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.

Not suspicion, just wondered how it came up. Do you think SIL will stick by that? Of course, it is so vague it is open to interpretation.

HeyHo According to OP, the man was already married so technically SIL isn't legally married and is a spinster.

HeyHo According to OP, the man was already married so technically SIL isn't legally married and is a spinster.

Talk to her then go see a solicitor.

How can you claim to have had a good relationship with the in laws if you can call them all such awful names over money?

If SIL has voluntarily revealed to OP that MIL requested her to help the DC then presumably that is what she intends to do - otherwise she'd just keep schtum.

The natural thing to do would be to leave 50% for the DC in trust until adultho , but I can see why a normal person might be a bit alienated by the idea of setting up a trust and prefer to skip the formalities by simply leaving the DSIL in charge of it all. Unfortunately this leaves the OP having to make nice to a woman she despises

You lost me at Spinster...

It's extremely unfair, OP. YANBU.

And I'm gobsmacked people can't see the basic unfairness because of OP's descriptions of SIL, etc. None of that is even remotely relevant.

I have enough experience in the probate field to know that if the OP has nothing more to tell us she has no claim and no responsible solicitor will advise her to contest the will. A will can be foolish, unkind, hurtful and still be lawful and valid; and the is a perfect example.

When you've calmed down and resumed contact with your SIL could you ask if she'd consider putting some money in trust or aside for your DC to help pay for university costs in the future?

We are leaving everything to our daughters. It is up to the parents if they wish to give money to their children. I know the daughter with children intends to give her children money towards a deposit/mortgage. My other daughter hasn't been able to have children. Whereas my son in law's family have been annoyed by their mother leaving money to grandchildren as some have more children than others. That's why it seems best to leave money to sons or daughters. Then they have the decision at the time.

OP, I feel for you. I can't understand why they wouldn't want to leave anything to grandkids.

My will leaves everything to my sisters' children. My partner's leaves everything to his siblings' children.

I would have expected your in laws to think about the struggles you will have as a widow with young children. Did they ever contribute when they were alive? They sound thoughtless.

Yanbu, the fair way to do it would be half to their daughter, quarter to your first dc, quarter to your second dc.
As someone said upthread this wouldn't happen in Scotland.

I always think the "intestate" laws are a good start for fairness - as they have been set up without knowledge of the particular parties involved. Had the in laws died without a will then half the money would be left to the Op's children with the (presumably) 19 year old getting her share immediately and the (presumably) 10 year old having her share put in trust. I think the Op might have been able to use the 10 year olds money to support her if necessary.

My parents have done a similar thing with their will. If I pre-decease them then the money will go to the kids with my brother and my husband as the trustees. The reason it is the two of them is that they didn't want it to just be my brother as they were uncomfortable about the idea of Dh having to go "Cap in hand" to DB if he needed money for the kids. (What if he wanted to pay for private education and Db is morally opposed to private education.) But they also wanted Db to retain enough control that he could stop Dh from (say) blowing all the money in Vegas. (Dh has no gambling tendencies.)

This has been discussed by all of us so we all know what to expect and why my parents have done what they have.

In my view this is the most important thing with wills - people should discuss them and explain their reasoning before they die so there are no nasty shocks.

I think everyone is saying that it is usual to leave money to son/ daughters but not grandchildren are missing the point a bit.

It is about whwn the son or daughter dies early should their share pass down the to next generation.

Happy if one of your daughters died (god forbid) would you miss out thie children?

Fwiw my father died when I was very young and would have been very sad if we were excluded.

Grandchildren who still have parents are in a different situation, I think.

happydays

But what if one of your children pre deceases you? (Say the one with kids.) Will you leave all the money to the surviving child or give the deceased share to their kids?

Why are you being so bitter and feeling more entitled because she has no children? She left it to her only living child, get over it!

I agree it is 'unfair' but it was up to your MIL what she left - unfortunately some people are spiteful - I am aware my own MIL will be settling some scores when she pops her clogs and expects my DH and BIL to act as executors.

I have seen people wait on legacies that never happen and of course it is disappointing. My own Mum helped an elderly friend for years, incurring high costs and was promised a substantial legacy but didn't get much - a couple of thousand quid I think.

You appear to have no legal claim. All you can do is perhaps ask SIL for a lump sum to perhaps go towards Uni or housing costs for your DC.

Sunshine What you said. Yes - in the normal scheme of things parents leave to children who then leave to their children and so on.

It is when the "not normal" happens and a child pre-deceases their parents that we are talking about. What the grandparents are saying is "you don't have a dad so you are no longer part of the family".

Some people just don't get it.

If MIL lived in England "fairness" does not come into it. Or to put it another way: the wishes of the testatrix are regarded as fair because they are her wishes.

Mumof. I agree.

And for wills it is never just about the money, it is the message it conveys.

OP it is awful and thoughtless.

I'm not surprised you are furious OP, I would be too. If your husband were still alive then presumably he would have got half to pass onto his children - very unfair. People can do very strange things with wills though. My husband was very close to an aunt up until about 6 months before her death when a distant cousin came on the scene and ended up inheriting everything. Something definitely fishy went on!

Andrew True but sheer human decency says that the testarix should (ideally) have a conversation with their family before they die or at least leave a letter explaining why so the family don't wonder.

FWIW I encouraged my parents to change their will to leave a greater share to my brother as it was appropriate for a specific reason. But we all discussed this and it felt right. Had I just discovered this on their death (they are expected to live another 30 years!) then I may have wondered what it meant about my relationship with them.

YANBU Even if they didnt have a relationship with you but they still saw their GC then they should have left your DH's half to your children in trust IMHO.

If I was in your situation I would expect inheritance from my in laws (although i wouldn't be upset if it was left to my DC), but we do have a very good relationship - we see them every week and go on holiday together etc.