We considered this (the solicitor who drew up our wills suggested that we should think about it), but we decided against.
The deciding factor was that the surviving spouse might live long enough to have run out of cash. If this happened they would be unable to sell the house to pay for social care if needed, which would result in having to rely on council care, and probably being given the cheapest possible care available.
It could also mean that even without the need for care, the house wouldn't be properly maintained, thus reducing its value as inheritance for the children.
In the end, we decided that keeping control over our assets, jointly until one of us dies, then singly for the survivor, was the best way forward.
National treasures. Who would you choose?
