Partner right of residence

U

Ubankmove

New Member
Messages
3
Hello,
I am 25 yrs into 30 yr mortgage. I met my partner 9 yrs ago, we are living together almost 3 years.
Home current market value 380000. I am 48 and partner 51.
I would like partner to have lifetime residence before the house is inherited to my 5 niece/nephew aged 7 to 27.

My partner may possibly inherit family home but it would be a money pit only 3 rooms are being used .... and the field in front which has the same access gate to the home is being left to other sibling

I'd like my partner to have a comfortable home. God forbid

What are implications of this for partner
 
You need to think very carefully together what you and your partner want to do in the future. As Clubman says the value of your home and mortgage status and potential inheritance of your partner are irrelevant.

You sound like you are both in a committed relationship and see yourselves together for life. So the simplest way forward is for you both to marry and you make wills leaving each other any assets on death. You and your spouse can also stipulate that on death, if the other spouse has predeceased then all goes to the 5 nieces and nephews. Job done, nothing to worry about.

If you do not marry and if you make a will leaving your partner a right of residence but leaving the property to the 5 nieces and nephews. You die at 50 and your partner lives another 50 years and dies at 102. What happens during those 50 years? Will the 5 maintain the house, pay the insurance, upkeep and taxes. After all they are the owners. Or will the oldest at 30 say, I am getting married, I want my cut now, and try to sell the house, make it difficult for your partner to continue to live there? Or will the youngest now aged 7 realise at 25 they have to pay local property tax, which has skyrocketed for houses not being lived in by the owner and the roof is leaking and needs major repairs and this is all because of an aunt they barely remember who wants this 70 year old to live in their house until he dies. All of these things can and do happen. It is impossible to predict the future.

Or what if you are 80, and your partner 82 and you end you in a nursing home for 3 years and your estate needs to pay 21% of the value of your assets for fair deal within 12 months. And the only way it can happen is if the house is sold so your partner is offered 30% of the value of the house as a fair value for his right of residence and he leaves, the house is sold, and the 5 nieces and nephews get 10% of the value of the house each, revenue get 20% and your partner gets 30%, but is 85 and has no home to live in.

So in essence you need to get advice from your solicitor on what is the best approach to take that gives you what you want, a home for your partner to live in, in all circumstances.
If you just say to your solicitor, I have a house I want to leave to my nieces and nephews when I die and I want to give this stranger (not a relative) the right to live there until he dies, then that is what you will get but it may not serve any of you as you wished dependant on future circumstances, which you cannot predict.
 
Clamball has really set out the complications of what you are proposing.

It is a good general principle to make things as simple as possible.

Make a will. Leave your home to your partner. End of story. That is the best way for them to have a long term right of residence.

If you have other assets, leave them to your nieces and nephews.

Tell your partner that you are doing this and would appreciate if they made a will leaving the house to your nieces and nephews. You can't enforce this and your partner might change their mind after you die.

If you split up, you can change your will.
 
Last edited:
The above approach is best, but if you want to complicate a bit make a will giving your partner the right to buy the house from the estate for €200k. This would leave your nieces and nephews with some cash.

But you would have to make sure that your partner has the €200k or can raise it.
 
I second the suggestion that you should get married.

This does not have to be a big affair but just a registry office job. This also makes sure that your partner pays no CAT - Inheritance Tax.

In particular, if you get terminally ill, you should get married immediately. They would also get the Widow's/Widower's pension.
 
Seems bizarre that the state can discriminate against single people to such an extent that people are almost forced to get married.
 
planck said:
Seems bizarre that the state can discriminate against single people to such an extent that people are almost forced to get married.
Click to expand...

How does the state discriminate against single people?

Marriage is a legal contract between two people, it gives joint ownership and other legal rights and responsibilities.

Do you want that without being married?
 
planck said:
Seems bizarre that the state can discriminate against single people to such an extent that people are almost forced to get married.
Click to expand...

The whole point about marriage is to secure legal, official, administrative, social, etc recognition of your relationship.

If you want that, marry. If you don't want that, don't marry.

The state is not discriminating (in any pejorative sense) in treating different couples differently in order to respect the different choices they make about this.
 
You can make a formal, written agreement for mutal wills under which A undertakes to make a will leaving the house to B, if B survives A, in return for B undertaking to make a will leaving the house, if B does inherit it, to A's nieces and nephews, and not to change that will.

A needs to tell their neices and nephews that this agreement has been made, and needs to give them a copy of it.

Then, if B does inherit the house, and later makes a will leaving the house to someone else, when B dies A's neices and nephews can invervene in the probate process, launching court proceedings arguing that it would be inequitable to let B's family benefit from B's violation of the agreement, and seeking to have the court declare that B's executor holds the house on trust for A's neices and nephews.

In practice, actually enforcing the agreement by proceedings as outlined would be an absolute This post will be deleted if not edited to remove bad language-show, but it could be done if really necessary.

The real merit of such an agreement, though, is that documents a clear, shared understanding of what is to happen to the house, and it impresses on both A and B the serious nature of what they have agreed. If B has signed an agreement like this, they are much less likely to make an inconsistent will leaving the property to someone else.

(There's still the risk, of course, that while B owns the house they might mortgage it or sell it, in which case on B's death A's nephews and neices would have to chase the proceeds of the house rather than the house itself. And there might be no proceeds left if, e.g., the house was sold to pay for B's care in a residential home.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register