Step mother gifting half brother his ‘birth right’ inheritance

[Undertherainbow00]

I just need somewhere to vent - I’m sure I will be shot down for being unreasonable but maybe someone will see my point of view or will enable me to view this through a different lens…
Family history in brief - step mother has been in my life since just before I turned five (I’m now 43) and she and my father began dating. My parents marriage broke down because of his alcoholism but being the 80’s, the judge decided he could still have my sister and I every other weekend. As a side note, step mother was eight years younger than my father and was approaching her 21st birthday when they got together. She too had a problem with alcohol but they masked their problems to the wider outside world… Her parents were not happy that she was dating an older man who was divorced with two children. However, as time went by, her parents (mainly her mother) warmed to my sister and I. When I was fourteen, my father and step mother had their child, a son. I should add that at this point neither of them drank but my father still had his uncontrollable temper that was often directed at me. She actively encouraged his discipline methods but would also be there to comfort me through my tears.
I fell pregnant at sixteen and to my astonishment both my father and step mother were supportive of my choice to keep the pregnancy. However, it could been seen as fulfilling a prophecy of their making… Problem child, pregnant at sixteen. I would just like to add, any problems I had were directed at myself - eating disorder, self harm and suicide attempts.
I completely got my life together once I was pregnant - worked and set up a home on my own.
That was all many moons ago now and since then I have made an attempt to improve my life chances. I returned to education as an adult and I have a career. However, at the ripe old age of forty three - I have never owned or have been in a position to save a deposit for a house.
Step mother engineered hers and my father’s will like this - their house split 50/50 her share to my half brother and my father’s 50 % share split three ways between all three siblings. Fair?
Anyway, her parents died several years back and left her a significant inheritance. She bought her two siblings out of the parents house as she didn’t want to sell it at that point. Today she has told me that she is selling it as my half brother is very anxious about approaching thirty without owning his own property. She is gifting him the entire proceeds of the house sale - a minimum of £500,000. I just sat there listening to her monologue of how much of his income is wasted in rent - I really can’t relate can I?
She waffled on that it was his birth right as they were his grandparents.
I feel SO angry as their property was bought from the sale of my parents house - so by that logic, my sister and I should have a greater share of their house.
My step mother has always spouted that she loves us all the same but words and actions are completely at odds with the reality of what our lives have been.
I feel bitter that I have forgiven them for their appalling behaviour when I was a child and I have never shared my experiences with my half brother. I have stood back and watched him have everything in life that I didn’t but this has really rocked me and I feel terrible for feeling like this. I am jealous that he will have a home of his own as I fear I never will.
I apologise for this ramble but if you got to the end - thank you! It was cathartic to just get it out of my head!

I also agree the split is fair. Harking back to things that happened 40 years ago with your parents marriage/ divorce is not really conducive.

She already explained the OP's grandparents gave her parent's the deposit. If you understand anything about the 80s you will know that an abusive husband wouldn't find it too hard to drive his wife and children out of the house, then keep the home, wait for the prices to rise and sell for a large profit.

as wrong as it may have been, it was 40 years ago and the situation had nothing to do with the stepmother. She’s now been married to the father for decades, so any assets that he bought into the marriage are now half hers.

If OP thinks she should get more because of what happened in a 40 year old divorce, she needs to take it up with her father.

Yes, I don't think you can expect a sense of obligation from anyone except blood relatives really. I do think OP may find her father, now older, may want to repair his relationship with her a little if OP explains her sense of hurt and injustice. Nobody wants to die feeling they are at odds with their children, I suppose, or leave their children at odds with each other either.

My memory of the 80s is that women usually got to stay in the house on divorce until the children grew up and then it would be sold and divided between the two. Because OP’s mother left the house it would have been sold immediately on divorce but she would still have got half of any equity, not nothing and no less than the father. She also got a council house which she would have been able to buy at a massively reduced price after a few years.

I have seen a similar situation to this. Mother leaves house with children due to situation being unbearable in the home. Stays with relatives, then eventually rehoused. Father refuses divorce. Mother has no option but to prove a 5 year separation. After 5 years living separately, she is granted divorce. Father stays in house as it is his home and has been paying a small mortgage, and needs extra bedrooms for child visits. Mother deemed to have a house. After many years and prices having gone up hugely, father sells house refusing to give any to mother. Mother does not have the time and money to take it through courts and is uncertain of winning, so father takes the whole amount. Interestingly, in the 80s women were usually awarded less than men in divorce settlements anyway and it took a while for that to change. They found it harder to get mortgages, and were even asked to provide a male guarantor throughout the 70s.

