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

[Deleted User]

Flody994 said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Flody994 said:

[Deleted User] said:

 It's his house that he bought with his sibling. Best bet imo would be that you don't buy the half, he sells the house and gives his sibling the half the sibling owns and you buy a 'family home' together. If he doesn't want to do that, I personally think he isn't committed enough to you to  have children with. Being a tad less cynical than life has made me, there may be reasons beyond his siblings having low paid jobs that make him want to 'see them right', they had him first so to speak, he may feel he owes them for 'something', perhaps previous emotional rather than financial support? Have you asked him?

He doesn't want to sell that house and buy another one as he hates moving and doesn't want to waste money on all the fees/stamp duty/moving costs/estate agents/hassle etc etc until we are ready to move in a number of years. 

We have spoken about it all a number of times - it's not to repay any kind of emotional/financial support from siblings in the past, he just wants to leave them money to improve their lives. I completely understand that as I would want to do the same if I had spare money in future, but just didn't like the thought of it coming from the house.

Why is it "coming from the house" any better or worse than him keeping a big pot of cash to give them?

Because I would need to sell the house and move somewhere smaller (potentially with future children), to release his half of the money to go to his siblings.

So why would that be a problem? Assuming given his age that he, or you,  may not die until the potential children have left home, and that he leaves a life insurance policy ( and you have one too of course) that pays out enough on his/your death to mean  the survivor can either buy another home or give his siblings half the value of the house and stay there? 

Tiglet2

Flody994 said:

Flody994 said:

I just assumed it would be the usual joint tenant/right of survivorship with my share of the house going to my partner upon my death, regardless if that was in a couple of years, or thirty. I do understand joint tenants doesn't work for everyone. I had suggested a Declaration of Trust and both having wills. I do have younger brothers but I wouldn't expect them to have my share of the house or money from it as they have their own lives. I can't imagine I'd have oodles in savings when I die, but I would leave them something if I did, as I expect most people would, just not money from sale of a jointly owned house.

If you own as Joint Tenants, the property would be inherited by the surviving owner in its entirety.  No Declaration of Trust needed.

If you own as Tenants in Common, you can decide the percentages of ownership with a Declaration of Trust and a Will setting out who inherits each share.  You could also include a "life interest" so that you do have a right to continue living there, if you can afford to do so.

Upcycling_Queen

You are at a quite early stage.

Go to a solicitor and ring fence the% you’ve paid into the property. Your partner should too. Please become tenants in common. When you go to the solicitor, put a codicil in that nobody has any right to do sod all unless both of you are dead. 

I’ve done this and neither my kids or his get anything unless we both die. We have a stipulation that we either can live there until death. 

Noneforit999

Personally I find it a little strange that he wants to leave the house to his siblings rather than his partner but perhaps I don't have the same sort of relationship with my siblings he does. My Wife and I bought after being together 5 years (we were not married at the time) and I wouldn't have dreamed leaving the house to anybody other than her but each to their own.

What is his plan once you have kids? Surely they should receive his 50% of the house rather than the siblings? If the answer is still the siblings, that would be a red flag for me.

As others have said, you need a solicitor to draw all this up for you but bear in mind, if he selects to leave it all to siblings now and then in a few years, changes it to be children, you are going to have to get it changed again. 

Now we have a son, my 50% is left to him. 

ellie99

[Deleted User] said:

Flody994 said:

CSI_Yorkshire said:

Flody994 said:

[Deleted User] said:

 It's his house that he bought with his sibling. Best bet imo would be that you don't buy the half, he sells the house and gives his sibling the half the sibling owns and you buy a 'family home' together. If he doesn't want to do that, I personally think he isn't committed enough to you to  have children with. Being a tad less cynical than life has made me, there may be reasons beyond his siblings having low paid jobs that make him want to 'see them right', they had him first so to speak, he may feel he owes them for 'something', perhaps previous emotional rather than financial support? Have you asked him?

He doesn't want to sell that house and buy another one as he hates moving and doesn't want to waste money on all the fees/stamp duty/moving costs/estate agents/hassle etc etc until we are ready to move in a number of years. 

We have spoken about it all a number of times - it's not to repay any kind of Hemotional/financial support from siblings in the past, he just wants to leave them money to improve their lives. I completely understand that as I would want to do the same if I had spare money in future, but just didn't like the thought of it coming from the house.

Why is it "coming from the house" any better or worse than him keeping a big pot of cash to give them?

Because I would need to sell the house and move somewhere smaller (potentially with future children), to release his half of the money to go to his siblings.

So why would that be a problem? Assuming given his age that he, or you,  may not die until the potential children have left home, and that he leaves a life insurance policy ( and you have one too of course) that pays out enough on his/your death to mean  the survivor can either buy another home or give his siblings half the value of the house and stay there? 

That would solve the financial problem of keeping the house. We can only go on what the OP has told us, and so on that basis I can see why she's concerned. Her partner doesn't seem to have mentioned insurance, he's completely against marriage, he doesn't want to move house so they can buy together. He's certainly entitled to his views, but there's not much there about what the OP wants. 

Taking the insurance idea further, could the partner take out an insurance policy and put it in trust for his siblings? Money goes straight to siblings, not part of the estate, and he's happy siblings have been helped. The house is kept out of the equation completely. I have done this, but only with one trustee, if you can do it with more than one it might be an option.

sheramber

So he puts hi siblings above his partner and any future children.

That would be a big red flag for me and time to reconsider the relationship.

CSI_Yorkshire

sheramber said:

So he puts hi siblings above his partner and any future children.

That would be a big red flag for me and time to reconsider the relationship.

At precisely which point in the relationship is it required to cut out your siblings in favour of as-yet-non-existent children?

Just interested in your opinion - am I supposed to change my will on the second date?  the first anniversary? 

Sea_Shell

I'd suspect many unmarried people fall into this scenario, by default (intestacy), if they haven't made a will.

Especially if they have already lost their parents.


To "choose" to do it seems a little... unusual.

ellie99

CSI_Yorkshire said:

sheramber said:

So he puts hi siblings above his partner and any future children.

That would be a big red flag for me and time to reconsider the relationship.

At precisely which point in the relationship is it required to cut out your siblings in favour of as-yet-non-existent children?

Just interested in your opinion - am I supposed to change my will on the second date?  the first anniversary? 

Interesting question. I'd say about 2/3 years, as long as a couple were living together and committed to a future together. Definitely if they had children.

"Committed" is the important part though. I'm a bit old school and wouldn't live with someone unless I thought it was for life. Younger people seem to move in and out of homes together a lot more frequently. So "committed" will be different for everyone. 

The OPs problem is that her partner is saying she will "be okay" having to move to a smaller house in order to let his siblings inherit his share...even if they have children. He has not promised to change his will if they have a child.

[Deleted User]

Thought about this a lot last night ( way not to get to sleep!). I wouldn't want my suspicion/cynicism  to cloud the OPs decision making, so I go along with everyone who has suggested the legal mechanisms be put in place that make the OP more secure. If the prospective partner is not ok with that, then a Plan B is definitely needed imo.