Jill Mastroianni (00:00) Many families look stable on the outside — until one illness, one death, or one move changes everything. In today’s Tuesday Triage episode, I explain how housing risk shows up in blended families and long-term relationships, even when everyone has good intentions. Answering a question from a listener named Sarah, I’ll break down life estates, leases, and why clarity matters more than the perfect legal tool. If you’re navigating blended families and cohabitation, this episode will help you think more clearly about your options.

Welcome to the Death Readiness Podcast. This is not your dad’s estate planning podcast. I’m Jill Mastroianni, former estate attorney, current realist, and your guide to wills, trusts, probate and the conversations no one wants to have. If your Google search history includes, “Do I need a trust?” “What exactly is probate?” and “Am I supposed to do something with mom’s Will?” you’re in the right place.

(01:07) This weekend, my daughter April told me I was too “chalant.” She said I needed to be more nonchalant.

I told my best friend, and she replied, “You are appropriately chalant. Maybe April could be a bit more chalant.”

According to Dictionary.com, “chalant” comes from a French word meaning to be warm. Today, nonchalant generally means indifferent.

April’s critique came when we were getting out of the car to run into CVS for shampoo and tissue paper. And, she was probably right. That errand did not require my full emotional engagement. I could stand to be more nonchalant about shampoo.

But this podcast? This is not a place for me to be nonchalant.

The Death Readiness Podcast requires me to be very chalant—careful with the information, thoughtful about the tradeoffs, and precise about the consequences. Especially when we’re talking about blended families, housing security, and legal tools like life estates.

(02:08) So today, as we walk through a complicated but common situation, know that I’m being intentionally, unapologetically chalant. Even if I’m still working on dialing it back in the CVS parking lot.

Before we get started, I want to share something I’m really excited about. We’re releasing The Death Readiness Playbook this week.

The Playbook is part guide, part workbook, built with a combination of expert insight and real-life experience. It exists so your people have answers instead of a scavenger hunt if something unexpected happens. It’s practical, human, and designed to meet real life where it actually plays out.

If you want to be the first to know when it’s officially available, you can sign up at deathreadiness.com/playbook. That’s deathreadiness.com/playbook.

Alright—let’s get into today’s episode.

(03:04) Blended families are incredibly common. Several studies estimate that 40% of married couples with children in the U.S. are part of a blended family, so it’s no surprise that estate planning questions in this context come up all the time.

Today’s question comes from an adult child, Sarah, who’s worried about her dad.

Sarah’s father, who we’ll call Robert, was married to her mother until she died in 2008, at age 62. Robert was 63 at the time. Years later, he began dating a woman we’ll call Denise. Denise is divorced and has three grown children of her own.

Robert and Denise never remarried. But they did decide that sharing a home made sense—for companionship, financial stability, and emotional support. Robert sold the house where he and his first wife had raised their family and moved into the condo Denise had purchased after her divorce. The condo also has features that make aging in place easier, which was part of the appeal.

(04:06) Here’s where Sarah’s concern comes in.

She’s worried that if Denise were to become ill and need to move out, or if Denise were to die, her father could suddenly find himself without a place to live.

That concern is completely valid. And it’s not unique to blended families. This is a risk in any cohabitation arrangement where one person lives in a home they don’t own.

One of the tools that can help address this situation is something called a life estate, and that’s what I want to talk about today.

When someone has a life estate, they have the legal right to live in and use the home for the rest of their life. But they don’t own the home. The ownership, which is subject to the life estate, belongs to someone else. When the person with the life estate dies, the owner is free to do whatever they want with it – sell it, keep it, rent it. 

(05:01) Here’s what that can look like in real life.

Let’s say my grandmother owns a home and her sister lives with her. My grandmother wants to give the house to my dad, her son, but she also wants to make sure her sister always has a place to live, even if my grandmother dies first. To do that, my grandmother could leave the house to my dad in her Will, but subject to her sister’s life estate.

If my grandmother dies before her sister, her sister gets to keep living in the home for the rest of her life. My dad would own the house, but his ownership would be limited. He couldn’t sell it, rent it, or move someone else in while his aunt was alive. Her life estate would act as a restriction on what he could do with the property.

Once his aunt died and the life estate ended, my dad’s ownership would no longer be restricted, and he could do whatever he wants with the house.

There are a few different ways a life estate can be created.

(06:03) It can be done by deed, where the property owner transfers a life estate directly to someone during their lifetime.

It can also be done through a Will, if the property is owned individually. In that case, the life estate doesn’t begin until the property owner dies.

And if the property is held in a revocable trust, the trust can include a provision that grants a life estate at the death of the person who created the trust.

It’s the same concept, just different legal vehicles.

So now that we’ve got the basics, let’s talk about how a life estate could actually work in a real situation like Robert and Denise’s.

