To feel utterly enraged that my children & myself have not been mentioned in my in-laws will

[ThespianTendencies]

OK, bit of background. Was married for 18 years, husband was a controlling, bullying (functioning) alcoholic. WE had two children - he died 7 yrs ago as a result of a stupor during which he fell and sustained a fatal head injury leaving me with our two children - then aged 3 and 12. Our life was far from idyllic - in fact at times it was hell on earth and I got little or no support from his family as they were in denial. All through the awful trauma and grief of his death I maintained contact and have done up until both of their deaths; my Mother in law died in March this year. I made sure we always visited - my children had a lovely relationship with them both, as did I - albeit at a distance as they lived some miles away and it was often difficult with school and such like to get to see them. When dh died I moved home with my children to be near my family. My FIL visited us twice and my MIL never, she is afraid of motorways and fast driving. I made sure we visited when we could and called every 1-2 weeks. They had a daughter, my sis in law. She ran away with their married neighbour causing chaos, she got married abroad without inviting them. She never had children and was prone to shutting herself off form them (her parents) when she felt the need. it transpires that she is the only named beneficiary in the will and was verbally told by her Mum to 'help us out' now and then. I am so fuming and upset about this. I cannot believe that they would not name us - well my children in particular. They lost their Dad, their Grandad (both Grandads actually) and their Nana and now they have not even been left with a single penny other than that my SIL chooses to give us!!! AIBU??? I never remarried, never traumatised the children further than they already had been. I maintained contact wth the in-laws, for all the right reasons and they (and me) have been totally omitted.

I'd be really really cross too. Yes your children have had a tough hand. But perhaps your in-laws knew your children would be well supported in life - they have you, they have each other and perhaps other family too. Maybe your sister in law concerned them more, if she only had herself and no partner, children or siblings.

Like I say I'd also be furious but presuming it wasn't millions leaving a house and some money to get by on to your last child sort of makes some short-sighted sense.

It would have been nice for them to leave their grandchildren something to put away but in reality they owe you nothing.

It's not your money and house
It's not even your kids money and house
It was theirs to do with what they wished
Yabu. Let it go.

I would be unhappy and angry, too, OP, if my inlaws omitted THEIR grandchildren because their father (THEIR SON) had pre-deceased them. Presumably their father would have inherited half of their estate had he not died, and he in turn would have left it to them via you. That's pretty rubbish.

I'm very sorry.

Spinster?

I thought she ran off and got married? even though the groom was already married ... but that's by-the-by

Your in laws are not responsible for your poor choice of husband, even if he was their son. They owe you nothing. You seem to view this as some pay off for him being an abusive alcoholic and having the temerity to die.

So was he insured?

Crazy sausage dog lady doesn't have the same ring to it as crazy cat lady. Disappointing.

YABVU to be 'utterly enraged'. No one has an automatic claim on anyone else's money.
Personally I'd have left 50% in trust for your two children but they haven't done anything overly outrageous in leaving the inheritance to their one surviving child.

Why are you beholden to your sis inlaw? Was she bank rolling you before? If not, surely all this means is your life carries on as before
Yes it's probably annoying that she has no responsibilities and has a big house and lots of cash, whilst you are a struggling widow with two young children but that's just life. It's not your parents that died is it?

You're not beholden to your SIL. This isn't money that you've earned. It's not your money!

They left their estate to their offspring. That's perfectly normal.

Your children had a distant relationship with their grandparents, and it's nice that they had. But that doesn't mean they should be named as beneficiaries. I think that's a really odd way to look at things.

And you certainly shouldn't! You're an ex-DIL.

I am with OP.

It is horrible that the GPs didn't want to leave anything to their grandchildren, who are their blood relatives and who's mum has done a lot to keep a relationship.

Normally you would think "hey, let's leave the grandchildren the share we would have given to DS and put it in trust". Or even "let's leave £5k for each grand child to have on their -8th birthday". Or whatever.

It would have been reasonable to leave half to the daughter, with the other half going to the son's children in equal shares.

But there is really nothing you can do about it.

Ooh, yes, how does a married woman, married to someone already married, then become a spinster?

0/10.

I would also be very hurt and would take advice on challenging the will on behalf of your dc. I'm assuming your late husband would have inherited had he survived.

Utterly enraged? Really?

I wouldn't expect to be in my inlaws will, why would you be your not their child!

It might of been nice to leave the grandchildren something but it's their money so they can do whatever the hell they like it's it.

Sil is the child mil gave birth too. You are not.

Nice calling sil a spinster, do people even use the word spinster these days?

Presumably your children will inherit from you (and the provision you and dh made before he died). Your in laws left their estate to their surviving child. I can't see anything out of the ordinary in this.

Its disappointing for you OP but you are being unreasonable. It's up to them who they left their money to.

the pursestrings?

Nice.

OP Life's been rough on you, that's obvious, but nobody is under an obligation to disinherit one blood rellie, in whole or in part, for the benefit of another blood rellie, let alone for a non-rellie. In your MIL's shoes I might have left half the money to your DCs at 18 or 21 but you would probably still be unhappy about it. And if I suspected you would teach your DC your attitudes to people - a spinster with sausage dogs ffs - I might have done what she did.

Perhaps that's why she did it, but in any event it was up to ehr and you need to get over yourself.

Your children should have been left their fathers share.

If your SIL has no children of her own maybe it will be yours who end up benefiting from everything via her Will in the end

I agree with the op, I think the children should have inherited their dads share.

YABU. I hear sausage dogs are very expensive to keep.

I'm with you op!
Your in laws had 2 kids so the estate should have been divided in 2, 1 half to their daughter and the other split in 2 for your 2 kids! That is how I would have left my will if I'd been in their shoes!

You clearly don't live in Scotland OP.

A grandchild has rights on the estate if a grandparent has been predeceased by a child.

Ah well, never mind.

I'm with you Thespian, I'd be livid too. I think its a fair assumption that had your husband not died they would have left him a share, if not a half of their estate. If SIL is the only named beneficiary that would suggest that they changed their will after his death otherwise there would normally be a caviat that his share would be left to your children.
My only sibling is a terrible drug addict but I would never have thought that had he died, my parents would have left his share to me and left his children high and dry.