Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

It's an inheritance one, who is right here?

679 replies

anotherinheritanceq · 27/01/2022 21:14

This one is more about what's morally right than legalities iyswim, hence why I'm posting here.

So someone I know has assets over half a million, not sure on figure but I know she owns her big house outright and has money in the bank etc. She has children from previous marriage, and she is engaged to her partner who also has children. He can't work and doesn't have any assets, he's on disability benefits. Obviously when marrying what's hers is his, fair enough.

However they've been talking about things including wills, and basically it's come up that if she were to die first (and naturally he would inherit the whole lot), once he dies he would pass everything including the house onto his children and not a penny for his wife's children. Of course she says that's not fair that her children would get nothing if she happens to die first, all her children grew up in that home etc. He argues that everyone puts their own children first and it'll be the only opportunity of giving anything to his children because of his disability/not being able to work.

Who is being unreasonable? What's the done thing in these situations?

I know she is now on about writing a will to leave something to her kids but obviously she can't leave her partner homeless and penniless!

OP posts:
Lovelydovey · 28/01/2022 00:33

Run. He’s shown her that he is a taker and only concerned about his flesh and blood.

If not, get a good solicitor to help draft a watertight will and consider a pre-nup too given the unequal assets.

ScrollingLeaves · 28/01/2022 00:35

“Pat123dev

She can give him living rights, and when he dies it goes to her children kind of thing“

This does not always work in practice. Be very wary. I know a family whose stepmother sold everything after their father died, moved on, remarried, and that was the end of this arrangement for the dead father’s children. There was nothing they could do.

AcrossthePond55 · 28/01/2022 00:46

[quote anotherinheritanceq]@UniversalAunt okay, I didn't know that about marriage unless a pre-nup was involved which I thought was an American thing, but PPs earlier in the thread said you can absolutely have a pre-nup.

Honestly I am not happy about the situation and don't understand why she feels the need to marry this man. She married my dad and clearly that didn't work out for her so she knows it doesn't guarantee a lifetime together, I don't understand what she can get out of a marriage that she can't get out of simply cohabiting. I just feel like, if you can only get married if you have pre-nups and complicated wills etc to protect your assets, then what is even the point? Obviously if she is going to marry him she needs to sort this stuff out though and I'd rather her do that than nothing at all while still marrying him.[/quote]
Is it possible that he's pressuring or coercing her? You know "If you really loved me you'd marry me" or "Well, if you don't marry me I see no future". It just doesn't make sense to me otherwise. She's not 'ancient' or religious so I assume it's not an old fashioned or moral issue re 'living in sin'. She certainly doesn't 'need' security, she has her own. The only thing I can see is that she's afraid to lose him and so allowing herself to be coerced.

I suggested it up thread, I'll suggest it again. You and she need to see a solicitor so she can fully understand the implications of giving this man a legal footing in her life and her assets.

I0NA · 28/01/2022 00:47

@StillWalking

She most definitely should not be mating this man, but (if she does decide to proceed) she needs to see a good legal advisor to ensure her children benefit from her estate.
This. And also to protect herself in case the marriage doesn’t work out.
ifIwerenotanandroid · 28/01/2022 01:06

I'd be wary if he started saying he'd make sure her children were taken care of. That happened in my family, 70 years ago: widowed mother married a grifter who, when she was dying, told her NOT to leave her money to her young adult children as he'd take care of them financially. So she left it all to him & he kept it all for himself. They tried & failed to contest the will.

DaveGahansRealWife · 28/01/2022 01:14

Obviously when marrying what's hers is his, fair enough No that's not legally or morally true.

basically it's come up that if she were to die first (and naturally he would inherit the whole lot) ditto

DaveGahansRealWife · 28/01/2022 01:15

They are mostly upheld by courts.

ThumbWitchesAbroad · 28/01/2022 01:17

I would think that her reason for marrying him is that he is pressuring her to do so, in order to have a claim on her assets. He may even have applied emotional blackmail, e.g. "if you don't marry then this isn't a real relationship and why should I stay in it?" or similar.

I don't think you'd have to dig too far to see that this is coming from him rather than her.

Original poster
anotherinheritanceq · 28/01/2022 01:33

@DaveGahansRealWife

Obviously when marrying what's hers is his, fair enough No that's not legally or morally true.

basically it's come up that if she were to die first (and naturally he would inherit the whole lot) ditto

I've already explained up thread that I was under the impression that a) by marrying you automatically share assets (and that is essentially the point of marriage), and b) that if you don't have a will your spouse inherits everything. I realise now it is not as clear cut.

