AIBU re our wills and children?

[WhatTheWill]

I don't personally think I am but would be interested to hear as DH thinks I am.

DH has 2 children from previous relationship, we have 1 child together. I will only ever have this one child due to long issues with fertility.

We are currently sorting out wills. In my mind DHs assets should be split between his 3 children, my 2DSC and our 1DC as they are all equally his children. My assets should go to my 1DC.

DH thinks we should just split everything between the 3 children.

My reasoning for this is that our DC will only ever inherit from us. If we do things DHs way, my DSC will inherit from DH, their mother and then also me.

I do consider my DSC as part of our family however I don't really parent them other than in the sense that all children in the house are treated equally in general terms. I do care about them but their parents are very much involved in their lives and I don't ever feel the need to be a 'parent' to them. We have a very friendly and good relationship but I don't see them as 'my' children as they have a very involved mother and father if that makes sense. They were also a bit older when I met DH so I never met them as babies or small children.

AIBU in wanting all children to inherit from just their own mum and dad? I think it's the simplest and fairest way.

So for simplicity sake. If each parent has £100k of assets your child would inherit your 100k. Your two step children would inherit £50k each from both your DH and their mother. Giving each child the same amount. The other way would massively advantage your child.

I agree with your plan and wouldn't overly concern myself with how to make it happen because that's what the solicitor is for.

The only question I would have is if it's fair to split the house/assets 50:50? Assuming it is, then carry on, but there's a vast difference between ending up with one sixth of your combined estate as your DSC will do and two thirds as your DC will do. You need to make sure there won't be any ill feeling between them in future, so if one aspect like the split is being done fairly, it all needs to be done fairly.

The DSC were always going to have less inheritance when their parents chose to have more than one child. That's how it works for everyone.

If all 3 parents have 100k in assets well that's just tough, the DSCs parents have more children than OP does so any inheritance left from them was always going to be split more ways.

OPs 100k to her 1 DC.

DHs 100k split 3 ways between his 3 DC.

Exes 100k split 50/50 with her 2 DC.

Everyone splits their assets by the number of children they chose to have. If you choose to have more children, any inheritance they get from you is going to be less than if you just had the one, that's life, that's how it works.

I think your way is the right way OP, that’s how I would of done things if I stayed with my child’s father.

Should I meet someone else I will always split my share between my children unless my step children don’t have a second parent or that second parent is very poor, but I like the idea of gifting the step children something.

My best friend is a child of a second family.
Her mum decided to protect her child.
The mum was the highest earner.
The mum took out a life insurance and never told her new husband. The policy beneficiary was her DD, the DD had all the papers.
The mum died 10 years ago and the policy paid my friend 250k, her step dad had no idea about this money, he was nasty about inheritance there was a lot of savings and gave my friend 5k and nothing else, his four got children 100k each, and will get more when he dies.

In that scenario above, each step child would come out with 83k (3rd of Dad's and half of mum's). Theirs is slightly less than OPs child because their parents chose to have more children.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned previously (sorry if repeating) from what i remember if you plan to divide up property assets in a will if you own properties jointly as 'joint tenants' youll have to talk to a solicitor about severing the tenancy to hold it as shares becoming 'tenants in common'. This is because joint tenancys are seen as one unit so will pass as such in the will (automatically) to the other joint tenant and then through the instructions in their will once they die so if you die first the jointly owned property would belong fully to DH who could divide it as he decides. Tenancy in common you could have a 50/50 share and you can pass your share through your will. Assuming you dont each have propertys in your own name.

Yes defintiely think of it as 2 estates worth 50% each.

Your 50% gets left by you to who you want it to go to ie. your one DC

His 50% goes to who he wants it to go to ie. his 3 DC.

It gets complicated because if you jusat leave it to each other and trust them to do the right thing you don't necessarily know if they will.

@AnneLovesGilbert are you sure that's still the case? What reason have they given if it is?

100% your way.

Why is it fair for his children to inherit from you, their own mother, himself and potentially their mothers husband? Yet your own child would only inherit from their two parents.

I wouldn't budge on this one, my share would go to my own child. His share would be split between his three children. It's the only fair way.

I’m with you.

