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!

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?

Give over. There is a world of difference between leaving my financial assets to my child (ren) than doing any of the examples you gave.

Like it or not, all children in this scenario have 2 parents they can inherit from. It is much fairer to keep than OPs biological children losing out on their mother's estate in favour of their half sibling who will then also go on to inherit from their own mother too.

Unless there is some unusual circumstances involved i.e. mother not around leaving the SP to be a parent for majority of child's life etc ... Then it is much simpler and fairer on everyone if the inheritance is kept between the two parents leaving to their own children.

These are probably the same people who rant on MN about a step parent Doing anything For a step kid or making any parenting decision, however small. Not allowed to go to school events because they are not the parent, some even say they shouldn’t be at a wedding or graduation.

But the minute there’s money involved - oh no of course they Should be treated at 100% the legal parent.

So he’s being expected to favour two of his children over the third if he lives longest.

Another argument in favour of putting the first estate into a trust. The trust is divided between that parent's children.

Then it is clear who divided their estate by two, and who by three.

It also removed the possibility that the inheritance is used up in care home fees or any other subsequent families.

It also frequently incurs unnecessary inheritance tax.

Because your dad never took responsibility for them, but their dad took responsibility for you

And can we stop with this 'you took on X Y or Z when you married him' nonsense.

You do not 'take on' responsibility for step children, especially not in any legal sense. You do not obtain parental responsibility for said children simply by marrying their other parent.

@ALLIS0N

These are probably the same people who rant on MN about a step parent Doing anything For a step kid or making any parenting decision, however small. Not allowed to go to school events because they are not the parent, some even say they shouldn’t be at a wedding or graduation.

But the minute there’s money involved - oh no of course they Should be treated at 100% the legal parent.

Yes, it's a joke. Step parent posters are frequently reminded on here that they aren't the child's mother, aren't their parent, should back off etc etc.

Oh but obviously when it comes to your money you 'took on responsibility' and should hand it over.

This is nothing to do with daily treatment of step children, allowing them to have friends for sleepovers or reading them bed time stories. You can be a perfectly nice step parent but still wish to protect your own child's financial future considering your step child's mother is likely going to do the same for them. As I say, fair simpler and fairer (in most circs) to just keep inheritance between your own kids, each having two parents, not three.

I agree with how you are doing it.

Obviously as others have said you do need legal advice but if you trust your partner I feel it’s a decent thing to do.

I paid the deposit on our house years ago and been paying the mortgage 20 years. I want my daughter to inherit. If I die and he remarrys then dies I don’t want my hard earned money going to wife number 2 and worse still...any children she may have! They’re nothing to do me. So legal advice essential.

I think you are favouring your biological children.

I expect SS favours his biological mother too. This is to be expected.

When one spouse dies, the money left is now theirs to do what they wish with.

So it's really no longer your money and if the surviving spouse chooses to give it to the RSPCA... that will happen.

If I want to be sure my DC receive my assets, then I would make it theirs upon my death.

All this talk about trust is incredibly naive. Trust gets broken all the time...on marriage you take a vow of fidelity and that gets broken very easily....for those who actually find out.

When trust is regularly broken in life... why would it not be in death when you have no chance of finding out.

Many posters have spoken about their experiences if Dad getting married again and new wife is the beneficiary...I bet they trusted that she would carry out their wishes.

One may say they will never marry again...but loneliness and the desire to be loved after their loss often take over and you never know until it happens.

In some countries when one parent dies half their combined money/assets goes straight to their children and the married partner of the deceased gets 50%.

@OverTheRainbow88

When you said split 50/50 I thought you meant 50% gets split between yours kids and SS gets 50%.

Or can’t you split it 1/3- so all 3 kids get the same I.e 100k?

Why on earth would they split 50% between two kids and give the other 50%? The one who will also inherit from another parent?

I know nothing about wills or legal matters but in this case I would really get it looked over by someone decent!

My thoughts on the split are a bit confused though. Whilst I get why you are doing what you are doing I also feel a bit like your Stepson is being left out. I have two DC, different dads. We rent so the only thing we have to nominate currently is our pensions, which to be honest aren’t worth a lot. However, one of my children stands to inherit a fair whack in time because their dads family are very well off and they are a small family. My other DCs dads family are not at all well off and there are lots of them So they won’t be set to inherit very little, if anything. A family member of my DC from the richer side has died recently and whilst I don’t yet know what my DC will receive I estimate that it will be substantial. The DC is currently very young so will be squirrelled away for when they are older.

So because of this I feel that I have a duty to nominate my DC with the poorer family for any death benefits and also to save what little I have available for only them. But then is that fair? What if something happens in the future that significantly changes what I expect to happen? In the event of my death one of my DCs would currently be financially absolutely fine. The other I’m not so sure about.

It’s all very complicated and I hope you manage to get your situation sorted fairly for everyone.

Theoretically, if I were step-mother to a child whose own mother had died (and had no expectation of a large inheritance from grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.), and I'd raised the child from a young age, it would feel wrong to make a distinction between my own children and my step-child.

But in this case, it's only fair to protect your biological children's interests, since SC has a living mother from whom he'll inherit. He's already provided for, in part. He should receive a fair share of his father's estate, but not an equal share of his step-mother's.

