Inheritance, step children and biological daughter

swingaloo2

pickledonionspaceraider said:

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. 

No, not more valuable in monetary terms, but in moral terms.  It is more the intended purpose by the deceased - unless the specifically wrote 'I'd love my life savings to eventually go to unrelated strangers.'

Why anyone would kick up a fuss to get their hands on a dead strangers cash, is beyond me. 

I mean can anyone here say that, they are completely comfortable with the idea of their OWN life savings potentially eventually ending up going to unrelated strangers?

I understand it isn't how the law works, but I do think there should be clauses protecting inheritance money putting it aside from joint assets  - these are just my thoughts though, and I am interested in a debate as I understand and respect there are other opinions than my own

But the saving did not go to an unrelated stranger. They went to the OP, a member of the family. It is then down to the recipitent to decide what to do going forward. She may have decided to blow it all on handbags or shoes or perhaps buy a flash car  and spend the rest on holidays.  Once money is willed to someone the giver has no control on what happens to it.
In this case the OP then decided to marry and when you do that you choose to share what you have with your husband/wife. 
The OPs husband is no longer an unrelated stranger, he is the husband chosen by the OP.
It would be madness if a will was to say- Here is some cash however you cannot spend it on x, y or z. The person who left the inheritance must know that there would be a possiblity that her granddaughter would at some point marry but didnt write into the will that this must not happen. If you love someone enough to bequeath them money then surely you love them enough to trust them to use it wisely.  Similarly, presumably the op chose to marry a man she could trust and with who she was making a commitment to share 'all her worldy goods'.  

wannabe_a_saver

pickledonionspaceraider said:

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. 

I mean can anyone here say that, they are completely comfortable with the idea of their OWN life savings potentially eventually ending up going to unrelated strangers?

I won't remotely care, certainly by the time it gets to great grandchildren.  I'll be long dead and things are more complicated for those still alive! 

I think it would be wise for the OP to think about sibling relationships for her daughter in the future. 

Spendless

pickledonionspaceraider said:

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. 

No, not more valuable in monetary terms, but in moral terms.  It is more the intended purpose by the deceased - unless the specifically wrote 'I'd love my life savings to eventually go to unrelated strangers.'

Why anyone would kick up a fuss to get their hands on a dead strangers cash, is beyond me. 

I mean can anyone here say that, they are completely comfortable with the idea of their OWN life savings potentially eventually ending up going to unrelated strangers?

I understand it isn't how the law works, but I do think there should be clauses protecting inheritance money putting it aside from joint assets  - these are just my thoughts though, and I am interested in a debate as I understand and respect there are other opinions than my own

That can happen with a will eg the case of the actor Peter Sellars. His fortune went to the wife he was estranged but not divorced from. She re-married then died and the money went to them.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1138807/The-girl-got-Peter-Sellers-5m--met-him.html
You also can't control where the money goes generations on. That's where I felt the OP was finding difficulty, not just the issue of step children but in essence wanting to give her Grandparents inheritance to her child. As the little one is only 2 and I'm guessing the inheritance happened some years ag, it's probably unlikely that the Great-Grandchild was known to the benefactor, even if they are blood line and the step children not.  I think you've got to accept as time goes by an inheritance will be absorbed within a household rather than ring fenced for another generation.

JJWSJS8700

I would gift the proceeds if your house to your daughter now OR you could set up a Declaration of Trust that the 150 you will put onto the primary home is for your daughter and the equity shared between the 5 of them.

I’ve had a Declaration of Trust for 20yrs, sole Contributor, parent died, found out the Solicitor does not keep files, and allowed my sibling to sell the property but Solicitor will not accept responsibility.

pickledonionspaceraider

Spendless said:

pickledonionspaceraider said:

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. 

No, not more valuable in monetary terms, but in moral terms.  It is more the intended purpose by the deceased - unless the specifically wrote 'I'd love my life savings to eventually go to unrelated strangers.'

Why anyone would kick up a fuss to get their hands on a dead strangers cash, is beyond me. 

I mean can anyone here say that, they are completely comfortable with the idea of their OWN life savings potentially eventually ending up going to unrelated strangers?

I understand it isn't how the law works, but I do think there should be clauses protecting inheritance money putting it aside from joint assets  - these are just my thoughts though, and I am interested in a debate as I understand and respect there are other opinions than my own

That can happen with a will eg the case of the actor Peter Sellars. His fortune went to the wife he was estranged but not divorced from. She re-married then died and the money went to them.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1138807/The-girl-got-Peter-Sellers-5m--met-him.html

It is awful what happened with Peter Sellers money - and seemingly he cut his biological children out of his will deliberately wanting them to stand on their own two feet.

For his biological children, the snub causing wounds that will never heal - with all of Peters money and even worse, his personal possessions having gone to someone who is unrelated, and had never been born at the time of his death.  It is disgusting, and to deliberately cause such life long pain to his own children makes him a much lesser man. His actions were completely deliberate in cutting them out. It is so morally wrong for the unrelated person to keep his personal possessions and not hand them over the family

maman

I'm not sure I feel that strongly about the Peter Sellars' situation but I think those comments have some  parallels with the current thread. I think if this is  something to do with respecting the grandmother's memory then a personal possession given to the daughter with a story attached, such as a piece of jewellery, would be suitable. Far better this than cause resentment and hurt to children by ranking them in 'value'  and spoil a  current relationship because of insisting on an unequal split of money. It's not as if OP and her husband won't able to help the children financially if getting on the property ladder is the main issue. They seem to have lots of equity in the current home, good salaries plus this extra house. 

pickledonionspaceraider

Its a hard one for sure
OP i hope you manage to find a suitable solution for you all, that brings you all peace

MrsStepford

I think you need to talk to a property solicitor. Firstly, because the property you inherited is a marital asset if you divorce. I was going to buy my own first property as a holiday home. I was told by a solicitor, that it would be rgarded as a marital second home and not something I owned outright, for tax purposes.