Marriage Turmoil - Want To Change My WIll

andyslowrider

I would like some advice regarding changes to my will to leave more of my estate to my children.

My wife and I have been together for 20+ years and married for six. We have two children, one approaching 18 and the 15.

I have recently discovered that my wife had recently started having an affair, albeit a predominently emotional affair with, she insists, very limited physicality.
 

Although we are both trying to rebuild our marriage, I want to take steps increase and protect my childrens' share of my estate and protect it from being shared with any future partner my wife might settle with after my death. If we are successful in fully recovering our marriage I may withdraw these changes at a later date.

I realise that this may seem like an over-reaction but the pain I've felt as a result of this is significant and the total, absolute trust that I had in my wife is shattered. To compound matters, I have a health condition that increases my risk of sudden death and that is worsened by stress, which is why I want to take action now. 

Our situation is that we own our house with around £160k left to pay on the mortgage, which has another 18 years to run, and around £250k equity. To protect a gift made by my wife's father, we have a Deed of Trust that, in simple terms, splits any equity (and presumably ownership?) 60:40 in my wife's favour. My wife works part-time and makes no contribution to the mortgage or any other household bills.

I have a level-term life insurance policy that pays £210k on my death, pension pots totalling around £160k, investments worth around £30k and credit card debts of around £15k.

Other that a modest cash amount for each child, my wife is currently the sole beneficiary of my will and the nominated beneficiary for each of my pensions and my life insurance.

With the above in mind, I would like some help understanding whether it is possible to do the following and, if so, how best to go about it:

1. Leave my share our property to my children. If it is possible, I would like this to be done in a way (perhaps in trust?) so that it does not affect their entitlement to participate in any first-time-buyer schemes or exclude them from stamp duty discounts for first time buyers.

2. I want to protect my children from liability from any mortgage default, so would like to insist that the mortgage balance is cleared using the funds released by either the life insurance or pensions.

3. I want the remaining funds, after clearing the mortgage and credit cards, to be split 20% to my widow and 40% to each child.

4. For so longs as she is single, I want my widow to be able to continue living in the property for as long as she wishes, so I want to ensure that neither child can force the sale of the home. For so long as she is single this occupancy should be rent free.

5. If my widow gets a new partner, ideally I would like my children to have the power to veto him or her moving into the current home and therefore force a sale of the property. If my children cannot have this veto power and my widow's new partner moves into the current property (with 'moving-in' to be defined as staying overnight, on average, x many times in a rolling x week period) my wife and her partner must either buy-out, at market value, my children's share of the property or pay rent, at market value, on the 40% of the property that my children own, with this rental income being split equally between my two children.

6. If, at any time and for any reason, my widow decides to sell the property it must be at a fair market rate and my children must receive the cash value for their share of the property.

I would be grateful for your thoughts on the above. I realise that I will need to obtain proper legal advice before trying to implement these changes, but I would like to have a reasonable understanding of the practicalities before incurring fees from solicitors.

FlorayG

I can't see any reason why you can't do all of that except veto a new partner; it's not going to be cheap though because it's quite complex!
Whatever your feelings towards your wife, it would be really unfair on anyone to refuse to let them live with a person they want to in their own home and I don't think that part is feasible

Flugelhorn

Agree with @FlorayG - all do-able except 5 - really a non-starter, have visions of new partner having to pretend he didn't live there and hiding in the cupboard if one of the kids came round etc etc 

do you own the property as tenants in common?

andyslowrider

FlorayG said:

I can't see any reason why you can't do all of that except veto a new partner; it's not going to be cheap though because it's quite complex!
Whatever your feelings towards your wife, it would be really unfair on anyone to refuse to let them live with a person they want to in their own home and I don't think that part is feasible

Thanks for your reply.

Ironically, my wife's father and his partner have a clause, presumably in their will, preventing either from moving a new partner into the home following the death of the other - this is where my thoughts originated. Their clause states that the survivor may live in the home as a single person or must sell the home and distribute the dead person's portion of the house to the beneficiaries of their will. My father-in-law is unaware of our marriage difficulties so I am unwilling to approach him for further details of how this clause was drawn-up.

