Wills/Inheritance/Stepchildren

Red-Squirrel_2

Pricivius wrote: »

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.

Its not really about the money though, this sort of thing can have a huge impact on emotions and family relationships, often unintended.

If it can be sorted and everybody make their peace with the situation by talking about it while all parties are still around that has to be better than the potential for it to be all up in the air and very painful after a bereavement.

TBagpuss

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

Its not really about the money though, this sort of thing can have a huge impact on emotions and family relationships, often unintended.

If it can be sorted and everybody make their peace with the situation by talking about it while all parties are still around that has to be better than the potential for it to be all up in the air and very painful after a bereavement.

I think this is right. Often these things can feel, to the child / beneficiary like a kick in the teeth as it can feel like 'I thought of him as my dad but he just made very clear he doesn't see me as his child'. Having the conversation can address that side of it.
It can also be helpful in that people often make assumptions, about how others see things, what people know or assume or expect, and they are not always right.

And even whether someone's motives are less than ideal, it can be healthier to be able to have the conversation than to be wishing you could have said something, when it is too late.

Tammykitty

I can definitely see the logic each parent is splitting there 50% share between their own children.


However - IMO it depends on when stepdad became a stepdad, and on if children 1,2 and 3 have contact with their own Dad.


If stepdad became a stepdad when children were very young then I would at the very least expect some of stepdads estate to go to the step children, even though he may wish to leave more to his biological children.


Even if he left 30% of his money to the stepkids (5% each from the total), and the remaining 70% to the biological kids (17.5% each from the total).


This would bean kids 1,2,3 get 15% each, and kids 2,3 gets 27.5% each

Mrs_Optimist

Thanks for replies. I thought it was an interesting topic that arose with my work mate when discussing our wills.

As I understand it all children are in fact adults, his Sil is child 2 of 5. All have their own homes. But 1,2 and 3 bought theirs with no help and 5 & 6 with deposits paid for them.

Their biological father is on the scene and has never remarried so there may be an inheritance to come there. I didn't ask as it was a bit intrusive. It is somewhat distasteful to discuss I agree, but I could see both perspectives so was undecided and wanted different opinions out of curiosity.

Trying to put myself in the mothers place I would struggle to decide how to treat the offspring fairly when I know I've helped the 2 babies of the family but not the elders - (although they obviously aren't babies) ! Don't think there is much chance of the money being spent before death as they are apparantly extremely frugal.

Im not sure how I would feel if I became a step mother, I would like to think I would treat them fairly, especially after such a long marriage.

Malthusian

Mrs_Optimist wrote: »

As I understand it all children are in fact adults, his Sil is child 2 of 5. All have their own homes. But 1,2 and 3 bought theirs with no help and 5 & 6 with deposits paid for them.

I don't suppose 1, 2 and 3 had help from their biofather when they bought their homes? If not, I would still be evening it up as soon as I had spare cash.

Gifts in your lifetime are more satisfying, more tax-efficient, and there is no equivalent of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act, no mechanism whereby if someone thinks you've been unfair they can force you to give them some money as well via the courts.

To be quite honest, I assumed that the way the question was framed indicated that 1-3's biofather was estranged, deceased or skint and they weren't expecting anything from him. If that's not the case it changes the whole equation.

It's not a question of being intrusive, because SIL has already shared enough family details with her colleague and with you that there is no reason she can't share that one.

Their biological father is on the scene and has never remarried so there may be an inheritance to come there. I didn't ask as it was a bit intrusive. It is somewhat distasteful to discuss I agree, but I could see both perspectives so was undecided and wanted different opinions out of curiosity.

It's not distasteful at all. Not thinking about difficult things doesn't make them go away. Contrary to popular belief, even ostriches don't believe that, so humans certainly shouldn't.

Ziggazee

It's pathetic really isn't it. Why can't people just be grateful for any inheritance they receive without sulking and playing the 'it's not fair' game. I really hope the parents decide to give THEIR MONEY to charity rather than their greedy children

Pricivius

TBagpuss wrote: »

I think this is right. Often these things can feel, to the child / beneficiary like a kick in the teeth as it can feel like 'I thought of him as my dad but he just made very clear he doesn't see me as his child'. Having the conversation can address that side of it.
It can also be helpful in that people often make assumptions, about how others see things, what people know or assume or expect, and they are not always right.

And even whether someone's motives are less than ideal, it can be healthier to be able to have the conversation than to be wishing you could have said something, when it is too late.

Maybe I wasn't clear in my view on this, or perhaps we all disagree fundamentally! I am all for full disclosure and communication is key to everything we ever do if we are to get along and understand each other.

I guess the difference is that I do not equate an inheritance with how much somebody loved me, or how much they thought of me or where I was on the pecking order of children. I don't see the link. My father died and left me nothing. My step-father died and left me nothing. I know one loved me with all their heart and we had an incredibly close bond, whilst the other was little more than a stranger; their wills were irrelevant.

But maybe I'm taking too simplistic a view.

Tammykitty

Malthusian wrote: »

I don't suppose 1, 2 and 3 had help from their biofather when they bought their homes? If not, I would still be evening it up as soon as I had spare cash.

Gifts in your lifetime are more satisfying, more tax-efficient, and there is no equivalent of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act, no mechanism whereby if someone thinks you've been unfair they can force you to give them some money as well via the courts.

To be quite honest, I assumed that the way the question was framed indicated that 1-3's biofather was estranged, deceased or skint and they weren't expecting anything from him. If that's not the case it changes the whole equation.

It's not a question of being intrusive, because SIL has already shared enough family details with her colleague and with you that there is no reason she can't share that one.



It's not distasteful at all. Not thinking about difficult things doesn't make them go away. Contrary to popular belief, even ostriches don't believe that, so humans certainly shouldn't.

This could be nothing to do with the 3 older children being step children though, the older children may have bought houses before the boom (even at 100% mortgages), the younger children may have struggled to get a house without help of the parents.


Also the parents are likely to have more money available to help the younger children,


When the older children were buying their houses, the parents probably still had a mortgage to pay, and had the 2 younger children still to look after and pay for.


My cousin is 18, his brothers and sisters are all at least 10 years older.


He has got a car bought for him, his parents are paying him money for uni each week and are far more generous with him than they were with the brothers and sisters - because they can now afford to be

Ganga

Ziggazee wrote: »

It's pathetic really isn't it. Why can't people just be grateful for any inheritance they receive without sulking and playing the 'it's not fair' game. I really hope the parents decide to give THEIR MONEY to charity rather than their greedy children

Its easy to say when it is not you but put yourself in the frame for one minute,you have four siblings and when the will is read out ( i know this is not done in reality )but imagine sitting there and your four siblings all get £50000 and you were left £100,dont tell me you would not feel let down or hurt.

Mojisola

Ganga wrote: »

Its easy to say when it is not you but put yourself in the frame for one minute,you have four siblings and when the will is read out ( i know this is not done in reality )but imagine sitting there and your four siblings all get £50000 and you were left £100,dont tell me you would not feel let down or hurt.

There was a TV series a few years ago where parents sorted out their wills and then discussed them with the family.

In most cases the parents were shocked at their children's emotional reactions to what they had considered sensible, reasonable distributions.