Wills/Inheritance/Stepchildren

Mrs_Optimist

A colleague posed this scenario to me yesterday and I can see both sides, so interested in other people's views.

His Sil is 1 of 5 children who have the same Mother. She had 3 children, divorced and remarried over 30 years ago and went on to have 2 children with husband no 2.

The wills were discussed recently and an estate of approx £500k is to be apportioned as 10% to children 1,2 and 3 and the remaining 70% apportioned between children 4 and 5 (whom incidentally have already had monies given to them for deposits, which children 1,2 and 3 never had)

I can see the logic in this in some respects, as the estate is divided 50/50 between mother and stepfather, and the respective 50% split 5 ways from mother and 2 ways from stepfather.

However colleagues Sil is feeling somewhat put out as it would break down the the inheritance would be £50k and £175K respectively. She feels that there shouldn't be such a divide in monetary terms when they view all thir siblings as just that, siblings, not half siblings. I can see why this could be deemed as unfair but also why stepfather wouldn't want to split his share between his stepchildren and biological children, even though he has been a stepfather to them for over 30 years. As I understand it, all family members get on very well and are very much a family unit.

What are your thoughts on this?

Keep_pedalling

Sounds like a recipe for yet another family disaster. Presumably this only happens on the second death, in which case if father goes first mother can correct the silliness and change her will.

Browntoa

if the property is in both names and step mother dies first then it transfers to the husband , her assets solely become anything else like savings/shares/personal property


they may not even see the figures they are expecting

thorsoak

If the first two children have another father, there is the opportunity for them to inherit funds from their paternal side of the family. Children 3, 4 and 5 do not have this opportunity.

This may be behind the reasoning of the parents of the united family when preparing the wills.

Malthusian

Browntoa wrote: »

if the property is in both names and step mother dies first then it transfers to the husband , her assets solely become anything else like savings/shares/personal property

Only if it is in both names as joint tenants. If it is in both names as tenants in common then the stepmother's half-share is portioned out as per the Will. But very relevant if there is one.

If they really are a single family unit then this is easy. Everything to each other on first death, equal shares to the children on second death, same as a lifelong monogamous couple. Or simply equal shares to the children if mother and father don't need provision from the other's estate.

And even up the deposit situation ASAP by either helping 1, 2 and 3 to buy a property or just giving them the money if they don't want to buy houses. If there is no spare cash to do so, even it up in the Will instead.

However splitting up the shares 50/50 between mother and father and then to the children suggests "we are a family unit" is just something that is nice to say rather than financial reality.

This is the contradiction for me. They say they are a "family unit" but if that was the case the inheritance would be split equally five ways, either on the first death or the second. To split it the way they have suggests that 1, 2 and 3 are considered their mother's children but not the stepfather's. And there's nothing wrong with this. Indeed, to split it this way may be a good idea for 1, 2 and 3, as mum and stepdad could easily make their Wills to each other, and then 1 2 and 3 might get nothing if mum's estate passes to stepdad and he leaves it all to 4 and 5. But they need to know where they stand.

Other questions that need answering: Are their finances joint or kept separate? Because if the mother accepts that she is responsible for the inheritance of 1, 2 and 3 then she needs to keep "her" money in her own name - if it is in joint names it will pass to the father and 1, 2 and 3 will get virtually nowt.

Do they own their home, and do they want the widow(er) to stay in it after the first death?

One final thing - regardless of your family history, inheritance is always a windfall. Mum and stepdad could run off to Portugal with floozies named Pedro and Gabriella, join the Church of Scientology or leave all their money to the cats' home and there would be nothing anyone could do about it (probably, notwithstanding the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act). If I was in either child's position I would be happy to receive free money, whether it was £50k or £175k.

If I was 1, 2 or 3 I might be dropping heavy hints about the difficulty of buying a house in today's current market at family gatherings but that would be the absolute limit of what I would or could usefully do.

Yorkshireman99

Mrs_Optimist wrote: »

A colleague posed this scenario to me yesterday and I can see both sides, so interested in other people's views.

His Sil is 1 of 5 children who have the same Mother. She had 3 children, divorced and remarried over 30 years ago and went on to have 2 children with husband no 2.

