Inheriting a parents home with a right to use clause in the will I will be inheriting my fathers home, which he currently shares with a partner. The original will states that the partner can continue to occupy the home for three years following his death. After the three years, she will move out and I can/will sell the home. I assume she will be paying all the expenses. He has recently added a twist...he will transfer his IRA to me, and I will share the homeowner expenses 50/50, with her, up until the IRA is exhausted, or she decides to move out. At that time, I will be able to sell the home. My concern is that none of this is in writing, but an agreement on the honor system. Nothing in writing and no rental agreement. He does not want to change the will. My concerns: 1. She gets ill, exhausts her life savings, and cannot afford her share. 2. She decides not to pay her share. 3. She does not adequately preserve the home. 4. Who covers major expenses..painting, appliances, furnace, etc? As I am the homeowner. 5. I cannot evict her if needed, as she is a senior citizen, living in my home, with no lease. 6. The potential financial burden in case of a catastrophic loss or my inability to quickly sell the home at the end. A side note....she would like to remain in the house, but acknowledges that the yearly expenses are too costly to do so without help. I understand his desire to accommodate her request to stay in the house, but, I think it is unreasonable to burden me with this very generous agreement. My suggestion: sell her the house at a discounted rate and provide her with three years of expenses.....or....give her lifetime use of the home, at her total expense, and the house reverts to me upon her death or abandonment. Desperately need some advice.
This is going to depend very much on exactly what is in writing. Note that your father could, if he chose, directly leave both the house and the IRA to his partner. If you become the homeowner after your father's death, and the "3-year right to use" and the cost sharing provisions are not in writing, then neither is legally binding. You and the partner may choose to honor your father's wishes, but if he does not put them in the will or another legal document, neither of you is bound. The question says: I cannot evict her if needed, as she is a senior citizen, living in my home, with no lease. I do not know of any jurisdiction in which there is a general ban on evicting a senior citizen in all cases. There will be some restrictions no doubt, but they will depend on the local laws. And of course you may not wish to exercise all the legal rights you may have. You would ultimately, have the right as homeowner to evict the partner. I don't what procedures would need to be followed legally -- that will depend on the specific jurisdiction, which the question does not list. As the homeowner, you would be legally responsible for maintaining and paying taxes and other expenses on the house. The partner would be either your tenant or your guest. Once you have title (and that will take some time after your father's death, in all probability) if the "right to use" was never put in writing, you could ask the partner to sign a lease. The terms could be whatever the two of you choose to agree on. If she becomes a tenant under such a lease, she has both legal rights and legal responsibilities, and each of you has the protection of a clear agreement. You would be wise to consult a lawyer to learn exactly what the local law does and does not permit. Your father might well be wise to put his wishes more clearly in writing while he still can.
Since this seems to have been viewed a lot, an update/answer. I can't comment on the normalcy of such clauses since this has been my only experience. But the Estate Agent immediately struck the clause without any fight, so it seems like it was just there &quot;in case I let it slide&quot;. It turned out to be a great decision, since I ended up finding my own buyer in the same week that the agent acquired a suitable offer, which I would then have been liable to pay the fees for.
