that one child might inherit more than another....(logical people needed for this!)

[thelmasmonkey]

I'm in the process of writing will with dh but don't know if what is a fair division of assets between dcs.

Dc1 is mine from a previous relationship. DC1's father is well off. Dc2 is from current relationship.

Dh and my assets are tied into our property.

Should our property be split fifty fifty between dc1 and dc2 in event of both our deaths?
Or should my half be split fifty fifty between children while his half goes to dc2. That means dc2 stands to inherit 3/4 of estate but dc1 might potentially inherit all of her fathers.
Dc1 would inherit from her father. Dc1 will also reside with her father in event of my death. If dh and I both die then dc 2 will be orphaned and need money to help with her upbringing.

What makes me uneasy though is that there's a small risk that dc1 might not inherit anything from her father and will only have 1/4 of current estate. But if we do split 50/50 dc1 stands to inherit a lot more if her father does leave her everything.

Confused?

Yes I am aware that dcs might not get anything as estate could be used to fund me and dh in old age but l also want to prepare for alternative too.

Any advice would be great.

[thelmasmonkey]

Its funny how for some people it really is a simple, black and white scenario! I just happen to be guessing every alternative and its pretty morbid. I really wish it was clear to me but thanks to you guys it is becomining clearer.

The tally on this thread is as follows -
Split estate 3 ways - 2
50/50 total estate split, ignoring what dc1 might inherit from her father - 16
My half estate 50/50, dh half to dc2 meaning dc1 will get quarter - 20

Dh and I talked about this and we will be stating that if we both die tomorrow dc2 will need 3/4 of monies to be raised up as she will be orphan as dc1 will more than likely be raised by rich dad.

If rich dad turns out to be poor dad and dies first mine and my dh estate will be split fifty fifty to raise both children till they are 18.

If I die first and kids are now adults and independent my half will be split 50/50. Dh says he might split his 50/50 but he will def leave dh1 money. He still needs to think about it though which is fair enough.

I don't think I can force him to split his half to my stipulations. I only hope that he will judge the situation at the time and make the right decision at the time and hope he doesn't start developing a passion for cats

The thing is there are so many variables the will will need to be changed every few years.

Tbh its not just blended families that need to think about this. One might have a two point four set up now but if one partner dies and another remarries, the original inheritance might go to people unknown to first spouse.

[thelmasmonkey]

Also does anyone know what happens if I die first? I want my assets to be split 50/50 between kids but don't want dh to be homeless.

If I leave it as right to reside will he need to give 50% of assets to both dcs? That might leave him in a financially precarious situation.

Ideally in event of my death I want him to be able to live in property but when he dies assets then split but whose to say bad investments might be made leaving dcs with nothing!

Balls

[VivaLeBeaver]

I think the thing to consider is that you can't guarantee your ex will leave money.

He could spend years in a care home and believe me money goes fast.

My fairly well off mum has found religion and is leaving all her money to the church.

[Pelicangiraffe]

50-50 - particularly if DH has been a father figure to DS1

[PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom]

Thelma- do you have a lawyer? They can talk you through trusts and scenarios to allow your DH to stay in the house and raise your youngest.

[Lucy61]

Have you spoken to ex about this? This is one of those situations where you may need to involve him and talk about his plans too.

For what it's worth, I'm with the split your own share 50/50 camp. But if you want to take into consideration dc1's father's wealth, then you need to discuss your plans with her dad. Does he have other dcs? Who knows, he may be leaving them larger sums because he thinks dc1 will inherit from you!

[merlehaggard]

If you were to die before your DH then I think you would have to leave your half of the property in trust to him (so he could live in the property), which would then be released to be split 50/50 between your children on his death. The problem being, that you can't will your assets twice.

I believe my dad has this arrangement with his new wife.

[MushroomSoup]

I have 4 DCs - only my youngest DS is the child of my DH. The elder 3 are from my first marriage.