The wills were discussed recently and an estate of approx £500k is to be apportioned as 10% to children 1,2 and 3 and the remaining 70% apportioned between children 4 and 5 (whom incidentally have already had monies given to them for deposits, which children 1,2 and 3 never had)

I can see the logic in this in some respects, as the estate is divided 50/50 between mother and stepfather, and the respective 50% split 5 ways from mother and 2 ways from stepfather.

However colleagues Sil is feeling somewhat put out as it would break down the the inheritance would be £50k and £175K respectively. She feels that there shouldn't be such a divide in monetary terms when they view all thir siblings as just that, siblings, not half siblings. I can see why this could be deemed as unfair but also why stepfather wouldn't want to split his share between his stepchildren and biological children, even though he has been a stepfather to them for over 30 years. As I understand it, all family members get on very well and are very much a family unit.

What are your thoughts on this?

It is entirely up to the parent's to decide what THEY wish to do. Subject to any claims for financial dependency then the heirs really don't have any say in the matter.

comeandgo

My thoughts on this is that the first three children may get money left to them from their father which the last two won't get. The surviving spouse may marry again or spend all the money on good wine and there won't be any money left to argue about.

Gilead

On the face of it and maybe not having experience of this type of situation it can sound unfair. I would imagine that key to understanding the mindset behind the decision is to realise children 1-3 have a biological father who they can, in theory, be provided for by him.

It doesn't mean the stepfather doesn't care for them or love them, he is just recognising that their father should be providing for them and it would actually create another inequality if he gave all 5 an equal share in estate when children 1-3 would then benefit from their fathers.

I don't see any issue. I know someone in a similar position who was very clear that it was their biological father's responsibility to make such provision, not his, and that his estate would be to secure the future well-being of his child.

TBagpuss

I don't think there is a single right answer.

The parent / step-parent are of course free to leave their estate however they choose, and none of the children have any right to any of it.

I think that this kind of thing can get very tangled and that people have an emotional, as well as a logical, reaction to it. In this case, as the mother/step dad have (it appears) mad their plans known while they are still alive, it does allow the daughter/step daughter to talk to her mum, and ask about the reasoning. She can also, if she wants, explain that it feels like a rejection from step-dad whom, she has viewed as a parent for the last 30 yeas, and can ask whether they are willing to explain their thinking.

However, I think that is only an option if the daughter feels ale to have that conversation with an open mind and without going into it with the mind set 'it's not fair/ you're being mean'

If her bio dad is still around then it may be open to to discuss that with her mum - whether she has any expectation that he will leave anything or whether the reality is that the proposed wills will in practice leave the second family in a better position than the first.

I think that there is a logical reason why the parents have decided to do things this way, they probably see it as each of them having 50% of their combined assets, and each sharing their own 50% equally between their own children, but if they are willing to talk then your friend can ask them, so she understands that they are aiming to be fair, not to slight her and her siblings.

Pricivius

My thoughts are that people can leave whatever they want to whomever they want, as others have pointed out.

It is impossible to be fair. Obviously you can split the money evenly,
but how far do you go in ensuring that every penny ever spent was split equally? Did we all get exactly the same house deposit, the same birthday presents, the same extra curricular clubs etc.?

I find it distasteful that people would debate this before someone dies, potentially creating ill feeling and disagreement, and not honouring their wishes, whatever they may be.

Keep_pedalling

Pricivius wrote: »

My thoughts are that people can leave whatever they want to whomever they want, as others have pointed out.

It is impossible to be fair. Obviously you can split the money evenly,
but how far do you go in ensuring that every penny ever spent was split equally? Did we all get exactly the same house deposit, the same birthday presents, the same extra curricular clubs etc.?

I find it distasteful that people would debate this before someone dies, potentially creating ill feeling and disagreement, and not honouring their wishes, whatever they may be.

Talking about these sort of scenarios is not distasteful, far better to have thought these things through and bouncing ideas off others before you die, than leaving an unthought out mess after you have gone.

In the end it is down to the testator to decide what happens to their wealth when they die, but far to many people don't think things through thoroughly and even more don't think about it at all, which is why more than half the population dies intestate.

We can't avoid death and its consequences by not talking about it, and in these days of complex family set ups it is important that people do.