Would you be happy? Future housing concerns.

Thank you for the update nannyn. It’s good to hear you’ve been able to chat with your husband and he’s understood your concerns. I’ve no idea whether 5 years is adequate or not although it certainly feels better than 2. For me the important thing is you’ve had and will continue to have a conversation about a time in the future when one of you will be alone.

In a second marriage, if there is cash in the estate, the ( step) children can inherit something straightaway. It is quite harsh, especially if relationships are not good, that they should have to wait possibly.many years for a step-parent to die to inherit at all.

Ridiculous ! I think even 5 years is ridiculous ! I can’t believe sone of the anders here . I find some people in the UK too Money orientated. I don’t like your husband he Sounds heartless .

It’s good to hear you have reached a compromise.

Also maybe some men think differently to women He has a very good friend who seemed to idolise his wife and was distraught when she died, but within 18 months he had found a new lady and they had bought a house together so he thought 2 years was quite reasonable!!

He’s right. There have been numerous studies about this. One study involving 350 widows and widowers revealed that 25 months after the spouse's death 61% of men and 19% of women were either remarried or involved in a new romance.

I get where he's coming from re the children may have to wait well into their 60's before they get an inheritance - and it is very late to have to wait and one almost thinks "Okay this is useful - but it would have been WAY more useful if I'd had it much earlier in my life". I get that and there is an element of frustration that goes with it of "The second level house on ladder was due in my 30s and the forever home in my 40's/early 50's" and having had to economise for the vast majority of one's life. So an inheritance is obviously "better late than never" - but there are frustrations with being poor for decade after decade after decade and getting one very late - though logistics dictate that is how it will be for many people.

Goodness. Are people really that "entitled"?

We're both late 60s with parents in their 90s.
Both parents are in care, being paid for by their savings and the proceeds of their properties.
If when they die there's any money left over, it'll be a nice bonus.
Certainly not something we've ever planned our lives, house moves or finances round 😳

5 years sounds much more reasonable than 2 years imo and, by the sound of it, you're not attached to that particular house and neighbourhood anyway. So that sounds like it would work rather better for you.

I get where he's coming from re the children may have to wait well into their 60's before they get an inheritance - and it is very late to have to wait and one almost thinks "Okay this is useful - but it would have been WAY more useful if I'd had it much earlier in my life". I get that and there is an element of frustration that goes with it of "The second level house on ladder was due in my 30s and the forever home in my 40's/early 50's" and having had to economise for the vast majority of one's life. So an inheritance is obviously "better late than never" - but there are frustrations with being poor for decade after decade after decade and getting one very late - though logistics dictate that is how it will be for many people.

So - yep....sounds like you've probably about worked out what will be best for you both and the blessing is that it sounds like the two of you are able to have meaningful discussions (rather than one partner "laying down the law" - as happens in a lot of relationships).

Oreo

It depends on your health too doesn’t it? You may not feel up to moving in two years time.
I wouldn’t accept it tbh and think your DH should be more concerned with what you want and need after he’s gone.

Agree with this, you may not want to move, I know I wouldn't .

Thank you for your update.
Good to know you have been able to talk things over with your husband and that you are both happy with the outcome.

CountessFosco

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.

Maybe his partner had no financial interest as the OP does and were they married?

Thanks all for your thoughts and advice, I knew you would help!
We have had a long discussion and agreed on 5 years instead of 2 but we will review every couple of years to ensure we are both still happy.
I think he’s thoughts were that if he died tomorrow (he’s a cheerful soul!) and that I lived to 95 like my Mother, he’s children would be well into their 60’s before they inherit in 26 years time.
Also maybe some men think differently to women He has a very good friend who seemed to idolise his wife and was distraught when she died, but within 18 months he had found a new lady and they had bought a house together so he thought 2 years was quite reasonable!!
Anyway I am happy with this and as I said previously this house is too big for me and I will move to nearer to my family and old friends.

There’s a lot of catastrophizing going on here.

