To ask for your opinions on “blended” family wills proposal?

[Catatatan]

DH has 1 child from previous marriage, and together we have two young kiddos.
Previously rented but have just bought own house as joint tenants, mortgaged. Both have life insurance policies to cover the mortgage and a bit more.
Making wills and I want to avoid issues such as stepson being left out should DH die first, and want to ensure my children benefit from me but don’t want stepson to inherit from “my” half (because he has a mother he will inherit from iyswim).
So my proposal is that the everything is passed from either spouse to the other spouse, and then on their death, the estate is split 50/50 - first half split in equal shares between the children DH and I share and then the second half is split in equal shares between the children DH has in total (so our two plus his firstborn).

E.g. dh goes first and then I pass away. Estate is £300,000 after all deductions (hypothetical!)
£150k of estate (my half) is split in equal shares to my two children (that I had with DH) So £75k each.
150k (his half) is split in equal shares to DH children (£50k each)
Which means stepson has £50k but his two half siblings have £125,000 each... which might seem unfair but stepson will also inherit from his mother who has a house of higher value and no other children. I don’t see why stepson should benefit from three adults but our kids only benefit from two.

This seems the fairest way to me - would like to know if others in similar scenarios have done things differently!

@Giespeace

But since the OP asked, as s stepchild I don't think her plan is fair as it will cause needless hurt to her stepson Why would you be hurt by not getting what you never expected nor felt entitled to get? You just said that expectation was the key so if nobody expects anything from people who are not their mother or father and everyone is treated the same as any other children their mother or father may have then there’s no reason at all for anyone to feel aggrieved?

Agree with this. I spoke to my stepdaughter about this and my logic so she knew why I was taking the steps I was. She agreed and knows she is loved. She has only ever lived with us as an adult and as a child saw us regularly but didnt live locally. She has a mother and a step dad who she did live with and who she will solely inherit from. My child is much much younger and only has the chance to inherit from us plus will have longer without any parent in her life. It is a properly considered thing and not at all because I dont love my stepchild. I am not financially responsible for her though. I have nonetheless supported her when my husband has been short, fed and clothed her, given her a car, a roof when she needed it, given her money when needed, and spent a great deal more of my time to help her than her parents have combined. She doesnt need to inherit from me to know she is loved

I think you are favouring your biological children.

He should get equal to your biological kids, what he gets from mum and her family is irrelevant

@VeniceQueen2004
Clearly it’s a very soft spot for you and I totally understand it if it and down to splitting out coppers and 50p pieces to make a point and it was a person who genuinely raised you as their own from a young age in the absence of your other parent.
I won’t be taking tens of thousands of pounds which were saved for me by my late grandparents since I was born and added to by my own hard work and talking from my DS future and handing half of them to DSD when I die. I would, however split a tenner right down the middle.

The thing is if you die first OP i doubt your DH is going to feel comfortable upon his death his children getting such differing amounts. What if he ends up working for 10 years post your death and ends up putting in a lot more into the pot foe example, then 50% is not 'your money'.

If his first child mother dies and doesnt leave anything to him would he be comfortable with one of his children having a lot less?

I just wouldnt be happy if I was your DH providing differently for my 3 children. It just feels inherently wrong. I understand where you are coming from but there are so many scenarios where your dSS could end up losing out, and if I was your DH i would feel very uncomfortable allowing that to happen. If you divide equally you know you have done your bit to support them all equally

Of course DSSs mum could die tomorrow leaving him millions, I dont know the scenario and therefore at that point you might change your will to the situation you have described.

@VeniceQueen2004

I agree with you that it is the fairest way for the first blended family we have. We all either get the same or nothing. In our situation I actually feel for my first step siblings (the ones we are all blended with). Any potential inheritance they would have had has now been passed to my dad (as the last surviving parent out of our original four parents) and is likely now going to go to his new wife and her family. Someone that my original step mum ( not that we ever called her that she was just mum to us all) would have hated. And probably didn’t think would ever happen.

And whilst I agree with you that you should never rely on inheritance, it’s not your money to expect, it will be frustrating to watch step sibling set number 2 walk away with money from a family they had nothing to do with. Assuming SM goes first.

Assuming dad goes first not SM

@DishRanAwayWithTheSpoon

The thing is if you die first OP i doubt your DH is going to feel comfortable upon his death his children getting such differing amounts. What if he ends up working for 10 years post your death and ends up putting in a lot more into the pot foe example, then 50% is not 'your money'.

