Who does the house go to when a partner dies? Partner disagrees.

Flody994

Apologies if this is in the wrong place or too long, I just need some opinions. 

My partner owns a house with one of his siblings on a fixed term mortgage which ends in two years time. The plan is for me to buy the sibling out of their half of the house when the fixed term ends so me and my partner of four years would own the house 50:50. We are not planning on getting married though, but are talking about children (we’re in our 30s).

My partner has now said that when he dies, that he wants his half of the house to go to all his siblings. He has 4 younger siblings, all adults, none in considerable debt, no health issues/disabilities, don’t live nearby, just low to average paying jobs but obviously situations can change +/- over time.

I said that if I bought a house with him, that the joint mortgage (being joint tenants, not tenants in common) would mean that if either one of us dies, the other half of the house goes to the surviving partner. If he died in 20 years’ time, the house that we both contributed to, and made a life in, would have to be sold to give money to his siblings, leaving me having to buy a smaller house with less funds (completely ignoring the issue if we have children by then). He then said if the house was left to me, I could stay in it for however long but when it was sold, I would need to give make sure his siblings would taken care of money-wise. I would have thought if he wanted his siblings to have money, he could leave them some in his will, or leave his small business to one of them, rather than take the money from the house. I have two brothers, and I wouldn’t dream of saying he would have to sell the house to give them any money if I died. I also wouldn't think that it was my partner's responsibility to make sure my brothers were taken care of in the event of my death.
 

I assume that as he will already have paid in to the mortgage for 5 years by the time of remortgage on top of his 10k deposit, he thinks he will have a bigger ‘share’ of it than me with my 15k deposit. These aren’t big numbers, he doesn’t have large savings and it’s not a massively expensive house that would lead to a large monetary amount for each sibling (£180,000 3 bed semi in 2020). I suggested a Declaration of Trust to detail different deposit amounts, or different % share of the house if we do have vastly different contributions by the time of remortgage, but he doesn’t want to do that as he is adamant about it being owned 50:50 so it is fair on both of us.

I don’t really know what my question is, but is it normal for a long-term partner to want their share of a jointly owned house to be left to someone other than their long-term partner? Or expect their partner to sell the house and move? It seems like a red flag to me to not go ahead with the buying his sibling out of the house, but my partner thinks I'm being unreasonable to expect so much when he needs to leave something to his family too.

Exodi

Flody994 said:

My partner owns a house with one of his siblings on a fixed term mortgage which ends in two years time. The plan is for me to buy the sibling out of their half of the house when the fixed term ends so me and my partner of four years would own the house 50:50. 

Just quickly on this point because it's important - you don't have to wait for a product fix to end to do a transfer of equity+change of parties (assuming you stay with the same lender). There would be no ERC payable, though you would have to pay a relatively small change of parties administration fee (e.g. Nationwide charge £125). I say this because many incorrectly assume you have to wait till a fixed term ends until you can consider changing ownership else pay massive ERC's, but this is not the case.

On to your main point, think of it like this - you wouldn't each own 50% of the property (like you could as tenants in common), you would both own 100% of the property. If one owner dies, their interest in the property automatically passes to the others - regardless of whether they have a will in place. It's called the 'right of survivorship' if you want research it.

If they want to leave their share to someone else, you would have to own as tenants in common.

Exodi

Flody994 said:

I don’t really know what my question is, but is it normal for a long-term partner to want their share of a jointly owned house to be left to someone other than their long-term partner? Or expect their partner to sell the house and move? It seems like a red flag to me to not go ahead with the buying his sibling out of the house, but my partner thinks I'm being unreasonable to expect so much when he needs to leave something to his family too.

I think this is really what this thread is about.

My partner and I had similar discussions early in our relationship (though you don't mention how long you've been together).

You must appreciate, early on in a relationship it's a tall order to ask that someone should leave everything they own (as the majority of peoples wealth is in their home) to someone they've known for a relatively short period of time, instead of their close relatives. Early on in my relationship, I held similar views. It was also hard to listen to my partner due to the power dynamic - e.g. it's easier for the person with less to suggest that everything is left to each other.

A few years on (and a wedding later), my mentality on this has completely changed and I intend to leave everything to my wife and future children, and would not even consider anything else. One fun thought experiment - does your partner think his siblings will leave him anything in their wills? It's not typical to do so. As you say, it's awkward to think about my sisters trying to evict my wife following my death to realise an inheritance. Feels like an unfair situation to deliberately put everyone in.

