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

Pollycat

JaneandBeth wrote: »

The thread says they will inherit but only after her death. She should tell them sharply that if she gets any more hints, requests or pressure she will alter her will and leave it to the local cats' home! Unless of course she was a tenant-in-common with her husband, instead of joint tenants, in which case they could inherit his half but she would still be free to do what she wanted with her own half.
Being in a similar position, with a large house and three step-sons, I am very grateful that they are decent, considerate men, who have urged me to do what I want with the house, and not rush into selling just for their sakes. After 40 years here, moving would be a massive step and I hope your subject lady thinks hard before giving in to the selfish brats.

I think (but may be wrong) that the house is not hers to leave elsewhere in her will.
Yes, I agree, it would be very nice if the sons were decent, considerate men but they are clearly not.

You are in a good position.
I wish you and your stepsons well.

Mojisola

JaneandBeth wrote: »

The thread says they will inherit but only after her death. She should tell them sharply that if she gets any more hints, requests or pressure she will alter her will and leave it to the local cats' home!

She doesn't own the house so she can't leave it to anyone in her will.

Spendless

Pollycat wrote: »

But you know that you are not going to know more.
It's a MMD and that is the nature of the beast.

I know I'm not, which is why my frustration lies with the way the MMDs are worded.

ETA - I've now caught up with the thread and seen the OP has posted. My only thing now is to say to make sure that the widow makes plans for the house to be suitable and comfortable in old age.

crmism

It sounds a little like your sister-in-law has two grasping children, but that isn't necessarily the case here.

You haven't mentioned what the house is worth or where it is but, if it is as you say large and, say, in the home counties then it will be worth a great deal and possibly take the value of her estate well above the nil-rate band when she dies even after bringing in the nil-rate band due on her late husband's death, so it does make sense for her to downsize and release capital in the form of inter-vivos gifts as soon as she can.

She isn't doing anyone any favours by hanging on, and needs to be reminded or told that gifts she is able to make now and more than seven years before her death are exempt, a saving of 40% inheritance tax on the amounts concerned. Even gifts made between three and seven years will effect a tax saving too.

Someone should sit down with her, assess how much capital she needs to live on, and advise on the steps needed to accomplish tax avoidance - not an insurance consultant or broker, who is only in it for the commission earned, but a properly qualified estate planner with no axes to grind and who charges a pre-agreed fee.

Pollycat

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

OK, Gloria

As the widow's SIL, you could be the sister of the deceased.
That would make you the Aunt of the 'greedy boys'.
Or you could be a relative on the widow's side
I'd be quite interested in hearing your opinion.
If you think the 'greedy boys' are out of order, it would be nice to know that you are supporting the widow in what she wants to do.

Mojisola

crmism wrote: »

You haven't mentioned what the house is worth or where it is but, if it is as you say large and, say, in the home counties then it will be worth a great deal and possibly take the value of her estate well above the nil-rate band when she dies even after bringing in the nil-rate band due on her late husband's death, so it does make sense for her to downsize and release capital in the form of inter-vivos gifts as soon as she can.

She hasn't inherited the house so it will never be part of her estate.

All she has been given in her husband's will is the right to live in the property.

rosco-roberts

by pressuring her to downsize now, his kids are trying to countermand their father’s wish that she could reside there for her lifetime. They should be ashamed of their disgraceful behaviour.

primrose_penguin

She has lived in this house for 20 years, so I presume she was married to her husband for at least this time and he must have left the house to her, or to her in her lifetime. She should not be intimidated and carry on living there for as long as she wishes to, only selling up and buying another smaller house if and when she feels she needs to. I'm afraid a family death brings out the worst in some people, they are just being greedy and thinking only of themselves. Over the years she has no doubt put money into the house one way or another as well as caring for these selfish stepsons father.

Thebeast_2

How dare they even suggest it, it is not theirs till their mum passes away and not before the pair of inconsiderate mercenary no marks. Makes my blood boil.

pickledonionspaceraider

Disgusting behaviour

Why the hell should she be pressured into leaving her marital home so her step kids can afford luxuries

After all, in post 42 the Op states the step kids are in stable jobs and it isn't like they are homeless

Shameless and money grabbing. Why do people get so thirsty for money when someone carks it. Imagine how the deceased would feel