OP (A) has one child, X
Her DH (B) has three children, X, Y and Z
Her DH’s ex (C) has two children, Y and Z
X has two parents to inherit from, A and B
Y has two parents to inherit from, B and C
Z has two parents to inherit from, B and C

X should get 100% of A’s assets and 33% of B’s
Y should get 33% of B’s assets and 50% of C’s
X should get 33% of B’s assets and 50% of C’s

The above is perfectly equal but for OP and her husband (A & B) only having one child together, which tbh is just the luck of the draw, along with any future care costs or inequality of diminished assets.

OP, would you consider including a letter to the step DC in your will explaining the thinking and making it as clear as possible that you love them unconditionally and did it this way so everyone would inherit from their two parents?

As others have said, trust arrangements will be necessary for the property to ensure that no one (you or DH) is kicked out of their home or inadvertently disinherited due to the order of you and your DH’s deaths.

On the other side here as a step child. My step dad has one bio son and two of us step kids. If he goes first then 50% goes to my mum and the rest to us equally with the understanding that we can’t make her homeless. Same goes if my mum goes first in reverse then thirds when the other goes

'It's not their fault their dad has other children'

Jesus op, those other children are your child's siblings!!

Your share should go to your child only. No other option. Your husband share should be split between all his children, but you can't force him to do that..

Or it could be the other way round. Although not married, we consider ourselves to be in all but name (and will be within next 5 years or so).
My partner, with one son, has some commercial property inherited from his family and We jointly bought a house together.
My son will get my half of our house (with life interest for my partner) and will not get anything from my partner at all. It would not sit right with me if he did.
My stepson will get half of our house and all of the commercial property. So being ‘fair’ and splitting joint assets 50/50 would disadvantage my stepson massively and give my son something he isn’t morally entitled to.
I agree with OP.

@Rwoolley

'It's not their fault their dad has other children'

Jesus op, those other children are your child's siblings!!

Yes of course, I meant it solely in reply to the poster who suggested my husband shouldn't leave anything to our child together and only my 2 DSC. Why should our child not inherit from their father because he has other children? That isn't our child's fault.

YANBU

Your husband is forgetting that his older two children have another parent from whom they will (presumably) inherit.

Assuming all assets are joint then your suggestion means that your son with 66% of assets and they end up with 17% each. Perhaps 50% to your son and 25% to the other two balances it out slightly. It would be a compromise that would still recognise your concerns without your husband feeling that his older children had lost out.

If you or your husband have some assets that are entirely separate (eg inheritance) then this might influence things in one direction or the other. Try not to get caught up too much in who earns more / has contributed more financially, as there is more to a partnership than monetary contributions. Such mathematical calculations will be a route to marital disharmony.

I agree with your way.

I think my way is the fairest. It will cause hard feeling igpf one child is more advantaged.

@Viviennemary

I think my way is the fairest. It will cause hard feeling igpf one child is more advantaged.

But you aren't accounting for the fact that as per a pp, what if my share ends up being spent on care costs and used up and then our DC isn't accounted for in DHs will, only his older children? So our DC gets nothing from me and nothing from him?

How is that fair? He has 3 children, not 2.

DH is NC with them @RedHelenB

I think you're right. It's not about favouring your own it's about not favouring the other two. Your one child should get your 50% then your husbands 50% be split between his three children. I'd make sure that's secured if you die first aswell.

I guess this will only be applicable if you both die at the same time.

What you need to consider is what happens if your dh dies first or what happens if you do.

If your dh dies first then will it all go to you, and then how do you split it? And vice versa.

I've got a similar situation with our blended family and the % per child is different. My SS gets 20%, but he's grown up and has inherited a large sum from his grandfather, plus his Mum will leave him money. With our two dds getting 40% each. I've tied it up legally so, if I die first, he can't then change it

And I agree with curly, surely it is true for everyone that the more children your parents chose to have, the less inheritance you will receive from them.

If my brother wasn't around, I'd get more hypothetical inheritance from my parents (not that I have any idea if I will or won't!) but he is so I'd get less because I would have to share it with him. If my step father only had one child, it wouldn't be their fault that my mum and dad decided to have two children and therefore we would have to half ours but they wouldn't. I couldn't demand that my step father then make everything equal?