to think my sister should get half

[StripyElephant]

Sorry, this is a bit morbid! DH and I have been writing our will, and have come across a bit of a difference of opinion on who we would leave our stuff to. If both of us and the DC all were to die, god forbid, then we agree that we want all our stuff to go to our siblings. I have a sister and DH has a brother and a sister.

I assumed that we would say that my DSis would get half and the other half would be split between his two siblings, so 25% each for them. He assumed that we would split it in thirds and each sibling get a third.

It's not a big problem, we've talked it through and decided what we're going to say in the will. And hopefully, of course, this situation will never need to become a reality! But I wondered, what would you all think was fair in this situation?

50:50 without a doubt.
How did you resolve it OP? It sounds to me like you gave in to his way of thinking.

50:50

digerd
I am married to a French man, in France, and the default status is that if he died, I would only inherit 25% of his estate, the rest going to our children. I would have no right to sell the home we live in (because he bought it before we were married, so it is "his") and when the children reach the age of majority, they would take control of all the assets they had inherited from him and so could ask me to leave the family home.

Please don't tell me that is a better system than soouses being default inheritors,

And what if DSis predeceases you also ?
Or indeed imagine you did not have a sister to start with.

You presumably would wish that your half would go to some other person, charity.
50/50 is the only "logical" way.

But life is not logical.

My mum has done a similar thing. She has divided her estate between the grandchildren. My sister has 4 children, I have 2. I feel that it should be halved and then divided. My mum just says I should have had more children! (But after 4 years of fertility treatment and 2 miscarriages it sadly was not possible). However, it is her choice and I have not mentioned it again.

uggmum - that's not really the same thing. Her grandchildren all have the same relationship to her.

TO GREYTHORNE - I did not say it was good for the spouses, just that the children's inheritances are protected, which in remarriages are often lost. But I contacted the French Embassy years ago, and was told that the children are legally obligated - which is not the case here- to financially support their surviving parent who cannot be forced to move out of the home by their children. If french spouses have no children., they cannot inherit anything as everything legally belongs to the blood line family. Gifts to the wife by the husband during his lifetime are allowed to be yours. My friend's parents emigrated to Spain years ago, and when her dad died, her mother was not allowed to inherit anything from her late husband, it legally all belonged to the blood line daughter. If you die before your husband, and he marrys again, unless he gifts everything away to his new wife, your children's inheritance is protected. When my sister heard of these laws she and her husband soon made another will, stating that if one dies and marrries again, the chuildren's inheritance from the deceased will immediately before the marriage be paid out to them, so that the new woman/man does not take it away from them. I can quote other happenings to my friends in which the french inheritance laws would have benefitted their grandchildren instead of an other woman and her adult children

"I had a similar discussion with one of my DCs because my mum's will specifies 50/50 to me and my brother. DB has only one child and is quite well off, while we are the church mice with 5 DC. DS felt that it would be fairer if I got 5/6ths and DB got 1/6. But even though I can see his logic it still seems fairer for a 50/50 split."

Trouble with your DS's logic though is that circumstances change. Maybe over the next few years your DB will have another 5 children and lose all his money, while you win the lottery!

"My mum just says I should have had more children! (But after 4 years of fertility treatment and 2 miscarriages it sadly was not possible)."

What a bitch!

Another friend of mine has 4 sisters and her mum's will is to divide what she has by 5, but for reasons I have explained elsewhere, she wants her mum to give her share to her children - mums grandchildren-. As she has 3 children her 5th will be dived by 3 for each one. That is how it is done. The second generation - 5 sisters get equal shares no matter how many children they have

To ALLPAST YEARS I cannot believe your mother said that !!!!!!!!! Don't think she realised how hurtful that was.

Digerd
Sorry, I take your point; in complex second marriages with children from different 'sides' the French / continental system does protect the children. But with a first marriage, the surviving spouse is extremely unprotected!

My nephew lives in Australia married to a lovely australian girl who has 4 sisters. Their father owns a large piece of land jointly with his brothers. We were all shocked to hear that the grandfather's will states ONLY MALE offspring can inherit the land, so this son's 5 daughters get nothing of the land. How's that for cruel sexism. Also, granfather's wife was pregnant when he died, and could not inherit anything after he was born as was not mentioned in the will.

To GREYTHORNE Actually I did think it was so unfair for a stepmother who had no children from her husband, but dedicated her life to bringing his up, and assumed that the stepkids had no legal obligation to look after a stepmum, but not sure about that as did not ask. But I am sure your adult children cannot force you to move out of the house. As was told by a french solicitor, that if there are no children, then the blood-line relatives inherit the house if totally in his name, BUT they must allow the widow to remain in the marital home and cannot evict her. Please, for your own peace of mind get this matter confirmed.

ps my post was to EGGMUM not all past years, sorry.

I think half to each family is the way I would do it. Not sure about fairness. But it is right that each person should have free choice on what to do with their half. .

If our family all die in a car crash all our estate goes to charity - saves any family squabbling about cash .

Samandi, it may not be the same thing. But it does highlight that the is topic is an emotional one. I see it that my mum has 2 children and feel that the estate should be divided between us both and then we can divide it between our children. My mum sees it differently and that's fair enough.

In the op's case I would agree with others that a 50/50 split and then a division would be fairer if both had equally contributed to their relationship.

I'm reading the posts with DMs telling you all how they are splitting with a wry smile - my DM does this already & she's not dead - she's quite proud of the fact she spends twice as much on DB for xmas & birthdays as she does me - her reasoning, he has no kids (or none that she knows of/is in contact with) so according to her, the rest of my share for gifts is spent on my DD

pixiestix , you're right, we decided to do it his way, in thirds.

I had anticipated that there would be this disagreement. We're both quite bossy determined people who, once we've formed an opinion, will argue it to the hilt . So I knew that if we disagreed about it, there would be a long, uncomfortable conversation about it until we reached stalemate. And then the only way forward from that would be to say, well, we both get to decide on half then i.e. force him into the 50/25/25 split.

I felt less strongly about 'my' way of doing things than I did about not wanting upset, disagreement and one person being forced into the other's decision. i also wasn't sure whether I was being unreasonable or not.

Moral of the story? Ask Mumsnet if AIBU first and get my argument straight!

Another vote for half to each family here.

Half to each family. Half of the assets are yours, so definitely you get to decide to allocate that to your family, in this case your sibling.

I discuseed this with DP last night. He has one brother I have two sisters. He agrees that they would each get 1/3.

It's not his brother's fault I have two sisters no. But its not my sisters' fault he has a brother and that they each have a sister iyswim.

Half for each family. That's what the solicitor put in our wills and it made complete sense to me.

So, this means that he "takes" 20 of your assets to give his siblings.

I think this is unfair.

Why is his side of the family worth 2/3 and yours only 1/3 ?

What arguments did he use for you to agree? Is he working more than you? Did he pay more of the deposit on your house? etc?

I know it is only hypothetical, but even so. Him being "greedy" on behalf of his siblings is tasteless, as it means HIS side of the family gets more than your side, and for this to happen you have to fund this from your half.

You can change your mind though. As it is you have agreed to give up nearly half your assets to give your inlaws, so you would be right to reconsider.