Third relationship - commitment issues?

I am in my 3rd long term relationship, having been married at 21, had 2 children, divorced at 37, second marriage lasted 13 years, found myself single at 51. I have been in this relationship for 5 years, met him on a dating site. There was 60 miles distance between us, so it was weekends only up until this June.(we are living in my house at the moment while the renovation is going on) We had a break in 2011, as he had commitment issues at the beginning of the year, and we finally got back together that September. He went for counselling in that break time; he had been married for 30 years, and his ex wife left him for another guy.(He found it very difficult to say "I love you")....still does although he says he DOES love me. He says he is not a "hearts & flowers" type of guy. I knew all this when we got back together,but the counselling softened him and he was slightly more emotional. We are about to move in together - he has bought a house, renovated it, and it's nearly ready. BUT...we had a difficult conversation the other night and I am in a quandary. He won't put my name on the deeds, as he wants the house (or any future house we end up living in) to be left to his 3 daughters, and he said that if my name was on the deeds I would be entitled to half. After a long and emotional time, I suggested this idea - if he dies before me, I am allowed to stay on in the family home, and if I wish to downsize, I can, any extra money made after the sale that is left over, will go straight to the daughters, and on my death, the house will be left to them anyway. All written in our wills and made legal. He is thinking about it. I am feeling insecure about the whole thing and wondered if anyone had any suggestions? I have a property we are living in at the moment, and when I move I will be renting it out, and it will be part of my retirement. I am not sure what to do next really; do I just say "oh to hell with it, so what if he won't marry you, or make you feel secure...just live together and have a very nice life and face the fact that I will have to move out if he dies before me"...or am I right to be cautious? Help!

Forget about the house and the will. Take your thoughts further because I think you will find that this guy has issues which need to be completely 'erased' before you pair can enjoy a life together. You mentioned that he has had counseling but he needs to dig deep to commit to you 100%. If he still has baggage then he can't possibly have clear thinking head to make you his. After 5 years together, and despite the fact that you have enough commitment to cover living 60 miles apart, you guys should be blissfully happy. While you guys haggle about wills and property, he needs to make you his one and only priority. He may want to do this (now and in the future) but he has to have the NEED to do it right from the word go. He has to have the NEED to be with you and to be capable of putting you on a pedestal. Your insecurity is your instinct talking to you..listen to it.

Thanks for the comments guys; Just to clarify about the house inheritance thing -my house is worth £75K, which is why I will be renting it out in the future to rely on the rental income once I retire. The house he has bought is worth 4 times that. And I don't want it all if he goes before me; I would just like the security of knowing that on his death, I won't be thrown out by his 3 daughters. Hence the clause of "I can stay in the house if I wish, and if I sell I can downsize, give the extra equity raised after purchasing to the girls, and on my death it goes to them not my 2 children. Simple I would have thought.... And in response to the other comment - I am listening to my insecurity...you are right. So lots more talking needs to be done....

