Wills and Stepchildren

TBagpuss

OP, I think it is very thoughful of you to be considering how to eal with this.

I don't think that there is a single right answer. I think one option, as another commnter suggested, would be to split your estate 25 to your step-childrbne, 75% to your joint children, so that his 'half' of your joint estates is split equally between his children, and yours is split equally between your children. Or, depending on what you know about what your step-childrens' mother left them, you could adjust the split.

I do alos think that whatever you decide, it would be a kindness for you to talk to your children and step-children andlet them know both what you intend, and what your husband's views were, and rassure them that the amounts left are not an indication of how much you or he care about them.

It might also be worth thinking about thr ages and finacial positions - it may be that you husband was thinking in part of his childnre as being older and more established, and therfore less likely to bneed anything from him or you, than the children you had together, particualrly if the age gap is significant.

If you wanted, you could even talk to your children and step-children now and ask them their views.If they all see each other as siblings they may all feel that a striaght 4 way split is fair,for instance!

You might also want to talk to them about other items - sometimes personal mementos can be as importnat as financial gifts - I know my grandmother spoke to both of her daughters in law about which of her items of jewellry they each liked or would like to have, both because she wanted them to have things they would like and wear, and because she wanted to ensure that there were no hard feelings.

Malthusian

happyandcontented wrote: »

His will leaves everything to his new wife (who is in much better health than he is) apart from 1% of his estate which is to be split between his 2 children.

Ouch. Sounds like he doesn't think much of his children. The 1% of his estate is presumably to let them know that it was a deliberate choice to cut them out rather than carelessness.

If he'd left 100% to his new wife then his children could have consoled themselves with the thought that he might have carelessly used a Will that was designed for a monogamous family tree, or been the victim of an incompetent solicitor. The 1% takes that interpretation off the table.

There are ways to balance putting your new wife in a financially secure position with not disinheriting your child (e.g. life interest trusts); a token 0.5% to each of your own children isn't one.

His children are aware of the will and are not happy, down the line it will cause major issues.

The major issues are in the past, not down the line. He's already decided to effectively cut them out for whatever reason. Down the line they should assume they will get almost nothing (assuming a few thousands won't change their lives) and plan accordingly.

happyandcontented

Malthusian wrote: »

Ouch. Sounds like he doesn't think much of his children. The 1% of his estate is presumably to let them know that it was a deliberate choice to cut them out rather than carelessness.

If he'd left 100% to his new wife then his children could have consoled themselves with the thought that he might have carelessly used a Will that was designed for a monogamous family tree, or been the victim of an incompetent solicitor. The 1% takes that interpretation off the table.

There are ways to balance putting your new wife in a financially secure position with not disinheriting your child (e.g. life interest trusts); a token 0.5% to each of your own children isn't one.

The major issues are in the past, not down the line. He's already decided to effectively cut them out for whatever reason. Down the line they should assume they will get almost nothing (assuming a few thousands won't change their lives) and plan accordingly.

Actually, he has a good relationship with his children. I think he is just thinking that he has to take account of his new wife having put more into their current home than he did and also to secure her future, but from there he expects her to do the right thing in her own will.

The children, quite naturally, are sceptical, but he won't have any discussion of her not doing as he wishes.....he takes it as an attack on her integrity.

Manxman_in_exile

Sorry if this has already been said, but if they were mirror wills surely they would contain some provision regarding the children and two step-children in the event that the OP and her husband died together?


We don't have any children but our mirror wills provide for our nephews and nieces in case we die together and the agreement between us is that if one of us dies first, the survivor will still honour that distribution when they die. (Well at least that's my intention and I hope it's my wife's!).


If I were the OP I'd stick with whatever the mirror wills say for the moment (even if the step-children are excluded) unless she would like to do otherwise as it's now her property to do with as she likes.


I don't see any "moral obligation" on the OP to give anything to her step-children if their father didn't want to do so, unless she wants to.


(Hope that makes sense - was interrupted twice by phone calls I was waiting for)

Dasa

Manxman_in_exile wrote: »

Sorry if this has already been said, but if they were mirror wills surely they would contain some provision regarding the children and two step-children in the event that the OP and her husband died together?


We don't have any children but our mirror wills provide for our nephews and nieces in case we die together and the agreement between us is that if one of us dies first, the survivor will still honour that distribution when they die. (Well at least that's my intention and I hope it's my wife's!).


If I were the OP I'd stick with whatever the mirror wills say for the moment (even if the step-children are excluded) unless she would like to do otherwise as it's now her property to do with as she likes.


I don't see any "moral obligation" on the OP to give anything to her step-children if their father didn't want to do so, unless she wants to.


(Hope that makes sense - was interrupted twice by phone calls I was waiting for)

I don't see a moral obligation either. Her husband made his will as he wanted and I think this should stand. If she wants to change her own will and give them something she should, but there's no moral obligation to. It's her money.

nomdeplume59

Very many thanks again to you all. Your replies have been extremely helpful and I'm grateful.

The one decision I've made is not to make a hasty decision...

Malthusian

happyandcontented wrote: »

Actually, he has a good relationship with his children.

He may well do and I withdraw that part of my comment with apologies. Relationships aren't all about money and they may well have a good relationship despite the fact that he doesn't want them to have any of his estate beyond a token gesture of 0.5% each.

Personally, if my father told me that he was leaving all his money to his new wife, I would genuinely be happy for him and our good relationship would be unaltered.

I think he is just thinking that he has to take account of his new wife having put more into their current home than he did and also to secure her future

If he wanted his children to inherit while also securing his wife's future and ensuring she kept what was hers, that could be achieved with the home being owned in tenants in common in an equitable split according to how much they put in, with his share being left to a trust with a life interest for the wife and to his children on her death. Her share would remain hers.

but from there he expects her to do the right thing in her own will.

The right thing is whatever she wants, including leaving it all to her own children or remarrying and leaving it all to her new husband. At that point it will be her money.

The children, quite naturally, are sceptical, but he won't have any discussion of her not doing as he wishes.....he takes it as an attack on her integrity.

People in good relationships with people don't jump to the conclusion that they're attacking their wife's integrity at the drop of a hat.

Skiddaw1

Nomdeplume, I think you're quite right not to make a hasty decision. Condolences from me too on your loss. It must be a very strange time for you. As you have a good relationship with your step-children, I'd like to believe that whatever your decision they'll understand and be content with things. I do understand your dilemma as well as why your husband felt they had already been adequately provided for. I think personally I'd be inclined to go with what an earlier poster suggested and leave them a small bequest.



Whatever the outcome, I hope you're getting plenty of support from all your children through these difficult days.

murphya

We have mirror wills for each other.

But in the event on the survivors death our assets will be split 37.5% to our two children, and 12.5% to my husband’s older children from his first marriage.

I have recently inherited quite a large sum from my mum who died in July as I am an only child and my dad died 27 years ago.

So my step children will do quite well in the end !!

Malthusian

murphya wrote: »

We have mirror wills for each other.

But in the event on the survivors death our assets will be split 37.5% to our two children, and 12.5% to my husband’s older children from his first marriage.

Unless the survivor changes their Will. Or remarries (which automatically invalidates it).

Where does the other 50% go? Or are there five stepchildren with 12.5% to each?