Opinions on what is fair in this scenario.
swingaloo
Forumite 2.5K Posts
Brother and sister in law are making wills. They married last year. He has 1 child and she has 4, all grown up.
Both are in their late 50s and both had been married before and widowed.
When they moved in together they went 50/50 buying a house and they split any household costs evenly.
Now they are making a new will each they have different ideas as to what is fair.
He feels that his son should receive 50% of whatever they leave as they have each contributed evenly. She thinks that each child should receive 20% of whatever they leave. At the moment she has quite a large lump sum in savings so assuming that neither of them end up going into care there maybe some of that for the kids to inherit.
Who is right?
Both are in their late 50s and both had been married before and widowed.
When they moved in together they went 50/50 buying a house and they split any household costs evenly.
Now they are making a new will each they have different ideas as to what is fair.
He feels that his son should receive 50% of whatever they leave as they have each contributed evenly. She thinks that each child should receive 20% of whatever they leave. At the moment she has quite a large lump sum in savings so assuming that neither of them end up going into care there maybe some of that for the kids to inherit.
Who is right?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides
Replies
Different if perhaps they had married when the children were very young and had actually been acting in a parental role towards them for a significant period of time, but if they're all adults then imo the brothers way is the fairest
to hold the house as 'tenants in common'
to keep assets from before the marriage separately
to agree on how savings from this point will be held
Each will leaves their share of the house to their child(ren) with the spouse holding a lifetime interest (caution - see below!)
Each leaves their own assets / savings to their own child(ren)
Their main discussion then needs to be about leaving joint savings. Details often depend on how much that amounts to.
If going down the tenants in common - lifetime interest - route, you need to make sure that the surviving spouse has the option to sell and move somewhere more suitable, with the children keeping their financial interest in the new property. I have a friend stuck in a completely unsuitable house because as soon as it is sold, she loses all rights.
Just to answer your initial question though, if their individual wealth is fairly even and they are talking about when they both go then more 50% to each side of the family. It reflects what would have happened should they not have gotten together.
No one; there's no objective answer. And it's also no one else's business.
This is the kind if "debate" that makes people who don't like cats, leave everything to the cat's home.
Which could mean fistfights at the funeral but there you go. (And what if they die in a car accident Together? Last life support machine switched off could play havoc with testators intent.)
Both an informed conversation with a solicitor and a strategic life insurance policy seem indicated. Along with a thick letter explaining how this situation came to be for the children, if they are not fully informed.
They can then leave their own 50% share split between their own children.
(So his child will get the full 50% and her 4 will share her 50%).
They then need to make sure that the will states that the surviving partner has a lifetime interest in the house e.g. They can remain in it until they die and the children have no right to demand their share.
Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')
No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)