I am not saying that what I thought was the case is morally correct because I don't even agree with the idea of marriage as an institution to begin with and will never be getting married. But that's irrelevant here.

OP posts:
TheTeenageYears · 28/01/2022 01:36

If she still gets married having had that conversation she is absolutely putting this man above her DC. I hope her DC never have to find out that she willingly did that when she didn't need to. She could not get married and give him a lifetime interest in the property which provides him with a home for life but protects her DC's inheritance.

WindowWanker · 28/01/2022 01:37

My sister has married a man but intends to leave her assets to her children. She was told that she can leave everything to her children, but she cannot make him effectively homeless if she dies first.

WindowWanker · 28/01/2022 01:39

So I think this means that smelt her she gives him to right to stay in her house until he dies and then the kids inherit, or she has to leave him an amount which would allow him to house himself.

WindowWanker · 28/01/2022 01:39

Smelt her = either !!!

PrincessNutella · 28/01/2022 01:59

Can't she make a trust that fences off some of her money?

ArcheryAnnie · 28/01/2022 02:17

He's a disgrace. If she must marry him, she should leave the house for him to enjoy in his lifetime, but revert to her children after.

Cimone · 28/01/2022 02:31

If she marries that broke, selfish, narcissistic degenerate, she is the biggest fool on two legs.

If you can get her ear, suggest that she set up a trust for her children and put all her assets in said trust. BEFORE she gets married. Though to marry this idiot, makes her one too. How could any woman be that desperate to be married that she sets her sights on a man who told her to her face that he doesn't care about her children at all.

KTheGrey · 28/01/2022 03:35

Seems pretty telling that he thinks it'll be the only chance of his leaving his children anything because of his disability. It contains both the belief that everybody owes him ( and by extension his kids) and that stealing from others is justified. Also the argument that it is natural and therefore justified seems like a non-argument to me.
Research the best solicitors to deal with both protecting assets taken into marriage and writing a water tight Will. He sounds like he is candidly on the make, and I doubt that indicates a harmonious marriage to follow.

HappiestHippo123 · 28/01/2022 06:14

Run. Thankfully he showed his hand prior to marriage

GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER · 28/01/2022 06:49

If she does marry him, and feels pressured into making a will in his favour, then as per my pp she should make a later one, on the quiet, which would render the former invalid.

But, she should add something to state that in case of disputes, she is making this will because she was coerced into making a former one in her husband’s favour.

That should make it watertight. She should preferably do it via a solicitor, and then make sure her children have a copy.

gumball37 · 28/01/2022 06:59

Well... I say leave everything to her kids. He's obviously closer to his own so would have no problem moving in with one of them if she died first.

cptartapp · 28/01/2022 07:04

So now he's shown his true colours there's no way I'd marry. Leave him a token amount in the Will.
She now knows whatever he tells her he'll do with any monies if she dies first is highly unlikely to be the truth.
Kind of shot himself in the foot really?

BobHadBitchTits · 28/01/2022 07:07

I've nothing to add of any use, but I honestly can't believe your mum would still marry this man. It just screams of him only being after her for her assets.

Send her a link to an article on Helen Bailey.

BorsetshireBanality · 28/01/2022 07:07

Cancel the wedding and run for the hills.

He has shown his true colours!

AbsentmindedWoman · 28/01/2022 07:12

That's outrageous and she shouldn't marry someone who is so utterly contemptuous of her children Sad

In fact, the whole relationship is basically over, isn't it? There's no point just marking time with someone who cares so little for your kids - he really doesn't give a shit about their future wellbeing.

Ugh.

Hawkins001 · 28/01/2022 07:15

@anotherinheritanceq

This one is more about what's morally right than legalities iyswim, hence why I'm posting here.

So someone I know has assets over half a million, not sure on figure but I know she owns her big house outright and has money in the bank etc. She has children from previous marriage, and she is engaged to her partner who also has children. He can't work and doesn't have any assets, he's on disability benefits. Obviously when marrying what's hers is his, fair enough.

However they've been talking about things including wills, and basically it's come up that if she were to die first (and naturally he would inherit the whole lot), once he dies he would pass everything including the house onto his children and not a penny for his wife's children. Of course she says that's not fair that her children would get nothing if she happens to die first, all her children grew up in that home etc. He argues that everyone puts their own children first and it'll be the only opportunity of giving anything to his children because of his disability/not being able to work.

Who is being unreasonable? What's the done thing in these situations?

I know she is now on about writing a will to leave something to her kids but obviously she can't leave her partner homeless and penniless!

As far as I'm aware of you leave x person a token amount then it cannot be challenged because they was left something, I could be wrong.