Our estate will be divided 50/50, ALL of DH's 50% will go to his son.

My 50% will be divided between all 4 of my children.

My DH loves my children and treats them all equally in 'real life'. We are both aware though that HIS DS has no one else to support them, while my eldest three have their father.

[calculatorsatdawn]

Assuming your ex is the same age as you or older statistically speaking he's likely to die first. How about split 50:50 between the two children but with the caveat that if your ex dies first then your half of the estate is split in two.

[GoodKingQuintless]

I am not sure why you are so keen to favour dc1?

Why is it so important to you that dc1 should inherit two dads, one bio dad and one step dad and dc2 only ONE dad, when it would be more fair that each child inherit from their biological dad?

Especially when you know that dc1 will inherit her bio dad, then 50% of your share, why do you want her to share your husbands 50% with your husbands biological child?

This is what you seem to want:

DC1
100% of bio dads large estate
50% of mums estate
50% of step dads estate

DC2
50% of mums estate
50% of dads estate

You seem to be really keen to find ways of favouring your eldest.
Is that reflect in day to day life with your two children also?

Is it really so bad if the following happens?

DC1
100% of bio dads large estate
50% of mums estate

DC2
50% of mums estate
100% of dads estate (which is still just 50% of the family estate)

Then you have two children inheriting 100% from their dads, and 50% from their mum

DC2 is still going to inherit a lot less than dc1 as DCs dads estate is inherited in entirety.

In real terms, dc1 inherits 25% of the family unit estate, and 100% of her dads, and dc2 inherits 75% of the family unit estate.

This is not unfair.

Why do you want dc1 to inherit so much more than dc2?

It seems to me through the posts that you are not keen to make it even, but keen to justify why dc1 should have more. Sorry, that is just how I see it. And you dont need to answer to me why you favour one child so much, but think through this yourself.

[PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom]

It isn't that simple though is it? The father of DC1 may die in his 90s with his whole estate used on personal care. That is why I think a will for now needs to focus on ensuring that both children are provided for to adulthood and that the survivor out of the OP and her DH has somewhere to raise one or both kids (depending on who dies).

Incidentally, you can set a will up so it operates differently if the survivor doesn't live for at least X period after., allowing you to have one will if you die together and another if you don't.

[charlestonchaplin]

Well half the estate belongs to the husband, and I don't think it is the place of any mumsneter, or anyone else for that matter, to say that he should greatly disadvantage his daughter in favour of his step-daughter who has a wealthy bachelor father she has a very close relationship with.

It is possible her father may marry, have other children and cut her out of his life, but it is a much less likely scenario than that he takes her in and provides for her in the event of her mother's death. If the ex-husband's position is to be disregarded then why not the husband's position? It would be different if he was in the role of father to DD1, but he is not. He is more in the position of mum's husband, even though they live together.

Splitting things equally does not mean things have been split fairly, though where children are concerned this does seem to be a blind spot for many. In this instance it would be difficult to argue that the OP is unfair to split her estate equally between her daughters. But it is not for the OP to decide what her husband should do, though of course they will have discussions.

And you seem to be reading a different thread from me GoodKingQuintless, because the OP seems to be making the same arguments as you.

[YouAreBoring]

GoodKingQuintless. I didn't read that the OP wants to favour DC1. Your suggestion is the same one that OP is leaning towards.

[GoodKingQuintless]

Not sure what I have been reading, but I took it as op wanting her dh to share his part between both dc.

[aprilanne]

no she wants to split her money between 2 and the youngest to get all her fathers because oldest will inherit from her father .second marriage syndrome .

[Boltonlass]

Loads of great arguments for each way!!!
I am tending towards the mum to split 50/50 and each child inherits from their own dad. Seems fairest.

BUT whatever you do, you need to make sure that you leave a record of your decision making process so that both have evidence of your attempts to be fair.

Also remember you can change this at any time - if circumstances change, your will can to. So make the best will you can based on today's situation and then adapt as needed.

