Who should inherit my house?

AW618

So his father has given him money to buy a place to live, because he cares about him, but would prefer that if he dies he gets that money back rather than it going to somebody he maybe doesn't even like very much.
What's odd about that?

AW618

greatcrested said:

Hamilton24 said:

AdrianC said:

Hamilton24 said:

AdrianC said:

Hamilton24 said:

(this money was inheritance from his grandfather but given to him early so he could buy the flat)

I'm not quite sure what this bit means - could you clarify?

It's only an "early inheritance" if his grandfather's still alive.

Or was it left in a trust until he reached a certain age?

Sorry - I’m probably wording it badly! The money was left to his father by his grandfather when his grandfather died but his dad would be leaving the money to my partner anyway upon his (the dad’s) death so gave him the money early (after the grandfather died but before the dad died) so he could use it to buy his flat.

Ah, so it's just a gift from the father.

Yes, it’s just a gift. 

No, it's a gift with emotional strings...

Well, they gave him the money to buy a flat on his own.  Subsequently he has sold the flat to buy this place.  I can understand why someone would be a bit annoyed if their father had saved all his life to provide them a  legacy, which they then used to help out their son, who put it all at risk with one decision they might not have agreed with.

AW618

Hamilton24 said:

Hamilton24 said:

princeofpounds said:

I can see this both ways. You are a 'partner', but what that means is that you are boyfriend and girlfriend who have bought a property together as tenants-in-common.

Any further commitment is entirely at the discretion of both of you - you are not married or civil partners, you have no dependants. He can choose to leave his money to you, his parents, or the local cats home.

Whilst I could make disparaging comments about his commitment level in refusing to make you a beneficiary of his will, I have no idea about your relationship, and I can also imagine situations where I would want to do the same as him. One example might be if I had nieces and nephews struggling to make ends meet, whilst your only relative was a rich father who could back up your lifestyle and would inherit if you too passed on in turn before he did. 

OK, that's a rather contorted example, but I only make it to show that we should not rush to decisive judgement when we know so little about the two of you. 

Thank you - I appreciate that. As you say, we are boyfriend and girlfriend rather than being engaged or married. He is also clear that if/when we get married the situation would change and I would be left his share of the house. I don’t doubt his commitment to me at all - he is simply struggling with what to do with a well-meaning but controlling parent.

I should add that my parents (who are living in a lovely house mortgage-free but without the spare money that his family have) have absolutely no interest in his share or even my share of the house and are baffled why we don’t just leave the shares to each automatically.

Well they would, wouldn't they? They have spent all their money on their lovely house, while your partner's parents have given him some of their money to buy himself a flat.   Not exactly ground-shaking that these people with no financial stake in it favour the solution that favours their daughter.

AdrianC

AW618 said:

So his father has given him money to buy a place to live, because he cares about him, but would prefer that if he dies he gets that money back rather than it going to somebody he maybe doesn't even like very much.
What's odd about that?

Odd definition of "give". Sounds more like "lend".

Starting off calling it "give", then changing it to "lend" some time later is not the done thing. Give means give.

FtbDreaming

Are one of you ill and likely to die before your or his parents? Why does home ownership suddenly make somebody's demise more appealing? Just live together and hope for a long happy life that at least exceeds the in laws and you'll be fine. I wouldn’t want to argue with anyone over my potential death. 

I’d let him put it in his parents name to keep the peace then as soon as you start a family of your own get his will changed to the child or children, that way the money is still in the family and you only have to spend the next couple of years hoping the OH doesn’t expire prior to having kids! 

AdrianC

FtbDreaming said:

I’d let him put it in his parents name to keep the peace then as soon as you start a family of your own get his will changed to the child or children, that way the money is still in the family and you only have to spend the next couple of years hoping the OH doesn’t expire prior to having kids! 

It's a commitment thing on the OH's part, to me.

