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

housebuyer143

KITTYKAT8_2 said:

I would not move in wait 2 years, and then either house can be sold and you and your partner can buy a new house jointly, or buy brother out at that time.

No, people should live together before buying a house together. Living together really is a make or break kind of thing in a relationship.

lookstraightahead

housebuyer143 said:

KITTYKAT8_2 said:

I would not move in wait 2 years, and then either house can be sold and you and your partner can buy a new house jointly, or buy brother out at that time.

No, people should live together before buying a house together. Living together really is a make or break kind of thing in a relationship.

Yes but they won't be living together on their own. I wouldn't move in either until it was just the two 

SarahLu

I would completely steer clear for 2 years until the brother has moved out, then reassess the situation. By that point your partner may be open to the idea of selling the house and starting fresh with you, or you might move into that house but the brother will be out of the equation. I would absolutely not move in and be paying half the bills, i wouldn't want to live in that arrangement with his brother in a house they bought together anyway, but that's just me. 

If you have children does your partner intend for his share to go to them? If not, I would be concerned. My partner of 15 years and I are not married and have no kids. Everything we have will go to each other (pensions, savings, house, etc) in the event of our death and after that it will be split between both of our family in a way that we have both agreed. Until then, everything goes in the same pot. I realise not everyone wants to do it that way but I also think things might change when you have been together longer and living together for 10 years+. If you have been living together that long and are essentially married in all but name but he still doesn't want you to get the house I would personally find that bizarre.

saajan_12

This is sort of 2 issues.. 
1) During OP's lifetime (and potentially their kids)
2) After OP's lifetime

IMO it would be harsh to expect the house to be sold in a timeframe after partner's death, and expect OP / kids to move out to somewhere smaller. That would be a material upheaval in their lives, at a time when they are grieving. While OP may have built up savings or capital, they may also be older and find it harder to get a solo mortgage. So 1) could be dealt with by either joint tenants or a lifetime interest so OP could live there for life and joint kids until they are say 25, whichever is later? 

After the second death, then perhaps its understandable both ways. Especially if both deaths are in close succession, as Joint tenants, the value of the house would go to the beneficiaries of whoever dies second. Whereas TIC with lifetime interest could mean the survivor lives there for their natural life, then the value is divided between the 2 families, not just whoever dies 2nd. 

Exodi

Honestly these sorts of threads, where controversial gender dynamics are at play are tiresome to read.

As expected '(admittedly) a poorly-thought out notion of looking after their siblings' has been contorted into 'doesn't care about you or your unborn children'. The flood of 'if that was me I'd leave him' and 'run!' drowns the thread, as it always does in any topic where there is a conversation about a boyfriend/husband and assets, housework, or childcare.

Flody994 said:

After talking about it all again, my partner doesn't want me (or future children) to have to leave the home, so has said property would be inherited by the surviving owner as is usual with joint tenants, but just said he still expected me to help his siblings out. He said he hadn't thought it through at all when it came up and was just saying his first thoughts.

He is clearly flexible, open-minded and willing to make compromises. Everyone is calling 'red flag' for his original reluctance based on children that don't even exist yet. People calling not wanting to get married a red flag, the number of marriages has been decreasing year on year for decades, it is not uncommon as it might have been several decades ago.

It sounds like the OP and her partner will work it out - it actually sounds like they're both open-minded and already working out a solution that works for them. I just fear the more... sided... opinions and assumptions may cause the OP to cause an issue over something that didn't need to be.

Flody994 said:
I am trying to see it from his side. 

Flody994 said:

Yes, that does make sense, thank you. We were just trying to do what was fair for everyone.

I expect to get shot down for this comment, but if it even balances the discussion just a bit, I'd be happy. I can see it from both sides, compromise and communication fixes all.

sheramber

If the OP was happy with the arrangements proposed then they wouldn't be asking on here if it was 'a red flag'-their words.

Exodi

sheramber said:

If the OP was happy with the arrangements proposed then they wouldn't be asking on here if it was 'a red flag'-their words.

I didn't say the OP was happy with the original arrangement proposed, fortunately they've had productive discussions on this and the partner has accepted to be joint tenants with the OP inheriting his half.

I was encouraging the OP to remain 'open-minded' in reading the responses, particularly ones that commonly seem to favour a particular side of the debate.

CSI_Yorkshire

sheramber said:

If the OP was happy with the arrangements proposed then they wouldn't be asking on here if it was 'a red flag'-their words.

The OP was asking if it was a red flag on the idea to buy the brother out of the property.

Several subsequent posters instead decided that it was a red flag on the entire relationship.

These are very different things, and slanted the debate in an unhelpful direction when it didn't need to be.

[Deleted User]

My opinion is not based on "gender dynamics". I would say exactly the same if the genders were reversed. I personally don't think it is a good idea for anyone to move into a place as a 'new couple' ( ie living together for the first time) where they will be sharing with a partner's sibling ( or parent or other house sharer for that matter)   just the daily effect  of having a third party around may put more pressure on any couple, even if it's only having to be quieter, or not walk into the lounge with no clothes on! Both parties in a relationship should feel that they are 'secure' if one dies or moves on. That doesn't necessarily mean a house going from one to the other automatically, but it does mean some form of agreement that either one will not be left high and dry and that might change as circumstances do.  

Exodi

Purbeck14 said:

My opinion is not based on "gender dynamics". I would say exactly the same if the genders were reversed.

This line comes up often, but as we all know it's very hard to prove. I'd just say it's telling that I can almost guarantee you are a woman and this is the problem, advice shouldn't vary but it often does. I will happily hold my hands up if I am wrong.

Gender bias should not impact our perception, but it often does. Personally I would love it if all threads on MSE were made non-gender specific (e.g. my partner instead of my boyfriend). I also don't think it's fair to shy away from some of your earlier comments made in this thread and now just focus on the new 'living with brother' angle.

Purbeck14 said:

(talking about the OP's partner aiming to own half the property outright and suggesting the OP take out a mortgage for the other half)

"He said the concept of mortgages are a con because of all the interest you have to pay back and is worried about interest rate rises so wants to get rid of his mortgage as soon as possible".

 BUT he wants you to take one out  and commit to maybe 15-35 years of paying it back in order to live with him. Both in your 30s you said I think, so from your point of view, probably having children within the next 10 years? What happens if one of you loses a job/cares for the children and works fewer hours/he leaves or you want to? Who pays "your" mortgage then? 

I really don't intend to dwell on this point though as it distracts from the topic at hand. I'd just encourage people to consider both sides and not get carried away with the gender dynamics.