The relevant law in California is here. In your situation, it is presumed (as you both agree) that you have a month to month agreement. §1946 states that A hiring of real property, for a term not specified by the parties, is deemed to be renewed as stated in Section 1945, at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives written notice to the other of that party’s intention to terminate the same, at least as long before the expiration thereof as the term of the hiring itself, not exceeding 30 days; In other words, the landlord has to give you 30 days advance notice to terminate the lease, and you have to give 30 days advance notice to terminate the lease (and it must be written notice). The section continues: provided, however, that as to tenancies from month to month either of the parties may terminate the same by giving at least 30 days’ written notice thereof at any time and the rent shall be due and payable to and including the date of termination. which effectively says the same thing, specifically appliedd to month to month leases. There is some leeway on terminating a lease: It shall be competent for the parties to provide by an agreement at the time the tenancy is created that a notice of the intention to terminate the same may be given at any time not less than seven days before the expiration of the term thereof. The notice herein required shall be given in the manner prescribed in Section 1162 of the Code of Civil Procedure or by sending a copy by certified or registered mail addressed to the other party. But you would have to establish that there was such an agreement (I assume there was not). §1946.1 asserts that a hiring of residential real property for a term not specified by the parties, is deemed to be renewed as stated in Section 1945, at the end of the term implied by law unless one of the parties gives written notice to the other of his or her intention to terminate the tenancy, as provided in this section. That is, a lease is automatically renewed in your situation unless notice has been given. Moreover, A tenant giving notice pursuant to this section shall give notice for a period at least as long as the term of the periodic tenancy prior to the proposed date of termination. What you are proposing contravenes this provision of the law – from your description of the facts, you did not give notice 30 days before now. So your obligation to the landlord exists to the end of May. Bear in mind that the law imposes obligations on both landlord and tenant: just as the landlord cannot throw you out without proper notification, you cannot walk away from your obligation without proper notification. §1951.2 addresses breach of lease and abandonment by lessee (you) if a lessee of real property breaches the lease and abandons the property before the end of the term or if his right to possession is terminated by the lessor because of a breach of the lease, the lease terminates. Upon such termination, the lessor may recover from the lessee: (1) The worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination; (2) The worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided; (3) Subject to subdivision (c), the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and (4) Any other amount necessary to compensate the lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the lessee’s failure to perform his obligations under the lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom. There are, also, no special exceptions about landlords selling their property that allow instant termination. That is, you still owe the month's rent, even though the lease is ending at the end of the month. You could of course ask the landlord to forgive you that last month's obligation. I am assuming that the lease was terminated properly by the landlord. If it was not, the landlord has not legally terminated the lease and it will continue until someone does properly terminate the lease. That might provide incentive for the other party to just forget the last month's rent, but it also might not.
This will depend on the exact wording of the will. If the will is well-drawn, it will provide alternative recipients in case the primary recipient of a bequest dies before the testator (will-maker) does. But as a general rule, if A makes a will leaving particular property to B, but B dies before A does, that bequest is void. If the will specifies an alternate recipient, the property goes to the alternate. If not, or if all specified alternates die before the testator does, the property becomes part of the residual estate of the testator. (The residual estate is that part which is not subject to a specific bequest.) The testator can specify a line of descent for a bequest: "I leave my house to Joan and her heirs". In that case, if Joan died before the testator, the house would go to whatever person or persons inherit from Joan. This was once a somewhat common form of bequest, but now is much less common. A will normally includes language leaving the residual estate to some person (or several people) or some entity (it can be an organization, such as a church or a charity). This is often done with language such as "I leave all the rest of my estate to ..." OR "Everything not include above i leave to..." or "I give all the remainder and residue of my estate to...". The executor does not choose, but rather follows the directions of the will on who gets the residue of the estate. I am not sure what happens if the will does not name a residuary legatee, or if the person so named dies before the testator. That will depend on the specific law of the jurisdiction. In the US, this means state law, and will vary from state to state. The comment by Dale M says that assets not provided for in the will are inherited as if the person was intestate, that is, as if the person had no valid will. The law in each jurisdiction specifies exactly what rules are followed in the case of intestacy. In general this is that property goes first to the teatator's spouse and children, but if there are no living spouse and children, to more distant relatives. Eventually, if no relatives close enough can be found, property escheats, that is, goes to the government. The exact rule varies by jurisdiction -- in the US by state.
