One child has inherited AGAIN

@WendyHoused @GasPanic Many progressive, western countries have forced heirship laws so that children don't lose out. I think it's very sensible. It means people can't be cajoled or influenced unduly and stops relationship breakdowns after people pass away as so often described on MN.

I can see the logic there to be fair. I don't think there's one correct way to divide most estates, even if you are trying to be fair.

Be happy for your younger child - I would have loved it if my younger brother inherited money or one of my children. Life at times is not fair we have to make most of it.

Relax! It’s just money.

It's sad but it's so common when siblings have different parents.
My aunt has two daughters, one has inherited millions + properties from her dad's family, the other one has nothing, not even her dad's name since he refused to acknowledge her when she was born.
It's unfair, but that's life.

Unfortunately this is one of the things that happens with blended families. You can always leave more to your older son in your will to even things up a bit.

I'm far more shocked about your partner's relative leaving his money to the boys and not the girls. That's appalling.

You say they were entitled to do as they pleased as it was their money, but it doesn’t seem like you actually believe that.

This is sad because it will probably cause relationship difficulties between your children.

But ultimately it has happened because of your life choices and you have to accept that.

No one is owed an inheritance. Life always deals uneven hands, no matter how much we might like everything to be equal. Some people inherit more money, some people are better looking, some smarter. Some luck out in jobs and some win the lottery.

You just have to accept it, in the same way you would have to if one child became really rich and famous. Or another married into a really rich family.

Many people have to deal with these types of inequality in their families.

Yes, that is twat behaviour.

They aren't related to your eldest, so why would they leave money to him?

Lots of people decide to leave money to grandchildren rather than children - my own parents did. The children are individuals with their own relationships with the grandparents, so it's ridiculous of your husband to think his sibling "did better" out of it for having three children who inherit rather than one. It's not "per branch of family", it's per person.

The only thing wrong with the new inheritance is the old dinosaur only leaving money to his great nephews and not his great nieces. Very sexist and weird choice.

It's a shame your sons will have different financial starting points. That's a natural consequence of choosing to blend a family - the half / step children have different extended families with inevitable discrepancies.

There's nothing you can do to put things on an even footing. I'm sure that's upsetting for you, but you'd be extremely unreasonable to expect your husband to reduce how much he leaves to his own child to boost an inheritance to your child.

I think the unreasonable person is the one who left his estate only to the male relatives, leaving the girls with nothing

If "S/HE WAS ENTITLED TO DO WHAT HE WANTED WITH HIS OWN MONEY" then why do you need to come to terms with it? Personally, I don't like the idea of only leaving money to males, but in the broader scenario, your eldest isn't related to them. Your problem really is that although you say they should be entitled to do what they want with their money, you don't actually believe it. You really think they should have included your eldest. And you think that they deliberately wrote the will(s) to exclude any possibility of him inheriting anything via your husband. So basically, you don't really like your husbands family, and see their wills as a swipe against you and your eldest. There's no coming to terms with that line of thinking. You either have to let it go and accept that your eldest wasn't entitled to inherit from people, and that sometimes them's the shakes in life; or carry on resenting them, which won't change anything but will eat away at you.

It was said at the time and I believe this to be the case that the will was designed like this. to stop my elder child from a previous relationship from benefiting as he might have done 40/50 years later if the money had gone directly to my partner.

Which is perfectly reasonable, by the way. Have you posted about this before? The circumstances from the first inheritance sound familiar. Apologies if not you.

Your two boys have different wider families. There’s nothing you can do about that now.

You accept that your in-laws are entitled to leave their money to whomever they wish, so what’s the point in getting uptight about it? You can’t change it. Why would they leave money to a child who has his own separate father and associated relatives?

If your eldest son’s grandfather left him money, would you expect him to also leave money to your youngest son?

If child 1 has been left money, and is under 18, then no the parents cannot simply steal half of it to give to his half brother!

I think people get to know the sort of answers they will get on mumsnet so they state that so they don't get loads of pointless "It's their money they can do what they want" answers.

Oh that’s interesting,

YANBU to feel sad about this, but, as you say, it was their money to do with as they wished. And they wished to leave their money to their blood descendents/immediate relatives, and that did not include your older DC, who is not related to them. TBH, I don't think you should ever have expected any different. I'm a step-child myself and I have never expected to inherit a penny from either of the step sides of my family, nor will I. When there is no expectation, there is no disappointment. I think this is YOUR issue tbh and kindly you need to get over it.

All I can say is that if you want to come to terms with it, shouting yourself into submission with CAPS is likely to backfire.

It also happens with offspring with the same parents when they get married.

One marries an investment banker, the other marries a teacher. One is much richer than the other. Or one wins on the lottery. As you say, it's how the cookie crumbles.

So your parents must have owned the property as tenants in common not joint tenants. You can change it retrospectively (i.e. if bought originally as TIC can change to JT) , but both parties must agree and I personally wouldn't if DH asked me to do this. Also, by reciprocal wills do you mean mirror wills? If so, that doesn't help because the surviving spouse can literally change their will the next day. You can have a mutual will which is binding on the surviving spouse not to change but they also have major drawbacks- for example if the surviving spouse remarries or a child becomes estranged. There's literally "no swaps back"

I’m confused why you keep using capitals to say it’s their money and to do as they please, whilst actually complaining they won’t give your son their money. And then trying to get your own husband to treat them unequally to make up for it

Yes this is the really outrageous bit. Not the fact that someone wanted to leave money to their relatives rather than someone who is only related by marriage.

I hope the boys/men agree to share with their sisters!

By a turn of fate my 2 dc will have vastly different fortunes. Ime you can either torture yourself with it or accept that it's not fair but is just the way the cookie has crumbled.

My (half) siblings will be inheriting a house worth 3m from my stepfather and I nothing as my own father owns no property and is broke. That’s just life and one must learn to accept it.