Another inheritance question

(14 Posts)
Myallotmentisweedy Fri 02-Mar-18 13:29:41

Reading the other thread made me think about this scenario and I'd like your opinions please:

Two parents have one child and then separate.
Mother remarries and has two children with new husband.
Mother disinherits first child on the basis that they have the other parent to inherit from.

OP’s posts: |
WhiteCat1704 Fri 02-Mar-18 14:42:28

It you mean disinherits the first child completly or just they get less than the other two as the other two are getting it from BOTH of their parents and the first one from just one?

If it's completely than it's wrong..if it's just reduced by her husbands input than it's fair..

flissfloss65 Fri 02-Mar-18 14:46:34

Seems unfair to the first child. What happens if the ex husband goes on to have further children?

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g Fri 02-Mar-18 14:49:41

Lots of imponderables here, though. No inheritance is ever a surefire thing.

Suppose mother and second husband have a house worth £400k after mortgage is paid off. Mother outlives H2 and inherits house. On her death the house is divided between the two child,ren she got with H2, so they each get £200k (ignoring inheritance tax if payable).

Meanwhile, her child from first marriage is expected to inherit father's house, also worth £400k. If that did happen, then reasonable enough for this child not to get a share of the mother's house. But if for some reason that doesn't happen (e.g. house has to be sold for care home fees, father marries again and his second wife gets the lot), then first child is left worse off than her half-siblings.

Mother might not be able to redraft will in later life once it becomes apparent that father's situation has changed. She might not have mental capacity to do it. Fairest thing is surely to leave everything in equal shares to be on the safe side.

I know a lot of people will be along to say that nobody has any right to inherit anything, but where there is money to pass on from one generation to another, it has to be done in some way and where it's not equal there can often be great hurt and anger.

WhiteCat1704 Fri 02-Mar-18 15:04:46

Well in the above scenario the first child SHOULD be left worse off than their syblings as they have effectively inherited from their dad. First child should get a share of their mothers part so 1/6(third of 50%)-66k and two others should get the rest split between them so 167k each. If it was meant to be fair.

lunar1 Fri 02-Mar-18 15:56:18

I think you have to treat children of the family equally, at the end of the day you have no way to know what the other parent will do with their money. Disinheriting one child is a cruel thing to do.

lifeandtheuniverse Fri 02-Mar-18 17:34:41

The parent has x number of children - their share is split equally between their children - with legal codicil in will that if they die before their DP and not parent to one or more of the children - they still keep their share of the house as it would have been if they live.

What the EX DP of the parent and parent to some of the children chooses to leave or not has nothing to do with the moral responsibility of the other parent to treat ALL their kids equally.


SandyY2K Fri 02-Mar-18 20:02:34

If I were the child who was disinherited, I'd be really upset.

Nobody knows what order we'll everyone should get their share of any inheritance as their parent dies.

For example...if my mum disinherited me on the grounds I'd get inheritance from my dad. She could die first and I get nothing...then I could die before my dad.

SciFiG33k Fri 02-Mar-18 20:05:05

My opinion is ouch that's horrible. What sort of a mother could do that to a child they love.

agentdaisy Sat 03-Mar-18 21:17:40

Disinheriting the first child is completely wrong under any circumstances, who knows what position the mum's ex would be in a position to do in decades.

Assuming for ease that the mum and second husband stay married until death and the only asset is their house worth 600k.

The first child should get 100k (1/3 of their mum's half of the house). The two younger children should get 250k (1/3 of their mum's half plus 1/2 of their dad's half of the house).

That way each child is inheriting and equal share of their parents' estate. The first child may or may not inherit from their dad but that isn't the concern of the mum, the two younger children or the second husband. The first child absolutely should not be disinherited by the Mum but neither should they expect to inherit equally from their step parent.

Arapaima Sat 03-Mar-18 21:22:02

Well on the face of it the mother shouldn’t disinherit her child.

I assume maybe the second husband is much less well off than the first husband? So the disinherited child is going to receive a lot from their Dad while the later two won’t?

emmyrose2000 Mon 12-Mar-18 06:09:13

The 'mother' is nasty and cruel. She has three children, she needs to ensure all three equally inherit her share of any assets at the time of her death.

The first child probably already feels a bit rejected because their mother went on to have a second family. Disinheriting child one but making provision for the other children is going to be the ultimate kick in the teeth.

What if child one's father took the same approach - that s/he has a mother to inherit from? The poor child/adult would end up with nothing.

Justdontknow4321 Tue 13-Mar-18 21:55:41

I don’t agree, it should go three ways between all children OR her half of the house should go 3 ways and the man she had 2 extra kids with should have his share go between his 2.

So either 33.3% each or SD gets 16.6% share and the two other children get 41.6% each.

TooSassy Tue 13-Mar-18 22:16:31

I know of a situation where this has actually happened.

My friends parents who married years ago came from very different backgrounds. One parent grew up on a council estate and did relatively well, financially, within their lifetime. The other parent's father was ceo of one of the largest banks back in the day. When they divorced the parent (from the less well off background) left all of their estate to their nephew and nieces.

Their justification was that their own children were more set to inherit significant amounts from the other side. Which they did.

Whereas their relatively smaller amounts of money would make a vast difference to the quality of life for the nieces and nephews.

I've never figured out where I stood on that, but I can see the logic behind that decision.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in