Is this fair? Inheritance related.

[WhereTheresAWillTheresAWant]

There are three adult siblings in DH family. DH is the eldest and is from his DF first marriage. Sadly, DH’s DM died when he was a baby. His DF married again when DH was very young and went on to have a further two boys with his new wife.

The new wife raised DH along with her two biological children and they still have a good relationship today. DH’s DF passed away six years ago and all of his assets went to his wife. However, his DF had a joint Will with his wife and all three children were included in the will with all to be shared fairly once the parents had passed.

At a visit with MIL (DH’s step mum) over the weekend, she talked about her plans to pay off her mortgage in a few weeks and how she was relieved to know the two boys would never have to worry about housing in the current climate. (DH’s adult brothers are still both living at home whilst studying). It transpires her plans are to leave the only asset to DH’s two brothers; this would mean she would need to have the current will amended to exclude DH.

DH didn’t say anything but it has blindsided him and he’s feeling very hurt; his step mum has raised him since he was small.

It does seem rather unfair but after all, it’s his DSM’s asset to do as she wishes. Would you be hurt by this? DH is not going to raise it and will carry on as normal but he is understandably taken aback about this.

@Leirvassbu
Oh come on!
If it’s an average size house it will be worth about £320k so each child will inherit over £100k if split three ways.
Her children will hardly be homeless with that much cash even if they have to stay in a hotel for a few weeks why they find somewhere to rent/buy.

i completely agree.

as long as it applies equally to all 3 children.

if the parent(s) decide to spend all their money and leave each child 33.3% of 0 then there is no problem.

but leaving two children 50% and one child 0%, regardless of how much, sends a pretty clear message about their place in the family and their value to the parent.

same as in our case, selling the family home and gifting one sibling 400k, the others nothing, is not something a fair parent who loves their children equally would do.

don’t you think?

I’m sceptical that those commenting that they’d be fine with their parents cutting them out their will in favour of other siblings would actually feel that. It’s not even about the money but the message it sends. Like someone above says you could live with a third of nothing as there’s no cold message about how little you’re valued.

@Mari9999 Im going to use your logic in another scenario. Let's say you work for a small private company. You work hard with another colleague and get on really well with the company owner. The owner decides, every Christmas, to help with the cost of living, there will be a cash bonus of 3k each. However, the owner then decides to give 6k every year to your colleague and nothing to you. After all it's the owners money, they may do what they like with it, and you should just work harder (maybe another job) to be as successful as your colleague and not rely on that bonus anyway. Also using your logic you will feel no resentment or won't feel under valued in any way.

Really?

I think it sounds sensible to make a plan to have a conversation about it, especially as he is expected to be executor (I mean, how cruel, but ideally, he should know her/their wishes if he is to agree to that).

Interestingly, I've been wondering about this same thing myself as my mum and stepdad also have, as best I can determine, mirror wills. I am NC with my mum and don't really care much about any money she might leave me, but she has no other family. I am executor of their wills apparently. But the reason we are NC is due to abusive stepdad and their unhealthy relationship. I wouldn't be surprised if he changed it if she were to die first. His family is also NC with them, so no idea who they'd leave anything to tbh.

@$ilentHedges
That unequal distribution of funds happens frequently in companies. Upper level management often gets bonus and travel perks that are not given to lower level employees who may work just as long and equally as hard in performing their jobs. These practices don't resurrection in mass employee walk out or large numbers of resignations. In these instances employers are not violating any laws and employees have no grounds for grievances, and in many instances it serves as an incentive to employees to work even harder to obtain a higher level within the organization.

I don't see a problem with parents gifting all of their children in a will. I think that is probably the norm.

I do see a problem with adult children thinking that they are entitled to an equal or any share of resources to which they have not contributed . I think that is great if it happens, but I think that it is totally up to the donor parent to decide what they wish to do with their life earnings.

If there are grandchildren doing without, they are not doing without because their grandparents are failing them. They are doing without because the 2 people who have the obligation to provide adequately for them are failing to meet that obligation.

My resources will go to my children when I pass, but if I thought any of them were so crass as to think that they had some level of entitlement to those resources, I would rethink my plans.

The right to decide is the right of the owner of the resources , and there is so legal or moral entitlement for anyone to be a recipient.