OP is 69 and her husband 75. They are in good health. Their house is large and next to a golf club which would suggest that it’s in a desirable location. They have considered moving to a smaller place but not for the moment so as to accommodate visiting family. OP’s family tend to be long lived.

Wills can be changed or codicils added as circumstances change. Right now, I imagine he’s thinking that were he to die soon, a life tenancy could easily go on for 20 years or more. It isn’t unusual for a life tenant to outlive remaindermen. He would like his chlldren to inherit sooner rather than later.

This is a situation all couples who have had children from previous relationships need to consider when buying assets jointly.

A few years down the road, all kinds of circumstances may have changed so that one or both parties may wish to change the terms of their Wills.

Far too many issues over Wills are caused because people do not update them regularly to take into account their own changing circumstances and needs and those of their intended legatees.

Were this couple to reach age 80 and 86, they may well decide that respective life tenancies wouldn’t mean that adult children have to wait so very long for an inheritance. By then the couple may have moved to a smaller home anyway where both have the capacity to buy out the other’s share, which only he could do at the moment. As time goes on and they age, they may realise that the surviving spouse would find a(nother) move too onerous.

If the current two year stipulation is stressing OP excessively then perhaps a codicil to extend it to three would be a compromise.

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.

I also think you should have a life long interest in your house, the children do not inherit their share of the house until you die. Say you are ill by then I can't sell, say you want a living in carer and need the space. no-one knows what the future holds. It sounds to me like his interest lies with the children more than with you. No I would not be happy and feel very insecure in the relationship. If you decide to sell the obviously get their half of what is left after the purchase, and if more coming their way when you die. You should be able to downsize and buy something you want not with limited funds.

Yes, you still have to have probate but a will makes the process quicker and less expensive.
Always easier to make a will.

Keeping quiet, making a will does not ensure against having to go to Probate!
Probate is usually needed. Each bank or building society has its own rules about how much money they will release without Probate. A property cannot be sold without Probate.
Some very simple low value estates may not need Probate. Estates where everything goes to the spouse via joint accounts may not need Probate.

Another take on this could be that "deeds of variation" are possible on a Will after it comes into effect (ie the person dies). This has to be agreed on by all relevant parties.

I've seen it happen twice:
1. A good friend of mine has a sister. The friend is married, but sister is single and therefore their mother left extra to her single daughter precisely because she was single (ie the married one had got a house...but the single daughter hadnt had someone else to buy with and so hadnt). Cue for a (friendly) argument between them come the mother dying. Single sister said she felt it should be split 50/50 - even though she was single and the other one was married. My friend said "No - you're single and so you need more than me". They resolved it by single sister absolutely insisting married sister should have the same and they walked amicably down the solicitors office together and did a "deed of variation" to change it to 50/50. Fortunately the single sister managed to get a house anyway finally, despite giving up some of hers.

2. The other one is where one sibling had two children and a grabby nature and the other one (me) has no children and hasnt got a grabby nature. So both my erstwhile brother and I had known our parents will was down as a fair 50/50 for years - but he wanted more (at my expense) and he was in there lobbying for it the second I announced I had to move to Wales. My mother changed it to give him and his children 75% - and thus my own got changed to 25%! It would have been possible for him to do a "deed of variation" and I asked him to put it back to normal by doing so and not take advantage of our mothers fit of temper whilst not yet officially diagnosed with Alzheimers (but we all knew she had started it). He refused and grabbed the extra 25% and he and his family got that 75% from that fit of temper.

So - yep..."deeds of variation" are possible to change things - or, as in my own case, it would have meant "change it back". But both parties have to agree - ie the one who benefits from it and the one who loses from it. So - in this case - the adult offspring of the husband could agree to a "deed of variation" being done come the time and specifically allow OP to live in their house however long she decided she would in the event.

It would seem realistic and fair to me for husbands adult children to agree to wait for their inheritance until either OP dies or OP (of herself - and willingly) has sold the joint house and could then pay them out from the difference in value between the two houses basically.

