Inheritance, step children and biological daughter

maman

pickledonionspaceraider said:

I have a real problem with inheritance cash going where the deceased would not wish.  

Why should people who have never even met the deceased, benefit?   

Yes I know in marriage it is 50/50 but i just think there is something unsavoury about the expectation of his children from his 1st marriage eventually getting the benefit of your Grans savings, long ways down the line.  The expectation of it.

In my opinion he is being unreasonable.  If i were you there is no way on earth I would plough that money into the family home without a will in place saying that the house was to be split equally among my child and step children BUT with an amendment that  my blood child was to benefit - in its entirety, the extra money put in due to your inheritance.   I would want it in writing that the house gets split between my blood child, the step children, and my child gets x amount of £ extra  - and I would explain this to the nth degree in the will - so there could be no miscommunication - and I would deffo sit the children down and explain it to them face to face when wills are drawn up

If this is not possible, i would just put it into a trust for my child now and seethe that my husband was a selfish pig

Even if you go down the trust fund route, you NEED to have Wills.  It is a bit strange that this has all come up now, rather than years ago if you ask me!

As you said, that's not the way it works. But, in any event, both partners brought money into the marriage. He put £90K from his divorce settlement into the shared home. Instead of putting in cash she kept her house (bought from inheritance) as an investment which would yield rent to pay the mortgage on shared home. They were fortunate as many couples would have needed to realise assets to buy a shared home. Presumably when they agreed this it wasn't intended so that OP could hedge her bets and keep her assets while he spent his. I know the amounts of money aren't equal (don't think we know the inheritance just the current value of the investment in property) but it seems a bit unfair that he used his 'inheritance' from previous marriage to buy them a home (when he could perhaps have bought investment property) and now OP wants to realise her capital and keep it for daughter. 

Sea_Shell

maman said:

pickledonionspaceraider said:

I have a real problem with inheritance cash going where the deceased would not wish.  

Why should people who have never even met the deceased, benefit?   

Yes I know in marriage it is 50/50 but i just think there is something unsavoury about the expectation of his children from his 1st marriage eventually getting the benefit of your Grans savings, long ways down the line.  The expectation of it.

In my opinion he is being unreasonable.  If i were you there is no way on earth I would plough that money into the family home without a will in place saying that the house was to be split equally among my child and step children BUT with an amendment that  my blood child was to benefit - in its entirety, the extra money put in due to your inheritance.   I would want it in writing that the house gets split between my blood child, the step children, and my child gets x amount of £ extra  - and I would explain this to the nth degree in the will - so there could be no miscommunication - and I would deffo sit the children down and explain it to them face to face when wills are drawn up

If this is not possible, i would just put it into a trust for my child now and seethe that my husband was a selfish pig

Even if you go down the trust fund route, you NEED to have Wills.  It is a bit strange that this has all come up now, rather than years ago if you ask me!

As you said, that's not the way it works. But, in any event, both partners brought money into the marriage. He put £90K from his divorce settlement into the shared home. Instead of putting in cash she kept her house (bought from inheritance) as an investment which would yield rent to pay the mortgage on shared home. They were fortunate as many couples would have needed to realise assets to buy a shared home. Presumably when they agreed this it wasn't intended so that OP could hedge her bets and keep her assets while he spent his. I know the amounts of money aren't equal (don't think we know the inheritance just the current value of the investment in property) but it seems a bit unfair that he used his 'inheritance' from previous marriage to buy them a home (when he could perhaps have bought investment property) and now OP wants to realise her capital and keep it for daughter. 

How would OP feel if he remortgaged for £90,000 and gave that money to his other children?

It's all marital assets at the end of the day..."all that I have I share with you" and all that.

theoretica

I think the easier question might be what happens if both parents die at the same time.  One possibility is to look at all their assets as held equally and split 50:50 (as would be the starting point on divorce),  She has 1 child, he has 5 so a split could work out 60% to their daughter and 10% each to his other children - each having half split among their children (of course written to take into account hypothetical future children). 

If however one parent dies well before the other it is common for the child not to inherit until the second married parent's death.  As much as asking whether your daughter would get anything if you died first I think you should be thinking about what happens if your husband dies first - do your step children get anything at that time?  Would you expect a life interest in what was willed to them? Would you want the continuing link with them, and his ex, that would result in?

