Husband has willed our home to Daughter without consulting me 😢

onwards&upwards

Silvertabby said:

onwards&upwards said:

Silvertabby said:

Mr S and his siblings wish their late dad had done this.  Instead, the house went to their step-mother - who later re-married.  She then pre-deceased her new husband, without making a will.  So, the house that their father had worked all his life to pay for went to a man he had never clapped eyes on.

No, it went to his wife, who he loved. 

......and trusted to do the right thing by his children.  

There's only so much control we can have over what happens after we die, and I think its important to accept that and realise that we can only ever plan for the first transfer of our assets (in fact a lot of the time we can't even control that if we need care or lose capacity) so make sure you are happy with that one and that it doesn't cause hardship to those who depend on you. 

yksi

I'm amazed at the lack of sympathy. I'm of a similar age and expect not to really have the spare cash to fund a nursing home stay when I'm older, so the plan, like millions of others, would be to sell the home to fund that. The OP will not have any way to fund private nursing home care where realistically the house should be left to her... If this is how he is in other aspects I would not blame you for seeking legal advice on a divorce.

MoneySeeker1

Do hope OP is reading the (positive/helpful) comments on this thread - and then going off and discussing how marriages normally are here with people ITRW - so that she knows the norm is for joint ownership of a house by a married couple by now and surviving partner (after death) owns the whole house.

maman

It would seem that the father's first priority is making sure his child is provided for. I find that understandable. His wife is also provided for but in a lesser way as she's an adult and can make her own choices in the future as she chooses. She has the option of being housed and financed (we think but don't have the details) by his estate while caring for their daughter or could remarry or whatever she wants. All he's doing is making sure his daughter inherits the property eventually and it's not diluted by any choices the mother makes in a future life 

onwards&upwards

MoneySeeker1 said:

Do hope OP is reading the (positive/helpful) comments on this thread - and then going off and discussing how marriages normally are here with people ITRW - so that she knows the norm is for joint ownership of a house by a married couple by now and surviving partner (after death) owns the whole house.

Actually tenants in common and 50/50 is becoming much more common.  People seem to think its a way to avoid paying for care, as if that is in any way a worthy goal. 

Savvy_Sue

Voyager2002 said:

honeyend said:

 As I understand it a life interest only applies while you live in the property, unless provision is made, so you would be tied to it. There is also nothing to stop him changing his will, or has he told you the truth?

Actually a life interest allows the person to sell the property and use the proceeds to buy somewhere to live that is more suitable for their needs; to let the property and live on the income; to sell the property and invest the proceeds securely in order to provide themselves with an income; or to combine some of these possibilities (eg they could downsize and invest the left-over money to give themselves a modest income).

Is that right to sell / let / invest the norm, or do such provisions need to be written into the will?

MovingForwards

Savvy_Sue said:

Voyager2002 said:

honeyend said:

 As I understand it a life interest only applies while you live in the property, unless provision is made, so you would be tied to it. There is also nothing to stop him changing his will, or has he told you the truth?

Actually a life interest allows the person to sell the property and use the proceeds to buy somewhere to live that is more suitable for their needs; to let the property and live on the income; to sell the property and invest the proceeds securely in order to provide themselves with an income; or to combine some of these possibilities (eg they could downsize and invest the left-over money to give themselves a modest income).

Is that right to sell / let / invest the norm, or do such provisions need to be written into the will?

Usually the clause allows a downsize / move, but not to keep the cash difference. There's normally a financial provision clause which allows use of the 'cash' assets.

In OPs case she has the house to live in and cash provision getting the pension wasn't it.

Therefore a roof over her head for life, option to downsize, live off the pension plus any pensions in her own right.
The property belongs to their daughter, will be held in trust if under 18 when he dies, but with OP living in it til death / care home, and cash assets, again held in trust if not of age.

Makes perfect financial sense to ensure OP is looked after and the daughter receives an inheritance.

Doing it the way OP wants would potentially leave the daughter with nothing as every penny goes on care fees.

Mojisola

MovingForwards said:

Makes perfect financial sense to ensure OP is looked after and the daughter receives an inheritance.
Doing it the way OP wants would potentially leave the daughter with nothing as every penny goes on care fees.

The OP isn't looked after if she needs funding for residential care.

Why not look after his wife and his child by owning the house 50/50 and both leaving their share to their daughter.  That way, the survivor of the couple would have enough to fund at least some years in a reasonable care home.

Because of the age difference, they are both assuming that he will die first but accidents can happen.  As things are arranged now, if the OP dies first and the husband needs residential care, all the money from the house could be used for his care, leaving his daughter will no inheritance.

Savvy_Sue

MovingForwards said:

Savvy_Sue said:
Is that right to sell / let / invest the norm, or do such provisions need to be written into the will?

Usually the clause allows a downsize / move, but not to keep the cash difference. There's normally a financial provision clause which allows use of the 'cash' assets.

It's that tricksy word 'usually'.

Sometimes there's very limited flexibility, which I do feel makes life very difficult. 

MoneySeeker1

Mojisola said:

MovingForwards said:

Makes perfect financial sense to ensure OP is looked after and the daughter receives an inheritance.
Doing it the way OP wants would potentially leave the daughter with nothing as every penny goes on care fees.

The OP isn't looked after if she needs funding for residential care.

Why not look after his wife and his child by owning the house 50/50 and both leaving their share to their daughter.  That way, the survivor of the couple would have enough to fund at least some years in a reasonable care home.

Because of the age difference, they are both assuming that he will die first but accidents can happen.  As things are arranged now, if the OP dies first and the husband needs residential care, all the money from the house could be used for his care, leaving his daughter will no inheritance.

That is also a valid point.

Added to which, everyone seems to assume that at least one person in a couple will probably need to go into a carehome at some point. I feel that's rather defeatist - as surely the vast majority of people never need to do so.

The other point is that, with their house currently being deemed to be his only and her with only a life interest in her own home!!! - then it does seem to be the case that she could (in theory) sell what would be her house (but not legally so) and buy another one instead subsequent to his death - but that she couldnt keep any "leftover" money from her house for herself (because of it not being legally hers). We don't know what this house is like - it could be that small/cheap that downsizing is literally not possible on the one hand. But, on the other hand, it could be a bigger/more expensive house (from which OP could downsize and have money over to spare for herself). 

She might need to have that money left over from downsizing to help support herself and, under current arrangements, because of not legally owning her own house - not be able to have access to her own leftover money from downsizing and have to plead with her own daughter to give her her money back to live on (because, legally, it would belong to the daughter). It is galling to have to plead with someone else asking them to give you your own darn money - because legally speaking it's theirs (voice of experience time.....) and something that is guaranteed to give a permanent rift between people if money really belongs to one person, but legally belongs to someone else. Mother could have a permanent relationship breakdown in the future between herself and her own daughter - if mother needs to downsize and daughter turns out to be selfish and insists she'll keep mothers' money (ie because legally it would be stated to be hers).

That ignorant husband of OP's could have put a timebomb in place ready to detonate at some point in the future between OP and her own daughter. Unfair wills (as this is) are timebombs lurking under the surface primed and waiting to explode - unless those on the "benefitting" end of this are fair-minded and unselfish.