Is this inheritance set up unreasonable?

You are already financially entangled as you have a shared child. Equal seems fine to me

Assuming anyone will inherit anything from a parent is a complete flight of fancy a lot of the time.

When my children were little I worked in a care home and a common reason for emergency admissions was the death of the extremely elderly (90+) person's last remaining child... Especially common for women in their 90s to have outlived sons who died in their late 60s or early 70s.

Completely agree with this.

If the grandparents want their money to go only to person A’s kids then they need to leave the money to the kids.

Yep

Or more accurately, what’s your is ours and what’s mine is ours…. But you just have a whole lot more to share than I do 😑

I must admit that if I was B, I wouldn’t be marrying A and would be protecting my assets and finances given their CF attitude.

I think it depends.

What Parent B's children get from their other parent is irrelevant, in my opinion.

What inheritance will there be from Parent B, aside from the new, shared house? Does Parent B have savings or investments, for example? How will they be split between the children?

If Parent B's assets will be divided equally across all children, then I think it's fair to expect assets on Parent A's side will be split equally too.

But if Parent B plans to only give 'their side' of the inheritance to the 3 biological kids, then I think it's double standards to expect Parent A to split between all children.

What complicates things is if Parent B doesn't have any assets, or is effectively using their assets (perhaps payout from home shared with previous partner?) to put the deposit down for the new property.... If this is the case, I think the two fairest options would be:

1. Parent A sells their property and contributes equally to to the purchase of the new property.
2. Parent A agrees that proceeds from sale of that property will be split between all children, since Parent B has used their inheritance to buy the shared property, which will be split equally.

Why by the sounds of it person B is bankrolling the house that person a kids are going to get a share in
so persons a kids get a share of the house (asset) person b has paid majority of but persons b kids get nothing from persons A’s assets

So person B supports A's lifestyle and dc and splits their inheritance equally between all the dc, but person A doesn't?

It sounds like a case of what's yours is mine and what's mine is mine.

Either everything gets split equally or nothing does.

Of course it's OK to set up a trust to cover the additional needs of the disabled child. All others should be treated equally, regardless of parentage.

Or each parent leaves their stuff to their own dc.

Pick and mix is not fair.

These are my thoughts/suggestions:-

• I would make your plans on what you have control over only, and not any potential inheritances that may or may not be received. It’s just as likely that that money could be eroded in care home fees, so will be far from a certainty.

• Due to the disability, Person A and their children will essentially be reliant on Person B’s salary - is that correct? Whilst Person A hasn’t chosen that situation, I would understand if Person B was miffed that Person A was not planning to share their assets with the whole family unit (like Person B seems to be doing).

Ultimately, it’ll be complicated to find a truly fair solution, so I’d just keep it simple and split everything equally 5 ways.

I've noticed in the blended families I know that inheritance goes directly to the grandkids, and only a small % goes to the parent.

Saves a lot of heartache for everyone involved IMO.

Yes - why are people saying its unfair for person B's children to inherit 1/5 of person A's assets

but fine for person A's children to inherit 1/5 of person B's?

Ypu absolutely cannot know what any children will inherit from other parents or grandparents nor when. Person B's children's other parent might outlive their children, spend the last 20 years of their life in a top price lovely nursing home funded by selling all their assets to avoid being moved to the cheapest council funded option or remarry at 80 and leave everything to their new 20 year old spouse...

If your family is genuinely "blended" then assets of the marriage are evenly split between all the couple's children, not -

"everything is family money no matter whobearns or owns what - except that when we die its different and what's yours is split between my children and yours but what's mine is my children's only ".

The child with a disability could be an exception EXCEPT that you might actually be screwing them over - be very careful about leaving them in a situation where they're too "rich" for services unless they self pay AND vulnerable to exploitation from people after their money (including the step siblings you left with a reason to be resentful and feel owed...).

If I’ve worked hard to buy a house it will always be kept for my biological children.

Person As property should only go to their kids.

The shared house should be spilt between all 5 kids evenly.

It sounds like B is bankrolling the whole show so why should their kids loose out?

if I was B I absolutely wouldn’t be getting married!

Person A should discuss with their parents. If I was the parents of parent A I might prefer to skip a generation and leave any inheritance to my grandchildren. However, person A may well need the rental income from the two properties to be their pension as they can’t work due to the disabled child.

also fear that person A dies first and person B marries with a new will.

Person A can just change their will to leave money to only their bio children and are under no obligation to tell person B they have done that. (I’m assuming you are person A)

What does parent A live off?

Completely unfair for person A's inheritance to be split amongst person B's children!! No doubt person A's parents will have an opinion about that?!

I think B is reasonable.
B probably funding the new house and their lifestyle
so why should B’s step children get 2 houses between them plus a share of the current one and shared assets?

just because B’s kids could inherit well from the other parent is not a good reason, anything could happen.

Person B can’t dictate what the grandparents stipulate in their wills, isn’t it likely the grandparents will leave everything directly to their own grandchildren given the situation?

Equal split between all children. A's side may have less but A and his/her eldest children are getting a huge benefit in the form of a further home all paid up by B, not just to live in but jointly owned by A.

A sounds a bit "what's yours in mine too but what's mine is mine". Not really in the spirit!

If person B has paid for the new house and will be making it a joint asset that will be divided by all children then the rental property should also be treated as a joint property and split between all 5. If both A&B jointly paid for the new house my answer would be different!

The key question I would be asking is if A had never met B the children would just be inheriting the house and the inheritance, are they worse or better off because of this relationship? Similarly would B’s children be worse off because of the relationship? From the brief outline giving, A and A’s children financially benefit from moving in with B, B is willing to treat all children equally but A does not want to reciprocate.

How is person A funding themselves? Is it the
rental income only? If B is funding them then I think A is being cheeky

B is already funding entirely the purchase of the house in joint names so it seems only reasonable that A's property gets left to all 5 children too. Otherwise if A wants to earmark their property for their children I don't see whay B wouldn't just buy the new property on their own.