ButterCheese

I think you have to accept that, if you are re-building your marriage i.e. staying together, then anything that happens should you die first is going to happen.  You can't dictate what your wife does when you are gone.

Similarly, you can't really dictate what your wife does even if you're still alive.  Let's say you left her; are you going to prevent anyone new from moving in and helping with the bills?  The alternative is that she lives on her own with the kids and struggles to pay the bills so her and your kids don't have any money for heating or ice creams.

You are feeling betrayed now which is understandable, but it may not last forever.  Even if it does, don't make things difficult on your wife, and more importantly your kids, for the sake of pride.  Just ensure that, fair enough, if you die and she moves someone else in, your kids get your half and your wife can do what she wants with her half.

Voyager2002

Yes: most of what you want is possible, but effectively the property would be in trust and so you need a solicitor who works in this area of the law. I can recommend one that I have used before (in Lancaster).

The veto on a future partner sounds like Casaubon out of "Middlemarch": don't go there! Write your will so that the house is sold and the proceeds shared if you like.

Flugelhorn

andyslowrider said:

Thanks for your reply.

Ironically, my wife's father and his partner have a clause, presumably in their will, preventing either from moving a new partner into the home following the death of the other - this is where my thoughts originated. Their clause states that the survivor may live in the home as a single person or must sell the home and distribute the dead person's portion of the house to the beneficiaries of their will. My father-in-law is unaware of our marriage difficulties so I am unwilling to approach him for further details of how this clause was drawn-up.

Can imagine this is more or less unenforceable - would they be banned from having a lodger? - over the years when living together was frowned on, people just called the other half the lodger and really how is anyone going to prove otherwise 

andyslowrider

Flugelhorn said:

Agree with @FlorayG - all do-able except 5 - really a non-starter, have visions of new partner having to pretend he didn't live there and hiding in the cupboard if one of the kids came round etc etc 

do you own the property as tenants in common?

Thanks for the reply.

I'd need to check whether we own as tennants in common.

Do you think the rental element of 5 would be plausible? I realise that my children will hopefully benefit from capital growth, but I am uncomfortable with a 3rd party living free-of-charge in a house which a. partially belongs to my children, and b. that was paid for predominently by my hard work!

Flugelhorn

andyslowrider said:

Flugelhorn said:

Agree with @FlorayG - all do-able except 5 - really a non-starter, have visions of new partner having to pretend he didn't live there and hiding in the cupboard if one of the kids came round etc etc 

do you own the property as tenants in common?

Thanks for the reply.

I'd need to check whether we own as tennants in common.

Do you think the rental element of 5 would be plausible? I realise that my children will hopefully benefit from capital growth, but I am uncomfortable with a 3rd party living free-of-charge in a house which a. partially belongs to my children, and b. that was paid for predominently by my hard work!

You definitely need to check whether it is TiC - if not, then if you died tomorrow your spouse would inherit the whole property - you can not specify what happens to your "share" as you do no have a specific share, you both own the whole thing jointly 

elsien

You could rebuild your marriage, regain trust, and should you die before your wife she may still find a new partner further down the line.

And there would be nothing wrong with that.
It is wrong to try to control someone after your death, whatever has happened during your life. And your children vetoing a new partner? Seriously? 

andyslowrider

elsien said:

You could rebuild your marriage, regain trust, and should you die before your wife she may still find a new partner further down the line.

And there would be nothing wrong with that.
It is wrong to try to control someone after your death, whatever has happened during your life. And your children vetoing a new partner? Seriously? 

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not suggesting that my my wife shouldn't have a new partner - even I want her to be happy after I'm gone. And I'm not suggesting that my children should have a say in whether or not my wife has a new partner or who that partner should be, but I think it's fair that they should have a say over who lives in a house that they would partially own.