Opinions on what is fair in this scenario.

Sea_Shell

The problem you may have is trusting that whoever is the surviving spouse, honours (in their will), any agreement that you both make whilst alive.

As it stands you can both make wills with whatever % split you agree on....doesn't mean that the survivor can't re-do theirs (or destroy it, and go intestate) and leave everything to their own children.

Like a few have said, being Tenants in Common for the house, and/or gifting some assets before hand, is the main way to ensure that most of your wishes are followed.

swingaloo

Thank you for the replies.

BrassicWoman- I know its not my business, its just that they stayed with us the weekend before last and they were having quite a lively discussion about it as me and my hubby have children/stepchildren and they were asking us what we thought.

They were 'a couple' for about 8 years before they married. They are a close family so I expect they will come to an agreement both feel fair.

JayJay100

Neither is right and neither is wrong; they're both trying to get the best deal for their own children, and they're right to try and sort it out now. Whatever they decide upon, it needs to be carefully executed in their wills, and all loopholes closed. When my uncle remarried, both he and his new wife had a grown up child each. His will left everything to his new wife, on the understanding that when she died, the estate would be split equally between the two children, which she said 'but of course, dear' in everyone's hearing. When he died unexpectedly in his late 50s, she inherited the estate, the house was sold, my cousin was told he'd receive nothing and she disappeared.

need_an_answer

50/50 split

with the second 50 being split between 4 then that recognises that one spouse had only one child whereas the 2nd spouse splits her equity evenly between her children.

PasturesNew

I'd say 50% to his 1 child. Hers to share 50% between them.

It wouldn't be fair on the single child that "his mum's half" was mostly "given away to another woman's kids"... to put it bluntly and how most would see it if they were in his position.

On the basis that nothing, going forward, is likely to change their financial situation, it makes sense that any inheritances should he exactly the same as if the pair had never met.

WibblyGirly

I'd say 50/50 on the house and anything they've paid equally into. If she happens to have savings which he doesn't then that could just go to her kids while his savings go to his kid.

seven-day-weekend

I would leave my assets to my children. He could leave his assets to his.

bouicca21

Friends who have a complicated family went through a very similar discussion. In the end as the various children, step children and ex step child all blend as a single set of siblings, they decided that they were to be treated equally.

maman

PasturesNew wrote: »

I'd say 50% to his 1 child. Hers to share 50% between them.

It wouldn't be fair on the single child that "his mum's half" was mostly "given away to another woman's kids"... to put it bluntly and how most would see it if they were in his position.

On the basis that nothing, going forward, is likely to change their financial situation, it makes sense that any inheritances should he exactly the same as if the pair had never met.

That seems really obvious but, for me, that would only apply if they'd both brought the same to the marriage.


From what you've said OP, they paid 50% each for the house but her savings might be considerably more than any money he's got. If that's the case then his son could be having some of 'her' money which is hardly fair.


The decision needs to be made whether they want to keep all their finances separate or she's prepared to share her savings with him now and/or with his son in the future. When they've decided that then they can write the wills.