I recognize that this is just my opinion and that they may be hundreds of different but equally valid beliefs.

Manners cost nothing.

You haven't understood this thread at all.

Firstly the example I gave was specifically of a small private company, not a multi national corporate. But you change it to suit your argument.

I agree, gifting all children in a will is the norm. However that's exactly what this thread is not about, it's about, 2 children getting 50% and one child getting nothing.

At no point in this thread has the OP said her DH is entitled. Where are you getting this from? It's quite the opposite, the OPs DH appears remarkably accepting of being essentially being told he and his disabled son (her step Grandchild) are worth 0%. Probably because the selfishness of his Step Mothers actions haven't sunk in yet.

Again you mention entitlement. This is not what this thread is about?

Of course the right to decide is with benefactor of the money, but it doesn't make it right. Bono flew his hat first class around the world because he forgot to pack it. Paris Hilton spent 300k on a house for her dogs with chandeliers. Their money, who cares about helping out people in need, but in your world, it's ok, it's their money, it's not crass or unjust at all. I really don't understand your mindset here? I could set fire to all my cash before I die just to make sure it doesn't help out any of my loved ones, or helps some charities with some vital work. It's not a case of "Oh well, SilentHedges can do what she likes with her money", it's actually incredibly selfish. It is about morals. To think it's not moral, makes me question your morals.

@ SilentHedge
The ultimate question is " is the step mother doing something wrong in choosing to gift the asset that she owns to 2 rather than 3 children. No one disputes that there is no legal obligation to gift all or nny of the children. Is there a moral obligation to gift any of the children ? That is the debatable question.

In your example the employees in a small business who had no contractual right to a bonus in a specified amout would not be wronged if the owner choose to gift his employees in varied amounts of his choosing. In such an instance the employee who feels slighted could indicate his dissatisfaction by either speaking to his employer or by quitting. In such a case the employee may feel slighted but he has not been wronged or violated. Ultimately Ultimately, the right to dispose of funds remains with the owner of the funds. In your hypothetical the small business owner could not take or have the liberty to not pay each employee his legally and contractually stipulated salary.

In a free society, people are free to dispose of the resources at will. Once you admit that there is no legal obligation to someone, then you can only expect to receive it out of some sense of entitlement. Even when being told that something has been stipulated in a will, most know that wills can be changed and often are changed.

Tbh it seems as though the OP's partner has made his peace with the situation. The SM may change her mind multiple times before she dies. She may experience a need for long term health care assistance which requires the selling or mortgaging the home to pay for her care. So many things in this situation are fluid and subject to change.

The only thing that is fixed and not subject to change is that the sole right to determine the fate of the home is the SM , and absent a mortgage holder there is no one with a legal right to expect to be a beneficiary.

No one else's moral compass matters in this situation. The SM has the only moral compass that matters ,and it is controlling in this situation.

I think that if the OP were accepting of her husband's point of view, she would not have posed the question.
No amount of discussion or debate will alter the outcome of this situation.

“Tbh it seems as though the OP's partner has made his peace with the situation”

ummm, nope. She said he was hurt. He may or may not say anything. But he’s certainly not at peace.

She also mentioned she was going to a solicitor next week to have the Will amended to ensure the boys won’t have to worry about housing in the current climate. Considering DH would only inherit if the asset was sold, it is safe to say, she is likely taking away DH’s share to prevent the asset being sold and thus ensuring a home for life for the siblings

Or she might put something like a life interest clause for her two sons - so your DH can't evict his half brothers to get his share.

Your DH could inherit without the house being sold though - but ultimately they'd probably want to go their separate ways and take the cash.

She might also say the house to her sons and an equivalent sum in cash to your DH (although as house prices increase, that would have to be quite a big sum. But he might get something).

But ultimately if the wills are mirror and not mutual, she can do what she likes.

@WhereTheresAWillTheresAWant my advice to your DH would be to make his peace with it.

My DM has potentially done something totally bonkers with her Will. I know she has changed it since DF died. My view now (and it has taken a couple of years to get to this point) is damage limitation. I can't change it so I will just have to do my best to ensure that the beneficiaries actually get to benefit.

If I try to influence her then she will dig her heels in and I risk being removed as an executor and having no chance to do anything.