When you buy a home together but are not married or related what is the best choice?

Man is 68 and woman is 62 and have been living together for many year and most likely will stay together till death. Each intends to leave their half to their house to their respective child from a previous marriage. This seems like a stupid arrangement to me. What better arrangement could be made without anybody feeling it might lead to a breakup of their relationship?When you buy a home together but are not married or related what is the best choice?
Well...





Perhaps they should prepare their wills so that if something happens to one then the other would automatically inherit the whole home. Then upon the passing of the remaining partner the will can specify to have the house sold and the proceeds split equally amongst their children.When you buy a home together but are not married or related what is the best choice?
You say that yo have been living together for some years. You may already be married in the eyes of the law (common law). Each state is slightly different for requirements. I would be ready for complications if either one of you die. It would be best to see a lawyer to get a good, and legal answer.pp
It is a stupid arrangement. That leaves too many indians without a chief...and that leaves too many people to make decisions and the signature of EVERY one is required.





They need to pick the ONE child that they think will follow the instructions to the letter, draw up a will, and name them executor. Order the house sold with an appraisal at their death, and leave explicit instructions on how the money is to be divided.





That way, one person makes the decisions, and the money gets to where it's supposed to go...the most responsible child is going to want to get the most they can out of the sale...the least responsible will want to get whatever, as long as it's a quick settlement.





The way they want to do it now, is a HUGE mistake.
Without more information, I would recommend a Living Trust with the following provisions:





1. The surviving partner has life time rights of tenancy.


2. When both partners are deceased, the property is to be independently appraised, sold, and the proceeds divided evenly between the children.





My only concern would be if the man with bad credit survives his partner, there would have to be some way (and it varies from state to state) to prevent him from using the property as collateral for any kind of indebtedness other than specific and necessary repairs to the property.





Why do you find their solution stupid? On its face, it is very fair and thoughtful of the children from the previous marriages. Would you want either partner to find themselves homeless when the other dies? I'm sure you don't!





Finally, as much as people hate them, this is why we hire lawyers; perferably one STATE CERTIFIED in real estate AND estate planning, not just claiming to be experienced in either or both. The $500 or so it would cost to set up the Trust will save buckets of money and tears.





Good luck!
Like anything else, 50/50. However, I wouldn't recommend it. One or the other should buy it and charge the other rent.
They can each leave their share to their child ,


But it will only be assumed when both of the owners have passed . ( or if the surviving partner decides to sell , then the 1st child would get their inheritance ) .





%26gt;
have them sell the house,then give half the money to each child.
My common law husband and I bought a house 13 years ago..5 years ago he quick claimed the house to me, for $10 it is solely in my name. we do have wills leaving the house to the surviving person,,or both the children, He has tax debt, so it will not go to him directly, but to a daughter who is to sell it and give half to him, we are in Florida the few states who does not recognize common law marriages