Would you be happy? Future housing concerns.

You must definitely get solicitor’s advice now.
It doesn’t seem fair on you. You’ll be incurring costs and expenses that you’ll have to pay out of your share unless it’s stipulated in his will that his estate must cover the costs. Seems a trustee needs to be appointed to look after his share and the children could likely pay CGT.
This article gives some information about this situation.
allanjanes.com/-What-Happens-To-The-Ownership-In-Property-Once-A-Co-Owner-Has-Died
I also wonder whether you would be able to afford a house you’d like if your share is less than 50% and you have all the costs of sorting the will out then house moving fees. Sounds to me that you lose out big time. Quite unfair if you’ve been together for a long time. Hope your will is set out the same as his! Good luck.
I’m actually angry for you that he isn’t protecting you.

There isn’t anything that unusual about this. With second marriages where both spouses have children from previous relationships it’s quite normal to make provision for those children to inherit on the death of their natural parent rather than have to wait for the death of a step-parent which could be decades later.

It’s a sensible conversation to have before buying a property as tenants in common. The whole point in doing so and not buying as joint tenants (where the other automatically inherits under Right of Survivorship) is so the one can leave their share as they wish. If one cannot buy out the other then the property will be sold - as the OP says she is willing to do. She is only worried about whether she would be able to find a suitable smaller property in the time frame.

OP has confirmed that she has a reciprocal clause in her own Will, has confirmed that the house would be too big for her and she would be happy to move.

She has a good relationship with her step children so why would they force her into something that she is willing to do?

I doubt the Will says: If you aren’t out within two years of my death my executors will set the dogs on you.

I am widowed. I dealt with my husbands’s estate which involved winding up a business as well as dealing with personal estate matters. It was done in six months alongside the full time job I had. It would have been done within four had HM Customs & Excise been quicker to agree final liability.

It’s perfectly possible to dispose of possessions and to sell and buy another house in 24 months. You can put a house on the market before probate is granted to have a buyer lined up for when it is. Nothing to say OP has to buy another immediately. She says she will have a good income. She could rent while she makes a decision about where she wants to be.

Grief is tough, I know, but having something to focus on makes it easier.

I know several widows and widowers who moved very soon after the death of their spouse, all within two years. Sometimes it was because the survivor has long wanted to move to something smaller but their spouse hadn’t wanted to. Sometimes it was because the spouse died in the house and they found it hard to continue living there. Sometimes it was to move closer to family. Some thought the house was too big to manage alone. Some felt too isolated where they were, unable to drive. Sometimes it was because they found a new companion. Some just wanted a new start.

I think a time frame is a very sensible thing to have.

In our area decent small houses are a rarity unless in need of severe renovation, and not in the best areas for convenience to older people (i.e. shops, doctors etc). Plus it is a very hilly area so a car could be essential - no use if you don't drive. So finding a smaller house could actually take years unless the survivor is prepared to move area. That seems unnecessarily cruel for a bereaved spouse to have to face.

As others have suggested, a house sale cannot be forced unless all owners agree, irrespective of the type of ownership.

I'm not getting this. If two people are married then surely the surviving spouse gets the deceased's estate?

I know the situation with children from previous relationships can make for difficult situations.

I bought a house with my ex-partner under a tenants in common agreement, pretty much like OP's. I recall we both had two years to sell the property.

We split up anyway but the house was sold and we both got half. We both had children from previous marriages but this arrangement did not affect them at all.

Maybe I mis-read it?

I think that it's totally unreasonable. It's your home and they get their share as and when you decide to sell or in the fullness of time. It wouldn't have occurred to me to make that stipulation.

Lathyrus3

I’ve just looked it up.

If the OP doesn’t agree to sell within the two years his beneficiaries will have to go to court to get an order to compel her to sell her share. So I was wrong when I said she could stay as long as she liked.