If his first child mother dies and doesnt leave anything to him would he be comfortable with one of his children having a lot less?

I just wouldnt be happy if I was your DH providing differently for my 3 children. It just feels inherently wrong. I understand where you are coming from but there are so many scenarios where your dSS could end up losing out, and if I was your DH i would feel very uncomfortable allowing that to happen. If you divide equally you know you have done your bit to support them all equally

Of course DSSs mum could die tomorrow leaving him millions, I dont know the scenario and therefore at that point you might change your will to the situation you have described.

And this is why he could decide to change his will and rightly. If upon death 50% good into a trust though it is 50% at that time which is much fairer

Its a difficult, someone is always unhappy. For me my dads new family and children have the most idyllic life and they think its normal that they aren't spoilt. My inheritance from my single mum will be 0. My half siblings who have been given everything cars/lessons/rent paid at uni etc. The split with my me and siblings is 45/45/10. Guess who gets 10, least I know now!

I just hate all of this, when blended families work they are great but for many children they are just visitors in someone else’s family home and sometimes that both homes. Why is this shit never sorted before bringing more children into the mix. I am at the age those around me are getting inheritance, fall outs are never about how much but the way wills are split. Sometimes the first time a person gets to see just how much or how little they matter.

@Boulshired

I just hate all of this, when blended families work they are great but for many children they are just visitors in someone else’s family home and sometimes that both homes. Why is this shit never sorted before bringing more children into the mix. I am at the age those around me are getting inheritance, fall outs are never about how much but the way wills are split. Sometimes the first time a person gets to see just how much or how little they matter.

I am definitely a visitor, they aren’t unkind I’m definitely not part of the gang.

Yup, Giespace, that's clear. And you are clearly not conflicted. Just don't kid yourself your SC will not be hurt. It's entirely your decision and no-one can take it from you.

I don’t know if she will be hurt or not. She knows I’m not her mum, she knows she’s not my daughter, she knows her mum and dad would do anything for her and hopefully that’s enough for her not to expect my money as well as her own mothers and to not be hurt when everything that’s mine goes to my own child.*
*i’ve already made sure she will not be left with nothing under any circumstances by sharing it all with DH, which I didn’t have to do and my solicitor advised me against

I just wouldn't be happy if I was your DH providing differently for my 3 children. It just feels inherently wrong. I understand where you are coming from but there are so many circumstances where your dSS could end up losing out, and if i was your dh I would feel very uncomfortable allowing that to happen. If you divide equally you know you have done your bit to support them all equally

That's because you're looking at it with the bizarre attitude that a lot of spouses and grown up children on here apparently have that the inheritance has been purely provided by the spouse who happens to live longest. If the step parent worked prior to their death so the money in the pot was for arguments sake fairly equal, then all the money that was earned up until that point has not solely come from the spouse who died last and subsequently allowed the money to be released. The inheritance is not just his, it is his and his late wife's.

And like it or not, she and any other step parent does not owe their step child "their bit", or to provide for them equally to their own children. It isn't their moral responsibility to do so. There's something decidedly disrespectful towards your wife of however many decades to, following their death and against their wishes, deceitfully take the money they set aside for their children, in order to give more to your own, as though that money was all yours. I do not understand the righteous indignation of some posters presenting that as a morally acceptable course of action.

@Giespeace oh come off it. That had nothing to do with "making sure she wasn't left with nothing" and everything to do with securing and keeping the partner you wanted. Don't try and make out it was an act of charitable kindness towards his child.

money they set aside for their children, in order to give more to your own, as though that money was all yours

In this instance all the children are the husband’s. So he’s being expected to favour two of his children over the third if he lives longest.

Do peopl really think that if you choose a partnrr with young children, and either bring your own kids or add kids, that there is no obligation to treat those children equally? No-one is saying you have to love them the same, but surely within that family unit they should be treated the same? Is it only inheritance where this partiality can be shown, or is it ok for the step parent to, go example, allow their own children to have friends over but not the SC? Is it ok for them to decorate their children's bedrooms but not the SCs? Read their children bedtime stories but not the SCs? Send their children to clubs and activities but not the SCs?

Basically, is it legit to take a partner, and live in the same house as them, but act as if their children are nothing to do with you?