More than talking. The upshot is this: The guy doesn't want to make marriage with you formal and legal whereby wealth and assets become likewise joined, and owned 50/50, but he does want all the PERKS as if you were his full-blown wife. PFFF! Until he's ready to put his relationship with you above absolutely anything material/earthly - money included - he is not ready and is going into this with basically a suit of armour strapped firmly on, and an attitude that says 'I don't want to SHARE. Mine, mine, mine!!'. With him being sole owner of that house and you not even heir to it upon his death, that makes you nothing more than a lodger (and girlfriend) despite he, I'm betting, stands to get the full wifely whistles and bells. Not only is that set-up SERIOUSLY lopsided but more importantly means he could chuck you out any time he 'liked' (or during any heated argument). Where's your security? Why should HE get it all? Where's your *incentive* for being the one to have to up-sticks in order for the two of you to get to be together 24/7? What - because his house is bigger and (soon) fancier and means you could get a meagre income from renting out your low-end house? Whether you're a pigeon catching crumbs under the table of a greasy Joe's Cafe or an Egon Ronay restaurant, they're still just crumbs and you still just a pigeon, rather than an equal person of equal rights sat opposite him enjoying the entire 3-course meal. Okay, easier for the first party who has less than the second party to want a 50/50 share of a combined and bigger pot. But you're the woman. You were at the mercy of your husband's income and assets' limitations AND the practical and glass ceilings of being a female of childbearing age followed by raising kids (a full-time job in itself). It's therefore not your FAULT you haven't been able to accrue the same wealth as he has, nor that the man you originally married wasn't a high-ambitioned, high earner. How did HE manage it? Oh, wait... because he had a WIFE and you didn't?! LUCKY HIM, EH?! I doubt if you two had met and married back in your early 20s he'd have expected you to agree to keeping things separate like that, would he? Course not. You wouldn't have stood for it to begin with. Why not? Easy: men expect to be the main breadwinner, the provider, and take huge pride in it. IT'S MALE-STYLE EXPRESSION OF NURTURING INSTINCT. What if he died whilst any tenants of yours still had another 5 months left on their rental contract? What if at the very LEAST you couldn't get them to vacate until the end of 1 months' notice period? Wouldn't you effectively be homeless or suddenly having to find somewhere to rent for a mere month (fat chance!) or someone/s who'd kindly put you up, all three of you? Does he not give a sh*t about that possibility? ...Talking of which: back to the main point: let's analyse what his intended actions actually bottom-line SAY, shall we? "I love you only for as long as I will get to benefit from you (through my being alive and conscious), but the minute I cease to exist - that's when I cease giving a damn so, SCREW YOU!". Oh, ruh-huh-huh-HEALLY?! And you want to effectively, by moving in, MARRY this man? You think he LOVES you in the full sense of the word? Hey may love you but he clearly loves his fear/need to self-protect *more*. Furthermore, what if by the time he dies his daughters are well taken care of in that regard and don't even have the same NEED as you? If you foolishly decide to settle for a man with this unhealthy- nay, downright *shoddy* attitude to his supposed raison d'etre, and still decide to move in, then I strongly recommend you beforehand insist on the following: 1. Get yourself a rent book that he has to sign every month. Do not EVER buy any weekly shopping beyond provisions for yourself, do not EVER buy any furniture, furnishings, fixtures and fittings, etc. Nothing you cannot take with you if ever you wanted to move out or got chucked out without warning or a van at the ready for removing/transporting all of the stuff you paid for. Do not pay utility bills - just phonecalls. Pay him only a set monthly rent as includes a set average amount for bills - discounted to reflect the fact you are not JUST a lodger who provides nothing but lodgerly 'services' (called, just being there). Think about it: were you a lodger with whom he fancied having cuddles and sex, you could either refuse point-blank or insist he pay you any fee you damn well liked per session. (If he doesn't like that he can get himself a BOG-STANDARD lodger and leave you out of it!) 2a. If the amount of rent/month he insists on is too close to what a bona fide lodger would pay according to current market/area values, do not do any housework, cooking, cleaning, chores or shopping for him, other than for yourself and your kids. A live-in housekeeper + cook + cleaner + P.A./secretary + probably nursemaid whenever he's ill (*and live-in, on-tap prostitute) fetch their own salaries (- that lot combined, about £150k per annum (*and then some!).) Whichever... by making your habitational position legal, he cannot ever just chuck you out on a whim. 3a. If the rent he charges you is a pittance, then by all means do more wifely things to reflect that. You then can meanwhile be putting into savings what you'd have to normally pay in rent. If ever he complains about that, you have his sh*tty attitude to throw back in his face, a la, 'But only wives do that sort of thing and I'm not your *wife* (- your own insistence). If you want the full wifely package, you're going to have to first become my husband. Remember: oh, yes, you CAN have it all! He certainly thinks HE can, does he not. What - one rule for him and another for you? Say it with me: "Ey dyon't thyink syo, nyo :-p".

PS: Sorry, just realised your kids don't still live with you. The main gist still stands, though.

How did she get any part of the equity if they weren't married nor her name on the deeds? (PS: Are you guys American?)

"Ha! American lawyers can write up any kind of contract you want. :)" Really? You jammy barstools. ;-p