The Probate Estate v. Non-Probate Transfers First off, keep in mind that only the &quot;probate estate&quot; is probated at all. Assets held in joint tenancy with right of survivorship, assets held in trust, and assets with a death beneficiary, for example, pass by non-probate transfer. Some states also have a rebuttable presumption that all tangible personal property which is not part of a business owned by someone in a married couple that is not subject to a certificate of title is owned in joint tenancy by right of survivorship in favor of a surviving spouse. The probate estate consists only of property held in the name of the decedent with no beneficiary designation and no joint tenants (although there could be tenant-in-common co-owners or co-owners as part of a general partnership). The Primary Domicile Probate The primary probate is generally conducted in the state and county in which the decedent was domiciled at death. Intangible property, including interests in entities, and the legal rights of the decedent are generally deemed to be located at that domicile for probate purposes. The common law choice of law rule is to have moveable property also governed by the law of the state of domicile. While it doesn't have constitutional standing, it is widely adopted. The unsecured claims (i.e. claims not secured by collateral) of third-parties against the decedent are deemed located at the decedent's domicile at death. A will contest is almost always conducted solely in the primary domicile state, and that resolution has collateral estoppel and arguably full faith and credit clause binding effect in other ancillary probate cases. Almost every state, however, recognizes the validity of a will that was valid where executed at the time it was executed. Estate plans of individuals with property in many states that would be subject to many ancillary probate proceedings are routinely devised so that the property subject to ancillary probate is either not subject to probate at all, because it is in a revocable trust or joint tenancy with right of survivorship or has transfer on death beneficiary, or it at least in an entity whose shares are handled in the primary probate rather than in an ancillary probate, when the decedent was represented by counsel (and it verges on malpractice not to recommend that this be done if estate planning counsel is aware of the facts). Of course, not everyone hires a lawyer to do their estate plan before they die (even if they meant to do so), so ancillary probates still happen. Ancillary Probate Proceedings When there is real property in the estate owned outright by the decedent, and not subject to a joint tenancy or other non-probate transfer (such as a transfer on death deed) and not owned via a trust or entity, then an ancillary probate must be opened up in that state to probate that parcel of real property. One if left in an ancillary probate dealing with real property and debts for which that property is collateral in the ancillary probate. But the ancillary probate is largely a formality and mostly defers to the rulings of the court in the primary probate case. Sometimes closely held business which is a sole proprietorship or general partnership (as opposed to an entity), with a state or local specific license, must be the subject of an ancillary probate. But more often, the closely held business is an entity with a license and tangible personal property held in the entity. In those cases, the stock or membership interest is intangible property that can be probated at the domicile of the decedent, rather than in an ancillary probate where the business is located. In other words, let's say a person lives in Maine, but has property in 20 different states. Various houses, boats, bank accounts, brokerage accounts, you name it. Does the will have to then be probated in every one of the states in which the various property resides? The bank accounts, brokerage accounts, and most of the etc. that are part of the probate estate would be probated in Maine. The houses outside of Maine and possible the cars and boats and sole proprietorship inventory, equipment and license transfers outside of Maine would be resolved in ancillary probate proceedings. Conflicts Of Law Between Primary And Ancillary Probate Laws What happens if the probate laws of the states conflict? The procedural rules of the forum state govern the ancillary probate, rather than those of the primary probate case. Every state adopted the general rule that the directions of a will are valid and enforceable subject to only a handful of exceptions, and in most cases, intestacy rules when there is no surviving spouse are likewise identical. Almost all states would honor a will admitted to probate in the primary probate state (and are arguably required to do so under the full faith and credit clause), even if it would not have been admitted to probate in the ancillary probate state. While it is theoretically possible to have a conflict of law regarding general partnership property, inheritance of general partnership property is largely governed by the Uniform Partnership Act and this model state law is, in fact, a law that has been adopted in every U.S. state and is uniform on this point in every U.S. state. The main circumstances in which there could be conflicts between the state probate laws are: quirky intestate situations (differences between per stirpes and per capita at each generation, or differences between treatment of half-blood or multiple line of descent heirs), exemptions from creditors (e.g. homestead rights, tenancy-by-entirety rights, special legacy property rules in some Southern states), details of slayer statutes (e.g. does negligent homicide count?), divorce revocation laws (not every state revokes will provisions in favor a divorced spouse), community property rights in property, mandatory inheritance rights of disinherited spouses (dower, curtsy and