Money Moral Dilemma: Should my sister-in-law give up her house after her husband's death?

Mikeeuropa

I think it's clear the husbands wishes were that she should remain in the home they had built together for as long as she wished. The kids are comfortably well off and if he'd felt a need to help them he would have catered for that in his will. I hope it was clear in the will who is responsible for maintenance costs or this could be another reason for strained relationships further down the line. Also I hope it's clear in the will who pays for the costs of downsizing if she should decide to do that in the future - hopefully it's from the equity released.

It would seem they are just being greedy and have absolutely no right to be putting pressure on her to downsize. If I was being charitable I could ask if perhaps their best intentions (can she manage a house of that size, is she safe in it etc) are being misinterpreted as pressure - but I doubt it.

I do wonder if there is some merit in the question of whether she actually should (legally) be entitled to some element of ownership of the house given how long they were together and they were married, unless there was some pre-nup agreement or such like. But that would need legal advice from a solicitor - one other than the one who drew up the will in the first place.

And one final comment, all the comments on here that have assigned a sex to the "kids" refer to boys or men yet the MMD statement only refers to "kids" and the OP has clarified this to be a son and a daughter (in post #42 I believe) so lets stop being so sexist folks!!

Tabbytabitha

Mikeeuropa wrote: »

Gloria was answering a question that had been asked! Read the thread if you're going to comment on contributions.

If you answer a question, normal practice is to quote the question you're answering rather than to leave your answer floating loose in the ether.:D.

CW57

Poor lady. They tell you not to make any life changing decisions for two years after a bereavement until you are well through the grieving process. She herself will know if and when the time is right to move. Hope the children aren't in a hurry. My friends MIL remained in her large 4 bedroom home until the day she died aged 93!!

humptydumptybits

silvercar wrote: »

Makes sense. Problem is whether legally she has the option to downsize, or does selling it mean the kids get the proceeds straight away leaving her homeless.

I know a family with a similar situation. Dad died, step mother was entitled to live in the house till death but she was the one who wanted to downsize. There was some upset as if she sold her step-children were entitled to the money so nothing to buy her a new home. Eventually commonsense prevailed, she got her downsize and her step-children got some of their inheritance and waited till her death for the rest. I could never understand what their objection was as it seemed beneficial to all concerned to let her sell and downsize.

dazchief

Her house, her life.

There is no 'entitlement' for children. Its up to her. If she wants to stay, stay!.. If she wants to downsize, then downsize and give any monies left over to RSPCA.. its her money.

Children need to grow up and show some respect.

Pollycat

dazchief wrote: »

Her house, her life.

There is no 'entitlement' for children. Its up to her. If she wants to stay, stay!.. If she wants to downsize, then downsize and give any monies left over to RSPCA.. its her money.

Children need to grow up and show some respect.

Actually, you're wrong.
It's not her house, it's not her money.

You obviously missed this clarification - specifically the bit in bold:

gloriouslyhappy wrote: »

Hi Everyone, thank you for your responses. I am the original poster and this is what I emailed to MSE:

"This is a real life dilemma:

my sister-in-law was widowed recently, he was her second husband, they have no children together, she has no children, he has a son and daughter from his first marriage. Under the terms of her husband's will his two adult children, both forty+ and comfortably settled, inherit the house, but only after her death as the will gives her lifetime right of abode. It's a large house and they are pressurising her to downsize to a smaller cheaper house and give them the cash difference now. She is reluctant as it's been her home for 20+ years, has all the memories of her husband there, the beautiful garden she created from scratch, and her friends nearby. Should she do what her step-children want and downsize?

She would welcome some anonymous discussion of her situation."

As I said, his two children are both in their forties, both own houses, cars etc, have good stable jobs and are comfortably well off without being rich. The children have never lived in the house as it was bought by the husband after the children's mother divorced him when they were in their uni years.

My sister in law, who has been discussing this situation and her future plans with me since her husband died, has permanent right of abode until her own death, or until she re-marries, whichever comes first. After that, the house goes to the children. It is written into the will that she can sell the house but only to buy another one that will then be the property of the children when she dies or remarries. Should the new house cost less than the proceeds from the sale, the difference would go immediately to the children. This is all in the terms of the will and has been explained to all three by the solicitors. They also explained it it her choice, not the children's, whether or not she sells and downsizes.

She is in her seventies, fit and healthy and has no interest in remarrying or moving. Should she have to go into care, the value of the house cannot be taken into consideration as it is not legally hers as she only has right of abode. The house has a beautiful garden which she created from scratch and maintains pretty much by herself. The issue is the children think she should move and free up a lump sum for them. She wonders if she's being selfish by staying put.

Hope this extra info is useful, and thanks again for all your polite, helpful responses which are being passed on to her.