But, then, OH and I have been together damn near 25 years, unmarried, no kids. Should my one remaining parent be ahead of her on my will...?

onwards&upwards

AW618 said:

greatcrested said:

Hamilton24 said:

AdrianC said:

Hamilton24 said:

AdrianC said:

Hamilton24 said:

(this money was inheritance from his grandfather but given to him early so he could buy the flat)

I'm not quite sure what this bit means - could you clarify?

It's only an "early inheritance" if his grandfather's still alive.

Or was it left in a trust until he reached a certain age?

Sorry - I’m probably wording it badly! The money was left to his father by his grandfather when his grandfather died but his dad would be leaving the money to my partner anyway upon his (the dad’s) death so gave him the money early (after the grandfather died but before the dad died) so he could use it to buy his flat.

Ah, so it's just a gift from the father.

Yes, it’s just a gift. 

No, it's a gift with emotional strings...

Well, they gave him the money to buy a flat on his own.  Subsequently he has sold the flat to buy this place.  I can understand why someone would be a bit annoyed if their father had saved all his life to provide them a  legacy, which they then used to help out their son, who put it all at risk with one decision they might not have agreed with.

This is insane, did the father expect the son to live on his own forever?  Or to only make decisions that the father agreed with?

AW618

AdrianC said:

AW618 said:

So his father has given him money to buy a place to live, because he cares about him, but would prefer that if he dies he gets that money back rather than it going to somebody he maybe doesn't even like very much.
What's odd about that?

Odd definition of "give". Sounds more like "lend".

Starting off calling it "give", then changing it to "lend" some time later is not the done thing. Give means give.

Yeah, you can make that case, although of course we have no idea what his paernts said when they passed the money over in the first place.  HIs willingness to go along with them is a fair indication that he knows what was said and doesn't think they are being unreasonable.    Still, if you give me your car to help me out and find out I gave it to some guy you despise to help him out and am still without one myself, what are you going feel?

AW618

onwards&upwards said:

AW618 said:

greatcrested said:

Hamilton24 said:

AdrianC said:

Hamilton24 said:

AdrianC said:

Hamilton24 said:

(this money was inheritance from his grandfather but given to him early so he could buy the flat)

I'm not quite sure what this bit means - could you clarify?

It's only an "early inheritance" if his grandfather's still alive.

Or was it left in a trust until he reached a certain age?

Sorry - I’m probably wording it badly! The money was left to his father by his grandfather when his grandfather died but his dad would be leaving the money to my partner anyway upon his (the dad’s) death so gave him the money early (after the grandfather died but before the dad died) so he could use it to buy his flat.

Ah, so it's just a gift from the father.

Yes, it’s just a gift. 

No, it's a gift with emotional strings...

Well, they gave him the money to buy a flat on his own.  Subsequently he has sold the flat to buy this place.  I can understand why someone would be a bit annoyed if their father had saved all his life to provide them a  legacy, which they then used to help out their son, who put it all at risk with one decision they might not have agreed with.

This is insane, did the father expect the son to live on his own forever?  Or to only make decisions that the father agreed with?

Might have expected him not to pile the money into a house he was buying with someone he was neither married to nor had children with.  Not unreasonable, let alone insane.

FtbDreaming

AdrianC said:

FtbDreaming said:

I’d let him put it in his parents name to keep the peace then as soon as you start a family of your own get his will changed to the child or children, that way the money is still in the family and you only have to spend the next couple of years hoping the OH doesn’t expire prior to having kids! 

It's a commitment thing on the OH's part, to me.

But, then, OH and I have been together damn near 25 years, unmarried, no kids. Should my one remaining parent be ahead of her on my will...?

Not at all. But the OP sounded like they do have intentions of having kids in the future. But then again they may split before that happens in which case the in laws would have been correct to have wanted the cash protected. 

If it was a long term relationship of 25 years you'd think things would automatically be equal by then and it wouldn't even be up for discussion. In the early stages of setting up a life together people are a little bit more cautious.