Wills, keeping it in the family

Manxman_in_exile

Malthusian wrote: »

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. Manxman's sister-in-law's estate went exactly where she wanted it to go - her husband. Manxman's brother's estate also went exactly where he wanted it to go - his new wife (plus specific bequests to his kids).

He even went to the trouble of confirming that he wasn't being careless, which was good of him as some people would have not bothered and left their disinherited children wondering whether dad meant to do it or was careless or hoodwinked.

Terror is what you might feel if a lion walks out in front of you. The fact that you can't control other people's money from beyond the grave should not inspire terror.

If you want someone to have your stuff so badly then just give it to them.

If you don't want to give it to them because you still need it, you will have to decide which matters more.

Note that when the OP said "we decided just to trust each other", that doesn't mean "we decided to trust each other not to ever remarry ever", it can mean "we decided to trust each other that if the survivor remarries, they will draft their new Will so that it doesn't disinherit our children entirely".

As me old pa wisely said once, a trust is what you set up when you don't trust people. Don't trust your wastrel son to not drink away his inheritance? Set up a discretionary trust. Don't trust your spouse not to fly off to Cape Verde with a hot young stud named Pedro and forget the kids? Interest in possession trust.

Absolutely correct. It certainly caused a lot of disappointment in my family, but both my first sister-in-law and my brother got their wishes respected. It was what it was.

pickledonionspaceraider

Malthusian wrote: »

I don't know how you draw that conclusion. Manxman's sister-in-law's estate went exactly where she wanted it to go - her husband. Manxman's brother's estate also went exactly where he wanted it to go - his new wife (plus specific bequests to his kids).

.

The Brother shafted over his own kids, pretty much. Some of the inheritance he left his second wife, could well have come from the hard work of wife number 1 - the mother of the kids.

Legally speaking, he hasn't done anything wrong, but I feel it is so morally reprehensible, to leave everything to the second wife

Linton

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

The Brother shafted over his own kids, pretty much. Some of the inheritance he left his second wife, could well have come from the hard work of wife number 1 - the mother of the kids.

Legally speaking, he hasn't done anything wrong, but I feel it is so morally reprehensible, to leave everything to the second wife

Neither you nor I know the situation. Perhaps, as often seems to happen, the children refused to accept their father's new wife and became estranged.

onomatopoeia99

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

T
If people can just do what they want anyway after you die, what's the point

That's what trusts are for.

Going back to Jane Austen's era, and for centuries earlier, property could be left with an "entail" (as Longbourn was in Pride and prejudice) that specified how it would be inherited thereafter, so a beneficiary would not be able to change this and nor would subsequent beneficiaries, nor could it be sold. Entails were abolished when the law was reformed in 1925.

Dymphna60

@pickle——
Like many people on here you seem to be giving 2 nd wives a hard time . Believing that they should be left very little when their spouse dies , instead that it should virtually all go to the ‘ children’ of the first marriage.
These ‘ children’ are often 40/ 50 / 60 . May have well paid jobs , mortgages paid off ect . But it is somehow fair that a possibility old person should have to sell up their home and live in much reduced circumstances after years of loving devoted marriage. They may have given years of care at the end of a spouses life .
If the mother of the children wanted to be sure the money went to them she should have left her estate to them .
I am not a 2 nd wife .

Malthusian

pickledonionspaceraider wrote: »

The Brother shafted over his own kids, pretty much.

Not giving someone free money is not shafting them.

Some of the inheritance he left his second wife, could well have come from the hard work of wife number 1 - the mother of the kids.

And it was her inalienable right to do what she wished with the fruits of her labours - and her final wish was to give it all to her husband. (Who may, as Dymphna says, have needed the money to secure the lifestyle they earned together - while the kids may have been in a secure position of their own and in no real need of the money.)

Legally speaking, he hasn't done anything wrong, but I feel it is so morally reprehensible, to leave everything to the second wife

That's nice. But it was his money and his wife's before that so only their personal morality matters.

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Going back to Jane Austen's era, and for centuries earlier, property could be left with an "entail" (as Longbourn was in Pride and prejudice) that specified how it would be inherited thereafter, so a beneficiary would not be able to change this and nor would subsequent beneficiaries, nor could it be sold. Entails were abolished when the law was reformed in 1925.

This emphasises that you can't control other people's money beyond the grave.

There would have been people who died before 1925 while labouring under a delusion that they could use entails to control their money beyond the grave, but legal reform in 1925 proved they were wrong. Not that they cared, of course.

onomatopoeia99

Malthusian wrote: »

As me old pa wisely said once, a trust is what you set up when you don't trust people. Don't trust your wastrel son to not drink away his inheritance? Set up a discretionary trust.

How effective is that if the "wastrel son" is an adult?

Malthusian

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

How effective is that if the "wastrel son" is an adult?

As long as he doesn't have an indefeasible interest in the trust (e.g. other potential beneficiaries and absolute discretion for the trustees over who gets how much and when), it's 100% effective at the objective of keeping it out of his hands until the trustees think he can be trusted with it.

I didn't say it was a good idea in that situation, I just illustrated that people set up discretionary trusts because they don't trust the potential beneficiaries. Sometimes this is rational (if you're under 18 the law says you can't be trusted with money no matter how level-headed you are) and sometimes less so.