Sea_Shell

Flody994 said:

.

I don’t really know what my question is, but is it normal for a long-term partner to want their share of a jointly owned house to be left to someone other than their long-term partner? Or expect their partner to sell the house and move? It seems like a red flag to me to not go ahead with the buying his sibling out of the house, but my partner thinks I'm being unreasonable to expect so much when he needs to leave something to his family too.

Not normal to want to leave to siblings.  Children from a previous relationship, yes.  But not siblings. 

Unless it was a previously inherited, family home, was it?

That would change the dynamics.

If the siblings are happy to be bought out, then it seems a bit strange to then want to return a share back to them later.

If they're that attached to the house, they wouldn't sell to you, would they?

km1500

if you buy it together as joint tenants then when one dies the whole house passes to the survivor.

 if you buy it as tenants in common then you are allowed to leave your share to your siblings or whoever you want - who could then, of course, force a sale to release their equity.

by the way it is comparatively easy to switch between the two so you could buy it initially as tenants in common and then as the relationship progresses and stabilizes you could easily choose to make it a joint tenancy.

in both cases both of your names are on the deeds at the land registry. in the case of tenants in common you have a declaration of trust saying how the property is owned- for example 50/50. if you decide later on to make it a joint tenancy then you simply declare this fact to the land registry

housebuyer143

What he wants to do is tenants in common and many people buy like this. My husband and I own ours like that. 
If he died, you would get to stay in the house until you sold but you are not without being disadvantaged. You would need to pay all the mortgage yourself but own only half, you pay for all repairs and improvements but only get half. It's not really ideal because if you wanted to move then you don't have enough to buy somewhere else 🤷‍♂️ 

It seems as though you should be leaving your shares to each other but that's a discussion you need to have.

Exodi

housebuyer143 said:

What he wants to do is tenants in common and many people buy like this. My husband and I own ours like that. 
If he died, you would get to stay in the house until you sold but you are not without being disadvantaged. You would need to pay all the mortgage yourself but own only half, you pay for all repairs and improvements but only get half. It's not really ideal because if you wanted to move then you don't have enough to buy somewhere else 🤷‍♂️ 

It seems as though you should be leaving your shares to each other but that's a discussion you need to have.

While it may or may not be relevant to your circumstances, you should include in there the (biggest) issue of beneficiaries:

The partners beneficiaries may be happy to wait for their inheritance, or perhaps they may not. One may decide to sell the house in a relatively short time period, one may also decide to never sell the house.

In any case, I wouldn't necessarily rely on being able to deprive beneficiaries of their inheritance at ones whim by sole virtue of being the one that happens to live in the property. At some point, the excluded beneficiaries may pursue an order of sale through the courts.

kingstreet

The fact a mortgage is joint and several doesn't mean the property has to be held JT. It can also be held TIC.

HobgoblinBT

OP, if you want all of the house and your partner wants to leave their share of the house to relatives, you both need to see a solicitor to draw up wills expressing your individual wishes.  Then, see an IFA to arrange suitable insurance policies so that on the death of your partner you receive a lump sum to pay your partner’s relatives their legacy.

ellie99

The insurance policy idea seems a good way to solve this practically. However, the OP is concerned about whether the situation is a red flag.

I think it is a red flag. You're in your 30s, been together 4 years and are talking about children. And yet he is still putting his siblings above you. How long do you have to be together before he sees you and him (and any potential children) as his family unit?

I wouldn't have children with a man who was happy for them to lose the family home if he died. I've been widowed with small children, losing their home as well would have been extra stress.

Why does he "need" to leave half a house to his siblings? Will they be including him in their wills? It is a bit odd, I'd be shocked if my sibling included me in their will when they have their own family.

Exodi

ellie99 said:

The insurance policy idea seems a good way to solve this practically. However, the OP is concerned about whether the situation is a red flag.

I think it is a red flag. You're in your 30s, been together 4 years and are talking about children. And yet he is still putting his siblings above you. How long do you have to be together before he sees you and him (and any potential children) as his family unit?

I read the above as the OP as that when the fixed term comes to an end in 2 years they would be owning the house together as a couple of 4 years (at that point in time). So as of now in the present, they have been together for 2 years. I could be wrong though.

Would be useful for the OP to clarify as how long they've been together is relatively important to the discussion.

Flody994 said:

My partner owns a house with one of his siblings on a fixed term mortgage which ends in two years time. The plan is for me to buy the sibling out of their half of the house when the fixed term ends so me and my partner of four years would own the house 50:50.