Gloria

Techno

Whilst a slightly different situation, I have some understanding of the husbands reasoning for leaving the house to his children rather than his second wife.,

My sister who has 3 children with her husband has always said that if she dies, (she isn't planning on divorcing him ) she wants the proceeds of their marriage to go to the children so if her husband remarried, she did not want the 'new wife' receiving the money/house and so disinheriting the children.

It sounds like the husband owned the house prior to meeting this lady, probably bought with his share from his first marriage. Perhaps he had the same thoughts as my sister? Or made an agreement with his first wife that the house would be left to the children.

However, his children should respect his wishes and their stepmum's right to remain in the house for as long as she wants to/is able to.

tenuissent

I too have some experience of this problem. My husband and I divorced after having three children, because of the serious affair he was having. I unwisely moved out of the family home, he immediately remarried, and then died, leaving the house and all he had to his second wife including a trust fund that would eventually be shared among our three children (she had none). We never expected to see this money as she was healthy and in her early 50s, and the trustees allowed her to use the trust herself. One at least of my children was bitterly upset for years that the home in which she was born and raised was lost to her. Wife 2 eventually sold the house and farm, and again made use of the money.


However, she shocked us by committing suicide a few years ago, and the remaining trust fund, to our surprise, was indeed shared between the three children who were able to make good use of it just when it was most useful to them (housing). It was greatly reduced by then, but went some way towards comforting them that their father had made some provision for them in the end. However, at no point did they ever pressure wife 2 to stop spending the trust or give them something from the sale of the house. In fact they liked her and visited her, and she visited me and my second husband.

POPPYOSCAR

tenuissent wrote: »

I too have some experience of this problem. My husband and I divorced after having three children, because of the serious affair he was having. I unwisely moved out of the family home, he immediately remarried, and then died, leaving the house and all he had to his second wife including a trust fund that would eventually be shared among our three children (she had none). We never expected to see this money as she was healthy and in her early 50s, and the trustees allowed her to use the trust herself. One at least of my children was bitterly upset for years that the home in which she was born and raised was lost to her. Wife 2 eventually sold the house and farm, and again made use of the money.


However, she shocked us by committing suicide a few years ago, and the remaining trust fund, to our surprise, was indeed shared between the three children who were able to make good use of it just when it was most useful to them (housing). It was greatly reduced by then, but went some way towards comforting them that their father had made some provision for them in the end. However, at no point did they ever pressure wife 2 to stop spending the trust or give them something from the sale of the house. In fact they liked her and visited her, and she visited me and my second husband.

Why did it not form part of your divorce settlement?

POPPYOSCAR

gloriouslyhappy wrote: »

Actually, she's the widow of my second cousin - when I met her at an introductory family dinner a couple of months before she married my cousin, we had great fun trying to work out the exact relationship and then agreed to call each other sisters-in-law as we hit it off so well. We've been close friends ever since.

As the father of the children is my second cousin , does that make me third cousins with his children? I'm really not sure!

I don't see the children that often, and as the extended family is quite large it was agreed long ago, before they were born, that Christmas and birthday presents would only be exchanged between close family members eg siblings and grandchildren. Therefore I have a distant relationship with those children, a boy and girl. When we meet at extended family occasions like weddings (and now all too often funerals, alas) we have a quick hug and a brief chat but no more than that. I did give each of them £100 cash tucked into a card when they got married, but only sent cards, no money, when their own children were born.

As to my opinion, I don't think she should make any hasty decisions. The anniversary of his death is coming up and that will be a terrible time for her - for them too, I imagine. She has pretty much cleared out all his clothes to charity shops, but has left his special room (a cross between an office and an indoor shed!) untouched and never goes in it, too painful she says.

That tells me she's not ready to move, and as well, she has her beautiful garden which is a source of great comfort to her. Over the past twenty odd years, she's turned it from a big lawn with a few shrubs into a really beautiful space full of winding paths leading to mysterious nooks and crannies, unexpected seating areas and features like mirrored trellises and pergolas pop up here and there, and the planting has something of interest for all the seasons. Really very beautiful, and full of birds and the occasional hedgehog which she feeds. Plus, she has most of her friends in the area and an excellent social life within walking distance.

However there are some new builds in the area which have ramps, are low maintenance and designed for older people without being assisted living facilities. I got her to come with me by saying I wanted to look at them - we both agreed they were horrible! Pokey little rooms, no cupboard space and built right on top of each other with pocket-hanky size 'gardens' mainly gravel. So I think the children will just have to wait. Should her health deteriorate - she's very fit and active - that would be the time to open discussions, not now. If I were around them when the subject came up, I would tell them to back off.

Having said that, I can also see the children's point, strictly speaking she doesn't need a 5 bed 2 reception house with two flights of stairs, worth around £750k (bought for £87k!). But, their father made his decision to protect his wife so she wouldn't have to change her lifestyle once he was gone, and I think, especially as they're not in any immediate need, they should respect his wishes.

Personally, I think after 20 years of marriage she was entitled to a little more than that, just my opinion.