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

gloriouslyhappy

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

sandrawoo

Of course she shouldn’t sell it’s her home. I absolutely despair of some families.

sandrawoo

Needed mean to post again

louisajoyce

Pollycat wrote: »

We really don't need to consider how big the house is or how many kids the sons have or what standard of living they have or if they need financial help.

Read the original post.
The widow is reluctant to move.
She does not have to move.

As for 'flesh and blood', I think it's probable that the sons are not the widow's flesh and blood but are the product of an earlier marriage.
And if that is the case and they are treating her in this despicable manner now, it's quite possible that they didn't treat her well before their Father died.
She may not have happy memories of these sons.

But everything in my last sentence above is pure conjecture - as is everything in your post.

Yes but this is a moral dilemma, and I think there is a case that it may be immoral to continue to live in a house you don't need because of the memories, rather than downsize now and assist the living.

And your reply opens the interesting question - should she only help if she likes the children, or should she help because they are her husband's children regardless of how she feels about them?

(ps, I meant flesh and blood as in alive, not a memory, rather than HER flesh and blood ie relation, in the first post, wasn't very clear)

jeanthelibraryqueen

Please go with your SIL to a different solicitor with a copy of her husband's will! If she has lived in the house for twenty years, then it is her marital home. It is unusual for a spouse to leave the whole of the marital home to other relatives - usually a spouse can leave their half of the marital home to other relatives, giving the surviving spouse a life interest or right of abode. It may be that she is entitled to a half share in the house in her own right, and should challenge the will. Did he leave her anything else, eg other property, shares, investments?
I am dealing with a relative's estate, and he left his half of the marital home to his relatives, but his widow has a lifetime right of abode in the house. She can do what she wants with her half of the house in her will.
Good luck! It is horrid to have to deal with this sort of thing when you are grieving for a loved one. Good for you for helping her.

Mojisola

jeanthelibraryqueen wrote: »

I am dealing with a relative's estate, and he left his half of the marital home to his relatives, but his widow has a lifetime right of abode in the house. She can do what she wants with her half of the house in her will.

They must have owned the house as 'tenants in common' for this to be the case.

gloriouslyhappy's SIL didn't own the house at all - it must have been wholly owned by her husband.

As she has been provided for in the will through the life interest in the property, she wouldn't have a claim against his will.

All she has to do is to resist the pressure from his children to move from her home - if necessary, she could completely cut off communication with them.

latecomer

She should start living the healthiest life she can and try to outlive them all

ForcedToCreateAccount

Thank you for your response Gloria, this is actually interesting now!

Your SIL is absolutely not being selfish by fulfilling her late husband's wishes as per his will. It's her right to live in that house. If his children keep pressurising her she she should report them to the police.

Please do update us on what you SIL does and how it goes! :money:

Periphery

Thank you for posting further information clarifying the position.

Were your sister-in-law's stepchildren pressuring her husband to sell their house and downsize while he was still alive? If not, why do they think that they have the moral right to do so now? As long as she feels she can manage house & garden (& income permitting she may choose to pay for help with these), she should enjoy both for as long as she wishes, totally guilt free.

It takes time to adjust to widowhood, now is far too early to be making big decisions such as moving home. I wish your sister-in-law all the best and hope caring for her beloved garden helps assuage her grief.

Augustus_the_Strong

Bloody hell, what next? Kill herself so that they get their hands on their inheritance sooner?