force share laws, some states treat this as a creditor's claim, others don't), and provisions for what happens when a specific devise fails because an asset no longer exists if the will doesn't specifically state what happens. It is fairly rare for this to come up in practice, however, since normally the ancillary probate forum state court defers to the primary state appointed executor's requests, and it is quite rare for that to be disputed by other parties to the estate in the ancillary proceeding. It happens, I've been there, but it is very uncommon. In those cases, there is little formal guidance. The forum state's law is presumed to apply, but that presumption can be overcome by showing that some other state has the most significant connection to the legal issue over which there is a conflict. The analysis is handled by the forum state court on a case by case basis in the rare cases where it comes up. The primary probate court can also sometimes make an end run around ancillary probate court rulings applying substantive ancillary probate forum probate laws to property in the ancillary probate state by ordering a compensatory adjustment in how property in its jurisdiction is distributed to conform to the laws of its state. A recent case from New Hampshire discussed how choice of law works in probate cases: We first address whether the New Hampshire probate division erred in applying Massachusetts’ pretermitted heir statute, rather than New Hampshire's RSA 551:10, to the testator's will. On appeal, the petitioner argues that, despite the language of Article Ninth in his mother's will, RSA 551:10 applies because his mother was domiciled in New Hampshire at the time of her death and her estate consists of only personal property. The respondent argues that “[t]he intent of Marie G. Dow is clear,” (bolding and capitalization omitted), pursuant to Article Ninth of her will, that Massachusetts law should apply and asserts that New Hampshire “give[s] effect” to choice-of-law provisions in wills. We agree with the petitioner. The probate division's findings that the testator's estate consists of only personal property and that she was domiciled in New Hampshire at the time of her death are not challenged on appeal and need not be disturbed. We review the probate division's application of law to undisputed facts de novo. Under New Hampshire law, personal property of a testator generally passes according to the law of the state of domicile. Compare Eyre, 37 N.H. at 120 (“The general principle of the common law is, that the right and disposition of movables is to be governed by the law of the domicil of the owner.”), with Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 199, § 1 (West 2012) (stating that Massachusetts, when administering the will of a non-inhabitant of the Commonwealth, will dispose of the estate “according to his last will, if any; otherwise ... his personal property shall be distributed and disposed of according to the laws of the state or country of which he was an inhabitant”). Our law comports with Section 263(1) of the Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Laws, which provides: Whether a will transfers an interest in movables and the nature of the interest transferred are determined by the law that would be applied by the courts of the state where the testator was domiciled at the time of his death. Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Laws § 263(1), at 121 (1971). Compare id. (pertaining to transfers of personal property by will), with id. § 239(1), at 48 (“Whether a will transfers an interest in land and the nature of the interest transferred are determined by the law that would be applied by the courts of the situs.”). Because the testator's will disposes of only personal property, i.e., “movables,” the nature of the interests in this property will be determined by the laws of New Hampshire — where she was domiciled at death. Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Laws, supra § 263(1), at 121. The law in New Hampshire is clear, and we are not persuaded that there is a reason to deviate from it in the instant case. The respondent relies upon our decisions in In re Farnsworth's Estate, 109 N.H. 15, 241 A.2d 204 (1968), and Royce v. Estate of Denby's, 117 N.H. 893, 379 A.2d 1256 (1977), in support of her position that Massachusetts’ pretermitted heir statute applies to the will because New Hampshire law honors the testator's intent, as expressed in Article Ninth of Marie G. Dow's will, to have her estate “administered and enforced according to the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.” This reliance is misplaced. The respondent emphasizes that the court, in In re Farnsworth Estate, “gave effect to the choice of law provision in [the testator's] will.” However, our review in that case was limited to the testator's designation of New York law as the law to apply to her testamentary trusts. In In re Farnsworth's Estate, the testator was a domiciliary of New Hampshire at the time of her death though her will was “drawn and executed in New York City.” The testator's will stated that it shall be administered in the State of New York and shall be construed and regulated by the laws of the State of New York.” We noted that the administration and validity of a “ ‘trust of movables ... created by will’ ” is generally governed by the law of the state of the testator's domicile at death, but explained that there are “ ‘two situations in which the law of another state may be applied to the administration of the trust. The first is where the testator has designated the law of another state as the governing law. The second is where the testator has fixed the administration of the trust in a state other than that of his domicile at death. We determined that the will “created both of these situations” and, thus, held that “these trusts were intended to be and should be administered in the State of