Sea_Shell

The chances are though that, in all probability, the youngest daughter will want to buy a property BEFORE either of her parents pass.   (I don't know how old they are mind)

How will this equity be released, if plowed into the marital home?   It needs to stay as a liquid asset IMO.

maman

Sea_Shell said:

The chances are though that, in all probability, the youngest daughter will want to buy a property BEFORE either of her parents pass.   (I don't know how old they are mind)

How will this equity be released, if plowed into the marital home?   It needs to stay as a liquid asset IMO.

What about the husband's children who are older and would likely want to buy a property even sooner? 🤔

Sea_Shell

maman said:

Sea_Shell said:

The chances are though that, in all probability, the youngest daughter will want to buy a property BEFORE either of her parents pass.   (I don't know how old they are mind)

How will this equity be released, if plowed into the marital home?   It needs to stay as a liquid asset IMO.

What about the husband's children who are older and would likely want to buy a property even sooner? 🤔

I raised this up thread.   Apparently he's not a saver, so there's no provision for him to do similar for his older 4 children.

Not sure what their mum (or GPs on mum's side) might be placed to do?   They might be minted?

swingaloo2

The OP had an inheritance, the OP's husband had a large sum to put into the marital home. Why is everyone so fixated on the op's money being from an inheritance? Does it make it more valuable than the husbands cash input. Perhaps the husbands cash was only avaiable as he has saved hard to buy his first home, or perhaps he too had some money gifted or left to him. 
Perhaps they did not have an equal amount to put into the marital home but over the years to come many things may change. As a married couple I dont inderstand the 'but this bit was mine' and 'this bit was his'. At the end of the day it is now all in a marital pot. Between them they have 5 children, why are they not all entitled to the same percentage as each other. Without the husbands 90k would they have been able to afford the house they now live in?
It's ridiculously complicated and who is to say that at some point this will all be irrelevant as either parent may need to pay for care or perhaps they will downsize in later life and decide to spend, spend, spend. 

DBxxx

swingaloo2 said:

The OP had an inheritance, the OP's husband had a large sum to put into the marital home. Why is everyone so fixated on the op's money being from an inheritance? Does it make it more valuable than the husbands cash input. Perhaps the husbands cash was only avaiable as he has saved hard to buy his first home, or perhaps he too had some money gifted or left to him. 
Perhaps they did not have an equal amount to put into the marital home but over the years to come many things may change. As a married couple I dont inderstand the 'but this bit was mine' and 'this bit was his'. At the end of the day it is now all in a marital pot. Between them they have 5 children, why are they not all entitled to the same percentage as each other. Without the husbands 90k would they have been able to afford the house they now live in?
It's ridiculously complicated and who is to say that at some point this will all be irrelevant as either parent may need to pay for care or perhaps they will downsize in later life and decide to spend, spend, spend. 

My husband put in 90k from his divorce, we purchased a house that was 300k and therefore split the mortgage jointly. We sold that house for a profit £315k and put the 100k deposit into
our current home. We got a mortgage of 385k which costs £1700 per month, I contribute £1200 per month towards this as I get rental income from my 2nd property. My husband has a hefty pension which he can get access to
in 10 years or so. I also have a pension but not as good as his. 

So I do realise my husband has paid a lump sum in at the start however I am happy if he wants to
protect that for his children, I think it would be wise in all honesty. My problems occur due to the equity in the 2nd home I am selling. I am not fused about the larger contributions I make on a monthly basis however I am starting to resent this due to my husband advising me to stick all my equity in the marital home.

Keep_pedalling

Newly_retired said:

Yes, except that if the house is in joint names it falls outside the will. It will automatically go to the surviving spouse on first death. Then it can be willed to whoever the surviving spouse chooses. 

All these children are children of the husband here, but if the OP survives him, she could leave the step children nothing, and leave it all to her daughter.

Not if the OP changes from joint tenancy to tenants in common, they can then each leave their share to whoever they like.

xylophone

You have a two year old child - if you and your husband were to die together, who would be your child's guardian?

You and he do need to see a solicitor and make wills that name a guardian and the split of your assets between his children of the first marriage and your child.

With regard to the sale proceeds of your property, why not a compromise?

You might reduce the mortgage on your home and open a JISA for your daughter. 

You could contribute £9000 in this tax year and another £9000 in the next, continuing to contribute in subsequent years.

She is very young so the investment option could be the way to go.

https://www.gov.uk/junior-individual-savings-accounts

https://www.fidelity.co.uk/junior-isa/

https://monevator.com/low-cost-index-trackers/