents. So you don't really need a will

If the children inherit (through intestacy), the surviving parent would not be able to use their inheritance while they are growing up.

People end up in the situation where they are scraping a living and trying to do their best for the children who have a lot of money tied up in trusts. Once the children reach 18, it can mean that the surviving parent loses the family home because the children want/need to sell the house so that they can access their money.

In addition, if the parents aren't married and one parent dies young, it means that the other can't claim a Bereavement Payment or Widowed Parent’s Allowance.

annandale

The phrase when it's good it's great sparks major alarm bells for me. Put your foot down now. Or be treated like this for the rest of your life

*Robin*

Mojisola wrote: »

In addition, if the parents aren't married and one parent dies young, it means that the other can't claim a Bereavement Payment or Widowed Parent’s Allowance.

Also possibly be entitled to a death benefit cheque and/or pension from his employer..

seven-day-weekend

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

What extra status does a wedding give inlaws in their child's partner's life, exactly?

They will actually be her relatives IN LAW which is a whole different relationship than simply being your boyfriend's parents.

lulu_92

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

They will actually be her relatives IN LAW which is a whole different relationship than simply being your boyfriend's parents.

I only used the phrase in laws for simplicity, I wasn't expecting it to be picked apart so much.

It was easier than writing boyfriend's mum and dad every time as I'm on my phone.

missbiggles1

lulu_92 wrote: »

I only used the phrase in laws for simplicity, I wasn't expecting it to be picked apart so much.

It was easier than writing boyfriend's mum and dad every time as I'm on my phone.

As the person who pointed out the issue, I do appreciate that this was why you did it but I still think it was worth highlighting. It's rather like when people who aren't married refer to a partner as husband/wife which changes the dynamics and makes different advice applicable in discussions.

Pollycat

lulu_92 wrote: »

I did speak to OH when he got home. Again he didn't say anything but I told him everything I have listed on here. He then groaned that I wasn't sad this morning so he doesn't get why I've "suddenly" felt this way, and that it's "ruined his night off". Then he asked me what I wanted, even though I had told him. Now we're not talking and I've just had a nosebleed so all in all not a success!

Like another poster has said, I think you're going about this the wrong way.

You're talking at him instead of discusssing it with him.

It sounds like he thinks this is something that has just happened during yesterday, between him going to work and coming home.

I wonder if you're really communicating effectively or just coming across to him as a nag.