@VeniceQueen2004
Lol well obviously, because without DH she would just be another one of the billion or so children on this planet who are not mine. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
But I still didn’t have to set things out as I did. As PPs have pointed out, even with the best of intentions it’s easy for step children to fall foul of the laws of inheritance because the law doesn’t recognise the relationship. The way I have arranged things now means that in any event she will inherit from her father because i have already signed it over to him. Everything else is mine to dispose of as I wish, as you kindly pointed out.
I’m not bringing her up, she’s not my responsibility. As I said it’s very different from the scenario you describe.

In this instance all the children are the husband’s. So he’s being expected to favour two of his children over the third if he lives longest.

No he isn't. Did you read anything I wrote? He's being expected to favour all of the children equally out of his share of what was earned up until his wife's death. And to respect his wife's wishes for where her share should go, rather than assume it's all his to do with as he wishes after she's dead.

Is it ok for them to decorate their children's bedrooms but not the SCs? Read their children bedtime stories but not the SCs? Send their children to clubs and activities but not the SCs?
To address your questions... When I got pregnant with DS I put my house on the market within weeks to make sure DSD would still have her own bedroom, which was the very first room we had decorated to her specifications when we moved in. DH does the bedtime stories because he’s her dad and its nice time for them to spend together. Her mother decides what clubs she goes to and it’s me that does the ferrying around when she’s with us.
I take charge of special treats at Christmas time (she’s already excited to see what Advent calendar I make her this year), we craft together, spend time chatting etc.

It’s not “either you give her half your money or she practically doesn’t exist to you”.

*Do peopl really think that if you choose a partnrr with young children, and either bring your own kids or add kids, that there is no obligation to treat those children equally? No-one is saying you have to love them the same, but surely within that family unit they should be treated the same? Is it only inheritance where this partiality can be shown, or is it ok for the step parent to, go example, allow their own children to have friends over but not the SC? Is it ok for them to decorate their children's bedrooms but not the SCs? Read their children bedtime stories but not the SCs? Send their children to clubs and activities but not the SCs?

Basically, is it legit to take a partner, and live in the same house as them, but act as if their children are nothing to do with you?*

It is not as black and white as acting like you the child is your own, and acting like they are nothing to do with you. There is a middle ground. None of my partner's family would be treated as though they are nothing to me and I would read bedtime stories and allow playdates with any child in my care, but I wouldn't leave them all my worldly possessions when I die.

@aSofaNearYou

In this instance all the children are the husband’s. So he’s being expected to favour two of his children over the third if he lives longest.

No he isn't. Did you read anything I wrote? He's being expected to favour all of the children equally out of his share of what was earned up until his wife's death. And to respect his wife's wishes for where her share should go, rather than assume it's all his to do with as he wishes after she's dead.

I disagree. If I were him I’d redress the balance from my 50%.

@VinylDetective that would be fairer than claiming your dead spouses share as your own, which is just plain disrespectful to their memory. But you would be fundamentally missing the point that you would then be the only parent in the mix not splitting your money equally between your own children.

You’d be the parent ensuring the three of them got equal amounts.

Doesn’t matter whether stepson will inherit from his mother. He has three adults involved in his life. Your dc have two. That’s how it is

OPs husband has 3 kids, she has 2. That's how it is 🤷‍♀️ The more kids one of your parents have, the less money (if any) you stand to inherit from them, that is life.

Your way is absolutely fair OP. Just be aware of the various issues that others have stated and discuss with a solicitor.

I’m another voice saying do not leave anything to trust, tie it all down legally. Leave your money to your kids when you die.

And yes it’s fine and completely normal for your children and your step son to inherit from their own parents. I agree it would be unfair for DSS to inherit from 3 people.

Please don’t leave it to your husband to decide. I have a family member who screwed over his own kids and took their inheritance from their late mum. And another who persuaded their senile father to change his will to disinherit her own sister.

That’s just in my own family and most people I know have a similar story. Many people have no scruples about money.

Remember It’s easy to write a will imagining that you won’t die until you are 95 and your widow /er won’t Want to remarry. But sadly you could die next week and it’s unreasonable to think that they will Spend The rest of their life alone.

As Pp have said, almost all men who are widowed re marry very quickly, especially if they have dependent children. I’m in my 50s and in fact I only know one man who DIDNT remarry within a Few years. Several remarried in a matter of months ( I have to say to the great distress of their adult children ) .