It’s a big burden on the executors too to get the house done and dusted in two years. Would they be legally obliged to accept a poor offer in order to get it sold within that time frame? Would they be liable in some way if they failed to carry out that stipulation!

I think this clause is going to cause all sorts of problems for everyone.

I think your posts are muddled. I believe it would be impossible to force the surviving tenant in common to sell their share in the house.
I think the "2 years" stipulated in OP's husband's will is his wish and isn't actually enforceable (and if it is would be extremely expensive to execute).
I am in a tenants in common arrangement. The property share cannot be sold by beneficiaries, they cannot force the survivor out and they cannot move in, or move anyone in.
My husband and l have agreed that when either dies the house will be sold but this is an agreement, not enforceable by others, and we haven't put it in our wills, nor have we stipulated a timescale. Until the house is sold the surviving partner is responsible for all bills and the upkeep. The beneficiaries have no responsibilities. To this end we have each willed the other a contingency amount so neither should be out of pocket.
As l said l think the 2 year stipulation in the OP is not legally enforceable, but we don't even know the terms of her shared ownership.

I’ve just looked it up.

If the OP doesn’t agree to sell within the two years his beneficiaries will have to go to court to get an order to compel her to sell her share. So I was wrong when I said she could stay as long as she liked.

It’s a big burden on the executors too to get the house done and dusted in two years. Would they be legally obliged to accept a poor offer in order to get it sold within that time frame? Would they be liable in some way if they failed to carry out that stipulation!

I think this clause is going to cause all sorts of problems for everyone.

Lathyrus3

Well now.

If you own the house as tenants in common he cannot actually say the house is to be sold. He can only say that his share is to be sold.

This means that you can go on living in your share for as lng as you like.

It also means that his children would have to find someone willing to buy just a share of a house with an incumbent. It would have to be a cash purchaser because it would not be possible to get a mortgage under those conditions. And the price they got for his share would be very low.
You might be able to outbid it!

Is the wording invoking the sale of the house a clause written into the will? If it says “the house to be sold” it is actually invalid and cannot be enforced because he does not own the house. If it says “my share to be sold” it is valid.
Or is it an expression of wishes, which is very different in law.

Actually it could also cause enormous difficulties for his children as it stands because they could find themselves liable for inheritance tax on a house share that they cannot sell. The tax office will calculate tax on the value straight away.

I really think you need to make an appointment with a solicitor who specials n these matters and who will talk over different scenarios with you and advise what is best for all of you.

If it's tenants in common the beneficiaries only inherit after the house is sold. They can't sell their part share.

Nannynoodles please don't worry about that clause. It's always a sad business thinking ahead to being bereaved, and your husband is simply being businesslike about it.

AGAA4

I think this stipulation is very unreasonable. Two years is not enough time to sort a large house out and deal with widowhood.
There shouldn't be any worries for you having to sell the house at all.
I hope it doesn't happen but what if you became ill and needed to stay at home.
I think the idea of selling now and buying a smaller property is the best one while you are still both healthy.
Any money left over could be divided between the children.

But they’ll still have the same problem, only smaller won’t they? And the OP won’t have enough capital n her share to buy any.

I don’t get how that would solve anything?????

Which bit do you think is wrong *foxie”? I’m willing to be corrected.

My best advice is to see a solicitor which is what myself and a friend did when we bought this house as tenants in common.

I think this stipulation is very unreasonable. Two years is not enough time to sort a large house out and deal with widowhood.
There shouldn't be any worries for you having to sell the house at all.
I hope it doesn't happen but what if you became ill and needed to stay at home.
I think the idea of selling now and buying a smaller property is the best one while you are still both healthy.
Any money left over could be divided between the children.

I'm not a solicitor but I don't think the post by Lathyrus is correct.

Our next door neighbour passed away aged 97. His partner had no say in the disposal of his property sadly. His will stipulated she must move out within 3 months!!!!! so the house could be sold and the inheritance given to his two children. Two years therefore sounds infinitely reasonable.