[juicycelebrity]

essentially, you need a professional will writer/solicitor to help you.

We had a similar problem to you but in reverse. I have a stepdaughter who lives with her mother who is far wealthier than we are. DH wanted our estate to be split into 3 equally but for a variety of reasons I didn't want to, or think that was fair to our children who already see her get more in life than them.

However splitting the estate 50:50 and then between the children would have resulted in SD getting just under 17% of our estate which didn't seem fair either.

The will writer helped us to agree on basis of need. SD is 10 years older than DD so DD needs more money than SD. The example he gave DH was that if the worst happens and we die in an accident together when DD is 13, SD will be an adult of 23, (hopefully) have finished uni and be working and earning her own money. DD will be 13 and still need to get through school, uni etc and be unable to earn due to being a child. Thus DD NEEDS more money than SD.

As it stands, SD will inherit 26% of our estate and DS and DD will inherit 37% each. This will theoretically be revisited as the younger children reach 18/21depending on the state of their education/working at the time. If things remain relationship wise with SD as they are now, it won't be changing to equal share as she treats my DH and DC like shit so she's certainly not getting any more from my estate.

[Applefallingfromthetree2]

Boltonlass has summarised it well. She describes the simplest and fairest way IMO

Thelma, you could stipulate that in the event of you dying first your DH gets the right to reside in your half of the property. On his death your share of the assets to be divided according to the terms of the original will i.e. 50/50.
This also protects the children's' asset should he ever remarry.

If at any time after your death he choose to move out or downsize, the property could then be sold and the money released to the DCs. He would not be able to sell the house against your children's wishes. You could have a similar clause in the will to cover the possibility of DH dying first.

[YackityUnderTheMistletoe]

What if, what if, what if, what if.....

Why are you looking at this document as though it's got to be valid for the next 20 or 30 years?!

You write a will for NOW. Right NOW, if you die, then your DC1 will go live with her father, and your DC2 will live with her father, your partner. You also probably have very little actual house, as most of it is mortgage. So unless you have an insurance policy, a lot of it is moot.

If your ex has another child, then you can re-write the will.

If your ex gets married, you can re-write the will.

If your DC are older and more independent, you can re-write the will. If you pay for one to go to uni but not the other, you can re-adjust their shares and re-write the will if you want.

WILLS CAN BE RE-WRITTEN!!!!

So write it for NOW, and look at it again, every year to make sure it still reflects what you want. If you have any small alterations, then write a codicil.

Every now and then, re-write the will in it's entirety.

[YonicScrewdriver]

Yy yackity.

[PenguinsandtheTantrumofDoom]

Yes yes Yackity. That is also why I am saying focus on provision for the surviving spouse and children, not what might eventually happen with shares when all three of you have died.

It is not about your share and DHs share. It is about if one of you dies or you both die together. The rest follows on from that, it isn't the starting point.

[littleleftie]

OP you are overthinking this way to much.

What if XH remarries and leaves all his money to his new wife - or remarries and has other DC and dies and all his money goes to those DC?

The sensible thing is to leave estate to your DC 50/50.

You seem to be in denial that your children have different fathers ad so there is a chance one will end up inheriting more than the other? So what?

If DC2 gets a better paid job than DC1 are you going to insist they pay DC1 an allowance?

They have different parents so their outcomes may be different.

[juicycelebrity]

YY to also writing the will for now. My scenario above means that both DH and I know how the other feels about what should happen further down the line but should one of us die, the entirety goes to the surviving spouse.

[thelmasmonkey]

little I am in a little denial about situation. I feel so guilty about whole thing that I don't want anyone to feel sad .

aprilanne second marriage syndrome sounds horrible, involving disinheriting one of my children! I came here to avoid by asking advice and fail to see how I'm doing that.

[thelmasmonkey]

I'm sad because either way puts me at risk of favouring one child over the other.