New York.” Here, the testator did not establish a testamentary trust. The fact that the will at issue in In re Farnsworth's Estate disposed of the testator's property via testamentary trusts was essential to our reasoning and our decision in that case. see also In re Lykes' Estate, 113 N.H. 282, 284, 305 A.2d 684 (1973) (holding provision of will that testamentary trust be construed according to laws of Texas was “a valid provision which must be respected by this court” (citing Scott, supra §§ 574-75; Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Laws, supra § 268(1), at 143). The pertinent rules to apply to dispositions of property via will are dependent upon the form of the disposition and the form of the property. See, e.g., Haynes v. Carr, 70 N.H. 463, 463, 480, 49 A. 638 (1900) (“There is a wide distinction between a gift to charity and a gift to a trustee to be by him applied to charity.” (quotation and emphasis omitted)); Eyre, 37 N.H. at 120 (a decedent's personal property passes according to the law of the state of domicile, while real property passes according to the law of the state where it lies). Therefore, in the instant case, In re Farnsworth Estate does not support deviating from New Hampshire law as the law governing the disposition of personal property in Marie G. Dow's will. cf. Robbins v. Johnson, 147 N.H. 44, 45, 780 A.2d 1282 (2001) (“The pretermitted heir statute, on its face, applies to ‘wills,’ not to trusts.”). Similarly, the fact that the testator in Royce became a domiciliary of New Hampshire after she had become incapacitated and never regained capacity before her death was essential to our reasoning and our decision in that case. “The Royce holding was limited to the facts of that case, which are distinguishable from those before us.” In Royce, we recognized that, because the testator had no opportunity due to her incapacity to change her will after her move to New Hampshire, it was inequitable to apply the New Hampshire rule that the law of the domicile controls the succession to personal property when the testator had no opportunity to respond to New Hampshire law. Here, the testator had an opportunity to change her will after relocating to New Hampshire approximately a year before her death.3 Therefore, Royce does not support deviating from New Hampshire law as the law governing the disposition of personal property in Marie G. Dow's will. We note that our prior case law, contemplating the applicability of New Hampshire's pretermitted heir statute where the facts implicated more than one jurisdiction, has not expressly dealt with a provision like that of Article Ninth in Marie G. Dow's will, expressing her intent to have her estate “administered and enforced according to the laws” of another state — the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. See, e.g., In re Estate of Rubert, 139 N.H. at 276, 651 A.2d 937 (applying Virginia law to determine whether the plaintiff was a pretermitted heir entitled to an intestate share of the testator's personal property where the testator was domiciled in Virginia). While it is true that we attempt to give maximum effect to a testator's intent, our law does not support the application here of another state's pretermitted heir statute independent of the governing law of the testator's domicile at death with respect to dispositions of personal property. Section 264 of the Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Laws supports a testator's ability, in bequeathing interests in personal property, to select the rules of construction of another state for use in construing the language of her will. See Restatement (Second) Conflicts of Laws, supra § 264(1), at 125 (“A will insofar as it bequeaths an interest in movables is construed in accordance with the local law of the state designated for this purpose in the will.”); id. § 264 cmt. e at 126-27 (“The forum will give effect to a provision in the will that it should be construed in accordance with the rules of construction of a particular state.”). We have not expressly adopted this section of the Restatement, and we need not consider doing so here because even assuming without deciding that Article Ninth designated Massachusetts’ rules of construction for application to the will, neither Massachusetts’ nor New Hampshire's pretermitted heir statute constitutes a rule of construction. As will be discussed in section III, not only is RSA 551:10 not a rule of construction, it is a conclusive rule of law. We, therefore, hold that New Hampshire's pretermitted heir statute applies to Marie G. Dow's will because she was a domiciliary of New Hampshire at the time of her death and her will disposes of only personal property. Accordingly, the probate division erred in applying Massachusetts law to determine that the petitioner is not a pretermitted heir. In re Est. of Dow, 2019-0752, 2021 WL 199619, at *2–5 (N.H. Jan. 20, 2021) (caselaw citations omitted). The Role Of Federal Courts Notwithstanding the fact that parties to probate cases are frequently diverse in citizenship, there is an obscure court created doctrine that provides that probate cases are a matter of state rather than federal court jurisdiction. (The &quot;well pleaded complaint rule&quot; largely prevents federal question jurisdiction from applying.) Part of the legal justification for this is that probate cases are in rem proceedings that primarily adjudicate rights in a particular collection of property (everything owned by the decedent) rather than primarily providing in personam relief between citizens of different states or countries, the way that a lawsuit for breach of contract or a tort or an injunction might. So, unless title to the real property arises under the conflicting claims of two different states (which almost never happens for obvious reasons in the modern era of accurate surveying of state boundaries), diversity jurisdiction is not implicated.