I do think it is unreasonable to expect you to sell the house within two years.
I am into the fourth year sinc DH died and I could not wound up all his affairs and sold the house that quickly.

If you were to downsize to a smaller property and give the money to the ACs, how about deprivation of assets should either of you need care within the next 7 years?

How about downsize to a smaller property and put the proceed of the sale into his saving account. Change his will to allow his children to receive all his savings when he dies but they will have to wait for the remainder of their share from the house after you die.

It is ridiculous of your husband to put you in the position whereby you are financially better off divorcing him than when he passes away.

Most people will do their best to stick to the stipulations of a will out of respect to the deceased. You are right that there is nothing said deceased can do if people begin to quibble- it is an unpleasant side to human nature.

However, making a will is important to ensure against having to go for probate which makes things lengthy and costly and could finish up with the heirs losing a proportion to the government!

In reality there are clauses in wills which are very hard to enforce.
My husband was in the process of updating his will but had not done so. His existing will bequeathed some specific items which no longer existed, so those bequests failed. He asked for a certain person to be offered the purchase of certain collectible items. They no longer trade, so alternatives had to be found. And so on.
Selling a house takes time. If the seller is willing and on to it, it can still take longer than planned and a precise timescale is impossible to adhere to.
Only by getting a court order can a sale be forced on an unwilling party and that cost has to be paid for.
And some people just ignore everything in a will and it is very difficult to do anything about it. So to say a will is legally binding may be true but unenforceable.

FranP and 4allweknow - these are the arrangements my mother and father-in-law had.

Seems a bit hard expecting ritger of you to "up sticks" and leave your home when one has died. A lot of people have a condition in a Will that the survivor is allowed to stay in the property and, if sold then the funds are to be used to purchase a new home, again until the survivor actually dies. Any funds left over from a purchase would go to those entitled to inherit eg. You want to move to another area, you purchase a property with funds from sale of current home. New property costs less than sale of current home, profit distributed to those entitled. Only when you die do survivors inherit the value of their share. Having to sell up to give family their inheritance seems harsh. My DH died 3 years ago and I know I am not yet ready to become involved buying snd selling and moving to new home.

Absolutely NOT!!!!

Most couples leave their home to children, but have a stipulation of lifetime use to surviving spouse. You can then live in it as long as you choose with them deciding what to do when you a)give up your right or b)die yourself.
A good solicitor will also arrange that you can sell to downsize with any surplus/profit going to heirs, while retaining their rights to your new property. Obviously, they may want a say in what you buy, especially given the issues with owning/ selling sheltered housing.

My mother-in-law and her last husband both had been married before and (separately) had children.
She has some interest from her late husband's savings until she dies. At that point the capital goes to his children.
His estate also owns ⅔ of her house (in spite of the fact that she sold their home to move house). His estate bought ⅔ of her "new" house.
Her third will come to my husband (or heirs). Major repairs and improvements have been paid for ⅓ and ⅔.

Neither of them wanted to make each other have to sell anything they didn't want to - and both wanted to make it possible for each other to live as well as possible until they died. This included being able to move.

As it happens my husband's step father died first. His children have been happy to "wait" - even though that has been 15 years already. The savings capital and the property continues to increase in value.

I would not want to have or to enforce a 2 year rule!

I have had a will made because I am in a similar situation, in that we have both been married before, he does not have any kids, but I have one adult daughter. So the will we had done states, that if I die half the estate which was mine will eventually go to my daughter BUT he is allowed to stay in the home until he dies, or gets moved to a care home, or he remarries, THEN she gets my half, so it no way makes him insecure without a roof over his head. I was adamant that wife no 3 was not going to get my daughters due inheritance that I worked hard my life for, because if I had left it as a normal will, he would inherit all my estate and then if he remarried and then died she gets the lot and my daughter does not get a penny!

Some estates take 2 years and more to be settled. Does his Will actually include an instruction that the house is to be sold within two two years.