It's the fairest arrangement, based on the information presented.

You need to go and see. A solicitor and have Life Interest Trusts incorporated into your Wills for your respective shares of your estates.

Your half can go between your 2 children and hubs half can go between his 3 children. If either of you alter your Will after your spouse has died then it only applies to the half share you own not the share that comes from your deceased spouses estate.

Source: am a Wills and Probate lawyer

I once had a Dp whose grandmother remarried late in life. He had no children. She died and he did one of those mortgages where you take the money now and the house goes to the insurance company. ( not what the grandmother wanted for her grandchildren ) I am sure she trusted him at the time but I would always make sure I had left affairs in a way which is protected in as far is possible the way you would like to leave them. It doesn't mean to say you don't trust your partner / DH but just a sensible precaution for circumstances you can't see at the time

@LeSquigh

I know nothing about wills or legal matters but in this case I would really get it looked over by someone decent!

My thoughts on the split are a bit confused though. Whilst I get why you are doing what you are doing I also feel a bit like your Stepson is being left out. I have two DC, different dads. We rent so the only thing we have to nominate currently is our pensions, which to be honest aren’t worth a lot. However, one of my children stands to inherit a fair whack in time because their dads family are very well off and they are a small family. My other DCs dads family are not at all well off and there are lots of them So they won’t be set to inherit very little, if anything. A family member of my DC from the richer side has died recently and whilst I don’t yet know what my DC will receive I estimate that it will be substantial. The DC is currently very young so will be squirrelled away for when they are older.

So because of this I feel that I have a duty to nominate my DC with the poorer family for any death benefits and also to save what little I have available for only them. But then is that fair? What if something happens in the future that significantly changes what I expect to happen? In the event of my death one of my DCs would currently be financially absolutely fine. The other I’m not so sure about.

It’s all very complicated and I hope you manage to get your situation sorted fairly for everyone.

if i were you I would leave more to your other DC but include a letter with your will explaining why. Give something precious and sentimental to both equally I.e. a ring. I personally do not believe in equal division where one child is more in need than the other as it makes no sense to leave a child struggling to make another already rich child richer. If it is explained properly hopefully they will understand x

I should say I would keep this under review though and be prepared to change my will as other DC's family could win the lottery or something!

@OddlyWod

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?

Give over. There is a world of difference between leaving my financial assets to my child (ren) than doing any of the examples you gave.

Like it or not, all children in this scenario have 2 parents they can inherit from. It is much fairer to keep than OPs biological children losing out on their mother's estate in favour of their half sibling who will then also go on to inherit from their own mother too.

Unless there is some unusual circumstances involved i.e. mother not around leaving the SP to be a parent for majority of child's life etc ... Then it is much simpler and fairer on everyone if the inheritance is kept between the two parents leaving to their own children.

absolutely this

It’s just unfortunate the children have no choice in regards to half siblings, step siblings and step parents and the politics involved. The rights and wrongs are irrelevant when the actions cause a lifetime of low self esteem. One of my closest friends believed her step mother cared for her the way she cared for her biological children. After her dad died she remained close, it was never about money, she helped her step siblings and step mum as she was very successful but when she found about her step mums will it destroyed all relationships even with her siblings as it was a constant reminder they were siblings she was nothing more than an half.

It's not unfortunate. All the children in this scenario have the same amount of parents to inherit from, 2.

Dad splits 3 ways.

The two mother's split between their own bio children.

Fair. Everyone inherits from 2 parents. Rather than one inheriting from 3.

I think most people have agreed that some circumstances would change that. But this situation, from what OP has described is entirely fair and not unfortunate on the step child at all.

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

Yes, by deliberately favouring your oldest child on the basis that the younger children's mum left them all of her inheritance, despite not taking into account the same being true of the older children.

There's not really any getting around the fact that this is an illogical favouring of one of your own children over the others, which none of the other parents involved will have done.

In effect you want your half split 50% to each child of yours and his as a third to each of his children. Personally however I would split it evenly. It's not about what they get from others it's about what comes from you guys. My eldest son is not my dps but if I died first the kids get 50/50 not 25/75. Doesn't matter my eldest may or may not inherit from his absent father. We are a family so will treat them the same.

@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!

Bear in mind that if you go first, your DH can do whatever he wants with your half...

Sounds fair to me

You need proper advice. There are questions you haven't asked yourself because you are (a)relying on nothing changing and (b) the mutual trust which exists between you and your dh. The scenarios you'll probably need to think about:- for starters
Divorce
Remarriage
More children/ existing children's futures partners & (grand) children
Giving one another a life interest in the others estate & preserving assets for the children
Making provision for DSS in the event that he doesn't inherit and even if he does, making sure there's some written explanation of his lesser share in appropriate & loving terms.

Plan for the worst and you won't get caught out.

A child youve partly raised in your house with their half sibling is not the same as a sibling or a nice/nephew. This is so spurious.

It’s not in the least bit spurious - and you’re either being naive or deliberately obtuse if you think it is. The night my niece was born, I waited up with my mother all night for news. I held her when she was hours old. I see my personality in her more and more. If I married a man with children, I might well learn to love them, but not in the same way as someone who is part of me - and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.