No. As long as it is owned by him he is free to do as he likes. The wife / children do not have any claims as it is ancestral property and they can have a claim only after his demise. Until then, he is free to do as he likes legally.
Landlord-tenant laws are state-specific, and given the number of states it's impractical to scan all of the laws, but based on a reading of a handful of such laws I doubt that there is any law requiring landlords to pay the oil for a rented house. (The matter would be different if there was a multi-unit building with no individual control over temperature, thus pooled fuel usage). It's not clear to me what you assumed the agreement means, where it says "N/A". Perhaps you believed at the time that the place had a different heating system, and you relied on that assumption. In that case, you might be able to go to court and have the contract voided, and you could pick another place to live. If the "options" are specified so that some things are assigned to tenant, some to landlord, and some are N/A, that would especially lead to the reasonable belief that there was no oil heat in the house. But if the only indications were "landlord" versus "n/a", then you could interpret "n/a" as meaning "not the responsibility of the landlord". Analogously, if the agreement only lists "tenant" and "n/a" then a reasonable interpretation would be that this means "the tenant pays" versus "the tenant does not pay". This reasoning would also have to survive the alternative interpretation that the tenant pays for everything, except that n/a means "there isn't one of these". In other words, the meaning of the term might be determinable from the overall context of what's in the agreement. Since the house does not come with a full tank (as with car rentals), the question of what to do with the residual oil at the end of the lease should also be specified. Unlike gas or electric, you're not just paying for actual consumption, you're paying for potential consumption, and you would have an interest in the remaining half-tank at the end of the lease. You could just walk away from that investment (pumping it out and taking it with you could be illegal, since the stuff is kind of a contaminant), or you could have an agreement where the landlord buys the oil back from you, but that should be specified in the agreement (and I assume it isn't). This kind of consideration could support a claim that you reasonably believed that there was no oil system (if there were, there would be some term relating to your interest in the residual oil), or even a belief that the landlord would pay the cost of the oil (since he ultimately gets the remaining oil at the end of the lease). You attorney (hint) should advise you how to approach this.
You seem to have put a lot of thought into this - which is good. However, the short answer is: There is no legal solution. To address your points: And legally, my future wife has the right to divorce me even if I did nothing wrong (no-fault). Yes (at least in most jurisdictions). And then, according to the US Census Bureau [1], mothers usually get primary custody (unless she is on drugs or abusive, which she isn't). And according to the Indiana Parenting Guidelines [2], babies only get one night per week with the non-custodial parent. And even as a teenager, only alternating weekends. Here, it depends. What you describe is indeed what happens often, but not always. Rules vary a lot, and change, but there is an increasing trend to have joint custody in case of a divorce. The details vary, but joint custody can extend to joint physical custody or shared parenting, where both parents take turns looking after the child. This is possible in the United States. In practice, in case of separation the parents will have to work out a parenting plan - ideally together, or in court if needs be. What the result is will depend on circumstances, and on the opinion of the court what is in the children's best interest. This may or may not mean joint physical custody. Child support payments are based on custody, so I would need to pay her child support. And since she always planned on her husband financially supporting her, then I would need to pay her alimony too. And because of imputed income, I couldn't afford to take a lower-paying job with more flexibility. Again, this depends. For example, with joint physical custody, there may be only small or no child support payments if both parents care for the children about equal time. And even if child support is due, there may be no alimony payments if the mother can work (even if she chooses not to). Again, a lot depends on the specific case and jurisdiction. Also, while it is not possible to reduce child support in a pre-nup (because theses payments belong to the child), you can (to some extent) limit alimony payments in a pre-nup. Is there any way out of this situation? How can I ensure, starting now before my children are born, that their primary caregiver is me? Here we are leaving legal territory. The short answer is: There is no way to ensure this, certainly not using legal means. The only good approach is to get to know your partner first, and make sure you have similar views on how to approach parenting. If she wants to be a stay-at-home mom, and you want to share both work and parenting (such as in a shared earning/shared parenting marriage) then you need to think (and speak) about how to reconcile these views. You may find that you are just not compatible on that point. Then take appropriate consequences. To put it plainly: In my opinion, if you do not trust your partner to respect your wishes on parenting together, she is probably not the right person for you to have children with.