Husband has willed our home to Daughter without consulting me 😢

Comms69

Clear an unhappy relationship. End it now, divide assets and both move on

Voyager2002

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?

The legal advice that my family received (when discussing a Will that included a life interest) was that this was simply what a life interest means in the law of England.

AskAsk

olgadapolga said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

It was a marriage and not "living together". So much for "with all my worldly goods I thee endow" (ie as per the marriage service). Just the sheer wording of that marriage service makes it very plain that goods bought in an official marriage are joint property.

These words weren't part of the vows I - or my husband - made. But we see our marriage as a partnership and have shared everything equally, regardless of who was earning more at any one time.

Other people's marriages are different. The people who purchased our last home were very odd. Both came to view the house (multiple times, they were a bit of a pain) but it was the husband who made the offer. It was very clear that he was in charge and it was his name only that the conveyancer used, hers was never mentioned. The mortgage and house were in his name only. It was bizarre. It was almost as though his wife didn't count for anything other than being "his" wife.

Similar situation occurred with a friend of mine but her set-up was even more odd (to me, anyway). She had a well paid job before she met him, moved into HIS house and then married him. They had children, she gave up her job to look after them and when they moved house, the new house was solely in his name. But they also had their own bank accounts (I have no idea how their finances were managed once she gave up working) but just after they were married, they invited us to visit for a meal. When we got there, complete with wine, etc., (as you do) they announced that we'd be going to a local pub instead. Fine. Found a table at the pub, sat down to decide what to order and then the husband disappeared. He came back a few minutes later with a drink and announced that he'd ordered and paid for his meal. Just his meal. Not hers. Or ours. Who goes to a pub with others and doesn't buy a round of drinks, even? If I'd invited friends out for a meal, I'd have paid for it. Certainly before my friend married this chap, that was how we used to do things. If I asked her out, I paid and vice versa. It was very odd (in my eyes, anyway). But apparently normal to them. 

it could be he bought the house as an investment and not their home?  not all couples have joint finances.  my husband and I keep our finances separate, and I find this is easier as we can do what we want with our money without having to consult each other.
what i do find strange is that i often hear our female friends leaving all the decisions to their husbands.  so if we asked them how much the house cost or how much such work cost, they wouldn't know and said their husbands dealt with it all so they don't know.  seems like a lot of women in marriage leave the financial decisions to their husbands, even when those decisions affect them directly.

maman

I agree askask. There is often the assumption on threads like this that everyone uses the 'one pot' way of organising finances and, worse still IMO, the implication that if you don't do that then there's something wrong with your relationship.

OP posted that she didn't want to be considered a 'gold digger' by asking to be on the deeds of a house which I assume from her comment that her husband funded completely. But she did then expect him to leave it to her in his will, hence the thread.

I know, if they divorce, the law is likely to award her half of everything for the contribution she's made in terms of housework and childcare. I know it's not a popular opinion but I think the husband is getting a bad deal when all he's done is try to protect his daughter's inheritance in case his much younger wife makes a new life for herself on the proceeds. 

AskAsk

maman said:

I agree askask. There is often the assumption on threads like this that everyone uses the 'one pot' way of organising finances and, worse still IMO, the implication that if you don't do that then there's something wrong with your relationship.

OP posted that she didn't want to be considered a 'gold digger' by asking to be on the deeds of a house which I assume from her comment that her husband funded completely. But she did then expect him to leave it to her in his will, hence the thread.

I know, if they divorce, the law is likely to award her half of everything for the contribution she's made in terms of housework and childcare. I know it's not a popular opinion but I think the husband is getting a bad deal when all he's done is try to protect his daughter's inheritance in case his much younger wife makes a new life for herself on the proceeds. 

the law on divorce in the UK is ridiculous in my opinion.  men tend to get fleeced when it comes to asset split.  women who marry men with decent income, end up getting their husbands' money, especially if there are young children involved and men end up worse off than the ex.  we have a few male friends that have lost out big style to their ex.

it also takes ages to get divorced if the other party won't agree, so it is very easy to get married, but to get divorce, it is an entirely different matter.

i suppose you could argue that the OP's husband is only trying to protect the child's interest as he is concerned that the OP would sell the house and spend the money, so that the child ends up with nothing.  or that the OP gets persuaded by her new beau to sell the house and spend the money.  he has given her life interest in the property so that she is not homeless.  and at least he hasn't willed the house to some floosy.

nonetheless as a wife, i would feel it was a kick in the teeth if my husband didn't will his assets to me.  it would be fairer for the OP's husband to will half of the house to her and half to his daughter.  this way it doesn't feel like a snub.

elsien

Marital assets isn't "the husbands money." That's rather the point.
The husband could have stayed home or worked part-time, looked after the kids and house etc. instead. 

AskAsk

elsien said:

Marital assets isn't "the husbands money." That's rather the point.
The husband could have stayed home or worked part-time, looked after the kids and house etc. instead. 

it can be the husband's money!  in the scenario where the wife earns very little and her husband earns a lot of money.  she stays at home and look after the children.  the assets are split so that she gets half of his assets.  however, if she had gone to work, she wouldn't have earned that much and would never be able to attain those assets.

it would have been cheaper for the husband to send his wife out to work and earn pittance like she did before she married him, and paid for a nanny.  but in any case, even when the wife goes to work and the children are looked after by a nanny, where the wife earns very little because she doesn't have capacity to earn more, and the husband is the one who earns a lot.  he pays for pretty much everything for her as her earnings are low.  then they get divorced and she still gets half of his assets!  how can that be fair?

elsien

Send his wife out to work?
The pittance she earned before? 
She doesn't have the capacity to earn more?
Come back the 1950s,  all is forgiven.

Socajam

yksi said:

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.

The OP is still young enough to work and save money
After all the OP won't have any rent to pay.
I agree with the husband.  The OP is young enough to remarry and where would that leave his daughter?
Too often one spouse dies, the other remarries and the child from the first marriage ends up getting nothing from  the dead parent's hard work.  The OP's husband is security his child's future, something I wish more parents would stop and seriously think about.
Saying "I love You" is not guarantee that when one spouse dies the other will ensure that the child/children will inherit from the estate.

onwards&upwards

maman said:

 I know it's not a popular opinion but I think the husband is getting a bad deal when all he's done is try to protect his daughter's inheritance in case his much younger wife makes a new life for herself on the proceeds. 

I don't think much of a man who would have a problem with his wife trying to move and make a life for herself after he died.  Its not like she's wanting to run off with the money and have an affair!  Would he prefer her to wear her mourning clothes for the rest of her life and deny herself all pleasure or joy if she's widowed?