Well now.

If you own the house as tenants in common he cannot actually say the house is to be sold. He can only say that his share is to be sold.

This means that you can go on living in your share for as lng as you like.

It also means that his children would have to find someone willing to buy just a share of a house with an incumbent. It would have to be a cash purchaser because it would not be possible to get a mortgage under those conditions. And the price they got for his share would be very low.
You might be able to outbid it!

Is the wording invoking the sale of the house a clause written into the will? If it says “the house to be sold” it is actually invalid and cannot be enforced because he does not own the house. If it says “my share to be sold” it is valid.
Or is it an expression of wishes, which is very different in law.

Actually it could also cause enormous difficulties for his children as it stands because they could find themselves liable for inheritance tax on a house share that they cannot sell. The tax office will calculate tax on the value straight away.

I really think you need to make an appointment with a solicitor who specials n these matters and who will talk over different scenarios with you and advise what is best for all of you.

I think it's very important not to make any big decisions in the first few yrs after losing a partner. From a personal point of view it's 3 yrs since my DH passed away and it's only now that I've even felt able to view a couple of places as I know I will need to downsize and move to a less rural place in the near future.
I also understand not wanting children to wait for 10/20 yrs or so to receive an inheritance. I would discuss this further with your DH and maybe set something like a 5yr date. You may well feel you are able to move before then but it does take the pressure off you.

Well I don't know about legalities or financial matters but i don't like the sound of it.
I think the next generation should only inherit the house when both of you no longer need it.
So after both of you deceased.
Or posiibly if you choose to move before that.
But there should be no time limit or having to move out.
Things can get more difficult as we get older and in ways that we cannot predict.
There should be no added unnecessary pressure.
All the best.

Sorting out and being granted probate could take the better part of a year in itself; three to four years sounds more reasonable, and as a request, not as some kind of testamentary condition.

And being older is no guarantee of dying sooner, as I have recently discovered.

No, I do not think this is reasonable.
This is your home, and there may be all sorts of reasons that you cannot leave within two years, but sad to say, adult children expecting an inheritance are not always reasonable.

Take legal advice about your position, but as you both own the house he may not be able to impose these conditions. And if it is, make sure it works both ways.
There is an unpleasant situation developing near me where the wife died quite young and left her house to her adult children; her second husband is contesting the will and claiming a share.

foxie48

I think it would be kinder to give each other a lifetime interest to live in the home you have together and for the children to receive that part of the inheritance when you are both deceased. I think a home is different to money in the bank or shares in a portfolio etc.

Absolutely agree

I think it is unreasonable, the house belongs to both of you and is your home, both of you should be deceased before this house has to be sold. I wouldn’t be at all happy

A friend of ours - who left the marital home to a charity! 🤬- ‘kindly’ stipulated in his will that his wife was allowed to stay in it for 3 years.
She still found it hard going, clearing it, but then he was something of a hoarder - there was so much stuff to go through.

I also think it's necessary to think about the cost of moving, estate agent fees, solicitors and stamp duty on a new property can add up as does removal costs and finding existing furniture, curtains etc have to be replaced. Would these costs be paid by you? They could eat up quite a bit of your own money. I can understand your husband wanting to protect his children's inheritance but he should be putting your needs first. We give any surplus income away to our children, one is not my husband's but he has absolutely no objection to treating her with kindness and generosity as if she were. When it comes to our estate, the proportions reflect the fact that we have, over the years inherited or been given quite a lot of money by my husband's family. This has been discussed and explained and everyone is happy but there is no way any financial decision would be made that would disadvantage me in any way,

Ah, sorry, I missed that. Thank you Silver brooks.

Aldom I did ask the question: Presumably you have a reciprocal clause in your own Will.

OP replied: Yes I do but he could probably buy my share if he wanted to do so. Not sure if either of us would want to stay for long anyway, it’s much too big for one.