stepchildren and wills?

74jax

I don't know if this helps - or not...... however I had my own home (mortgaged) and hubby had his own home (not mortgaged).


We got married and he moved in with me.


My will leaves my house to my DD and she also gets my money in the bank.


HOWEVER, he hasn't sold his home, and rents it out. Is this an option with you? That way my DD has a home and he can move back in to his home should the need arise.

PasturesNew

If he died one month after you'd moved in .... where'd that leave you? Stuck in a house that you only own half of - with a child under the roof that owns the other half and that you're suddenly "responsible" for.... and he's not even bothering to put a ring on it! And if the kid owns his half ... what if his mother turns up and moves in to look after the kid?

I think you need to make a big list of "worst case scenarios" - bizarre situations that couldn't possibly happen ... because ... if you don't think them through one of them WILL happen.

Tabbytabitha

It sounds as if he wants to "protect" his son (who presumably lives with his mother) but has no interest in protecting you. With those priorities, I don't think I'd stay around, I'm afraid.

FBaby

Unless I haven't understood perfectly, I'm totally with your partner. You are both putting 50% in the asset and you are both free to decide what would happen with 50% of your investment if either of you passed away. He wants to live his half to his son, not take your half to give to his son. The fact that you would be happy for your half to go to him because you don't have any children doesn't mean he should put your first before his child.

Maybe it is because you don't have children but it is totally normal to consider your children's future after your death. My partner is in your situation and he agreed from the start that my assets should go to my children rather than him.

sammyjammy

My sister owns a house 50/50 with a good friend, the friend has a grown up son, if the friend dies before my sister then their wills state that my sister can remain in the house until her death or she wishes to move, the same applies if my sister dies with those that inherit her estate.

brooklyn07

Thanks for all your replies. I did consider keeping my home and just renting it out however, we would then be hit with the surcharge of the extra stamp duty if we then bought a home together.

The other reason I don't really like the arrangement is because I plan to over pay the mortgage as much as possible, he probably wouldn't be able to do this as any profit made usually goes back into his business which is fine as presumably that business would grow and then fund us when we hit retirement - BUT if the worst should happen and he doesn't make retirement age I would get 50% of something that i quite possibly have contributed say 60% to. So unless we keep going back to the solicitors every time I make an overpayment to keep shifting the share it just seems bonkers to me.

I'm more than happy for his son to be left everything else, i don't want a penny i just want a roof over my head, it's not like I would ever sell it to make a profit, i would only ever sell it if i had health problems and couldn't get up the stairs and therefore needed a bungalow, otherwise I would quite happily remain there until the end of my days.

I'm not looking to screw anyone over at all but i keep getting the feeling im being judged by that standard for some reason..

Fen1

Brooklyn, please make a Will now. Leaving your parents to clean up the mess if you die intestate is horribly unfair. If you have ever read anything on MSE about people dying without Wills, you would understand.
Dying intestate means a lot of extra, utterly unnecessary, paperwork for those who are grieving. 'Automatic' inheritance doesn't mean that it is straightforward or easy.

Tabbytabitha

FBaby wrote: »

Unless I haven't understood perfectly, I'm totally with your partner. You are both putting 50% in the asset and you are both free to decide what would happen with 50% of your investment if either of you passed away. He wants to live his half to his son, not take your half to give to his son. The fact that you would be happy for your half to go to him because you don't have any children doesn't mean he should put your first before his child.

Maybe it is because you don't have children but it is totally normal to consider your children's future after your death. My partner is in your situation and he agreed from the start that my assets should go to my children rather than him.

But you surely wouldn't want to make your husband homeless to benefit your children?

Kynthia

Please remember that being committed and owning a property together isn't the same as being married when it comes to taxes, inheritence and separation. You could overpay the mortgage but only get half the equity if he dies or you split up. Unless he leaves you something in his will or you own as joint tenants you would get nothing of his.

I can understand him wanting to provide for his son but he should also want to ensure you are secure. Would he consider buying as joint tenants, so that you are protected even if he never gets around to making a will. Then he could consider getting a life insurance policy for a considerable sum with his son as the beneficiary. Once he's at retirement age things could be reassessed. He'd hopefully have a pension, some savings and there's be more equity in the house, so although the insurance may now be too expensive there would be other options. Plus if he did leave his half of the house in trust, it would be tied up for less time and you'd be more likely to have the equity to downsize.

theoretica

Hmm, my immediate reaction to this is that I would write a will leaving everything I owned to someone else or charity, just for symmetry.