One option would be for Denise to simply convey a life estate to Robert using a deed. That would give him the legal right to live in the condo for the rest of his life, even though he doesn’t own it.

Another option, if Denise wanted to be compensated and both of them were open to equalizing ownership, would be for Robert to buy a half interest in the condo from Denise. They would then each own fifty percent as tenants in common, which just means that each person’s share would pass at death to whomever they choose, for example, their own children.

(07:20) From there, they could layer in life estates. Denise would grant Robert a life estate in her half, and Robert would grant Denise a life estate in his half. The idea is that neither of them could be forced out if the other died first, even though their ownership interests would eventually pass to their respective families.

But neither of these options is perfect.

In the first scenario, Denise is giving Robert the right to live in the condo for the rest of his life. She may not be comfortable with that, and that’s a reasonable hesitation.

The second option raises additional concerns. It still gives Robert lifetime housing rights, but it also requires Denise to give up part of her ownership. Remember, Denise bought this condo after her divorce. She may not want to transfer any portion of it, even if Robert is contributing financially. And at the death of the surviving partner, you’d likely end up with two different families—Denise’s and Robert’s—each owning a fifty percent interest in the condo. That kind of shared ownership can create complications.

(08:31) And that brings us to an important reality check in situations like this: not everyone is comfortable blending ownership, even when they’re fully committed to sharing a life.

Another option for Robert is a lease.

Robert could sign a lease that allows him to live in the condo for a set period—say, one year at a time. The lease could also spell out that it remains in effect if Denise dies or if she needs to move out due to illness or care needs. As long as Robert follows the lease terms and continues paying rent, he has housing security for that period.

This approach keeps ownership entirely with Denise and avoids making any lifetime guarantees, which may feel much more comfortable for her.

(09:20) The remaining options involve Denise’s estate planning documents. Depending on her willingness to update them, this can feel like a heavier lift. If Denise is open to it, one practical solution is for Robert to offer to cover the legal costs associated with those updates.

From Denise’s perspective, estate planning can feel safer because it can be revoked. As long as she’s competent, she can change her documents. But from Robert’s perspective, it’s not ideal—because it only protects him if Denise dies. It does nothing to help if Denise needs to move into assisted living or a nursing home while she’s still alive.

One estate planning option would be for Denise to grant Robert a life estate in her will, with the remainder interest passing to her children—or whoever else she chooses—after Robert’s death.

Each of these options involves trade-offs. The key is being clear about what problem you’re trying to solve—and what risks you’re willing to live with.

(10:24) So what does a life estate actually look like in practice?

It’s not as simple as Denise just writing, “I give Robert a life estate,” and calling it a day. Because then the obvious questions start to pile up: What does that actually mean? What is Robert responsible for? What are Denise’s kids supposed to do—or not do? And what happens if something goes wrong?

This is where clarity really matters.

If Robert has a life estate, he’s called the life tenant. That means he has the legal right to live in and use the property for his lifetime—but he doesn’t own it.

The underlying ownership stays with the owner, sometimes called the fee simple owner—basically, the person who owns the property itself, subject to Robert’s right to live there.

(11:15) In most situations, you want the life tenant to be responsible for the ordinary costs of living in the home. That typically includes utilities, property taxes, routine maintenance, and repairs—things like fixing appliances or maintaining the HVAC system.

Because this is a condo, there may not be land to maintain, but you’d still want Robert to keep the unit in good condition—neat, safe, and consistent with how Denise maintained it while she lived there.

Insurance is another area where you want to be very explicit.

I would typically require the life tenant to maintain fire and extended casualty insurance in an amount sufficient to replace the home if it were damaged or destroyed. And I would require that both Robert, as the life tenant, and the property owner—whoever holds the underlying ownership—are listed on that policy as loss payees and additional insureds.

Let me pause and unpack a few of those terms.

(12:17) Fire and extended casualty insurance is the part of an insurance policy that covers damage from things like fire, smoke, storms, vandalism, or other sudden events. It’s what pays to repair or rebuild if something goes wrong.

The loss payee is the person that receives the insurance money if there’s a covered loss.

And being listed as an additional insured means you’re protected under the policy if there’s a claim.

In a life estate situation, you usually want both the life tenant and the property owner listed as loss payees and additional insureds, so everyone is protected and no one is left out of the process.

Once you understand the insurance coverage, the next question is: what happens if there’s a claim?

And that’s something you want to spell out clearly, too.

(13:13) So let’s talk about what happens if something actually goes wrong—if there’s a fire, storm damage, or some other casualty.

In most cases, I would recommend giving the life tenant discretion to decide how the insurance proceeds are used, so long as that discretion is reasonable. But this is important: you also want to be very clear that neither the life tenant nor the owners are required to spend their own money beyond the insurance proceeds to restore the property.

In other words, if insurance covers it, great. If it doesn’t fully cover it, no one is obligated to write a personal check to make up the difference.

You also want to spell out what happens if not all of the insurance proceeds are used. 

One option is to have the remaining funds set aside in an investment account. The life tenant could receive the income from that account during their lifetime, and then, when the life estate ends, whatever is left would pass to the property owner. The key is deciding this in advance, not leaving it to guesswork.

(14:21) Next, you need to think about how—and when—a life estate can end.

Death is the obvious way a life estate can end, but it’s not the only way.

For example, what happens if the life tenant stops paying the expenses you’ve already defined—things like utilities, taxes, or routine maintenance? If those responsibilities aren’t met, the life estate should terminate.

You also need to address what happens if the property is no longer the life tenant’s primary residence. But that raises another question: what does “primary residence” actually mean? You don’t want ambiguity here.

You might say the property is a primary residence if the life tenant spends at least three months out of every six-month period living in the home, with exceptions for things like temporary displacement due to repairs or damage.

(15:19) Another issue to think through is renting. If the life tenant starts renting out the property, that changes the entire nature of the arrangement. In Robert’s case, the goal of the life estate is housing security, not to create an income-producing asset for Robert’s benefit. If the purpose of the life estate is housing security, say that explicitly.

You may also want to allow the life tenant to voluntarily terminate the life estate, for example, by signing a notarized statement and delivering it to the owner—so everyone has a clean exit if circumstances change.

And finally, one of the most important questions: does the life tenant have the right to exclusive use of the property?

In Robert’s situation, that means asking whether Denise’s children or grandchildren could move in—or whether Robert has the right to live there alone. In most cases, the intent is exclusive use by the life tenant, and that should be stated clearly.

(16:25) If you’re going to use a life estate, the goal is to remove ambiguity. Spell out the life tenant’s responsibilities, spell out when those responsibilities end, and keep the language clean and direct. The clearer the rules are upfront, the less likely it is that anyone ends up paying lawyers later to argue about what something was supposed to mean.

Another option Denise might consider is giving Robert the right to purchase the condo at her death, at a price that’s defined in advance.

There are a few ways to do that. One approach is using appraisals. It’s not my favorite, but sometimes it’s the most practical. For example, the executor could select one appraiser, Robert could select another, and the primary beneficiary under the Will could select a third. The purchase price would then be the average of those appraisals.

(17:20) Another approach is to set the price now, or at least set a formula. You might say the condo can be purchased for a specific amount if Denise dies within the next five years, with the price increasing by a set percentage for each additional five-year period.

The method matters less than the clarity. What’s important is that everyone knows either the price or exactly how the price will be determined.

Because clarity is kindness. And it’s also far less expensive—legally and emotionally—than confusion.

And if Denise is clear that she doesn’t want to pursue any of these options, that’s her right. But clarity still helps. Once Robert knows where he stands, he and his daughter Sarah can plan accordingly, whether that means staying put or preparing for a move, without being caught off guard.

That, ultimately, is what good planning does: it replaces uncertainty with options.

(18:25) If you’re an adult child like Sarah listening to this episode and quietly worrying about a parent’s housing situation, your concern is valid.

Living in a home you don’t own, especially in a blended family, creates real risk, even when everyone has good intentions. The solution isn’t always a life estate, and it isn’t always a lease. But it is a conversation. And the sooner it happens, the more options everyone has.

Good planning doesn’t mean predicting the future. It means making sure no one is blindsided by it.

Now, I want to circle back to something I mentioned at the beginning. We’re releasing The Death Readiness Playbook this week.

The Playbook is part guide, part workbook, built from expert insight and real-life experience. It exists so your people have answers instead of a scavenger hunt when life takes an unexpected turn. It’s practical, human, and designed to be used, not just saved for later.

(19:28) If you want to be notified as soon as it’s available, you can sign up at deathreadiness.com/playbook. That’s deathreadiness.com/playbook.

Thanks for being here, and for doing the work that most people avoid but everyone eventually needs.

And if you have a question you’d like me to answer on a future Tuesday Triage episode, submit it at deathreadiness.com/tuesdaytriage. That’s deathreadiness.com/tuesdaytriage. The link is in the show notes.

This is Death Readiness, real, messy and yours to own. I’m Jill Mastroianni and I’m here to help you sort through it, especially when you don’t know where to start.

(20:14) Hi, I'm April, Jill's daughter. Thanks for listening to The Death Readiness Podcast.  While my mom is an attorney, she’s not your attorney.  The Death Readiness Podcast is for educational and entertainment purposes only.   It does not provide legal advice.  For legal guidance tailored to your unique situation, consult with a licensed attorney in your state.  To learn more about the services my mom offers, visit DeathReadiness.com.