Completely agree with @QuirkyTurtle - nobody is ENTITLED to anything - the obsession with inheritance is mindboggling.

As a parent and a step parent, it sounds fair to me. It's up to them how they decide to split the money but it's a complex subject. I'll be in a similar position and for that reason, it won't be discussed until after I die!

I think you are confusing the 1980s with the 1960s. It wasn't hard for women to get a mortgage in the 80s. OP hasn't said anything about her mother being forced to wait five years for divorce. It sounds her father moved on pretty quickly.

You anger is valid, but directed at the wrong place. It shouldn't be at your step mum for the inheritance, it should be at your dad for screwing over your mum and not protecting your interests.

The dad isn't leaving his children different amounts. He owns a 50% share of his home and we are told he will leave his 50% share split equally between his three children. The brother is only getting more because he is also an only child on his mothers side so gets her full share.

It is for situations like this that makes me want to change my ownership to tenants in common and leave my 50% of my house now to my children (in case my DH remarried after I die and worse, has more children) or means I will never re-marry if we split or DH dies. I want our two children to get as close to the 50% of my estate as possible without leaving DH in financial difficulty if I die early.

@dianthus101 if you are interested then have a look at women/divorce and property rights history. Silk law have a brief but interesting history. Sexism was very much alive in the 80s. @waitingpatientlyforspring yes, you are right dad isn't leaving more, but he is well aware his daughter will receive less than his son. I most certainly would not remarry, protecting my children's future will always come first.

I was an adult in the 80s so I know what it was like. I didn't have a mortgage at that time but some of my female friends did. It wasn't like the 60s in that regard.

@gotthis I don't know if you are female (assuming you are) but I do think from experience, females tend to be more ferocious in making sure their own children are protected than men seem to be. When I have discussed this sort of subject with my husband he doesn't feel as strongly as me - and all the examples of previous family/children missing out, it is usually the men's first children who either don't get anything (as husband remarried, leaves everything to wife, he passes first and new wife leaves everything to her children), or in this example, new children end up with a bigger slice of the pie.

Ok, that's anecdotally interesting. Were your friends single parents, and what was their child care situation? Were they in council housing with violent ex partners? Not meaning to be rude, genuinely asking. I grew up in a single parent household in the 80s, extremely tough. The 90s could have been better. I am quoting from Silk Laws pages regarding discrimination against single mothers and their difficulty getting mortgages. We may know of different stories, but I suppose there were also broad trends.

@waitingpatientlyforspring it does seem that women are more determined to provide for their children. I think it may be part of our mothering instinct. If a man has a new partner he tends to put her and her desires first, above children from a previous relationship. I think women don't tend to do that. I would certainly safeguard what you intend for your children now.

I knew some single mothers by the late 80s. They didn't have mortgages but getting a council house was much easier than today and after a few years they would have had the right to buy at a very discounted rate if they had a job.

My mum was a single parent in the 70s and 80s. She had a mortgage on a house purchased after she left my father. And unstable employment while my sister and I were young as there was little childcare available. She'd did not have a male guarantor but had been able to leave with enough for the deposit (but it was a bit of a golden time for house buying as prices were relatively a lot cheaper compared to working class wages).

I also recall benefits would cover the interest on mortgage payments in lieu of covering rent (this changed part way through the 80s). So temporary unemployment didn't jeopardise your housing situation so badly.

I think I understand your point OP. It seems like what's your father's is half your step mum's and what's your step mum's is all hers. That's unfair. If there's one pot and half of that goes to your step mum then brother and your dad's half is split three ways that's fair. If your step mum gets to protect her own pot from you all but considers the rest of the family pot half hers that's not fair. They can do what they like but it's not fair and I understand why you are hurt.

I'm not sure of your logic. I think you are confusing the Will with what the stepmother is doing at the moment. The stepmother isn't dead. She is effectively giving the money she inherited from her parents straight to their grandchild. It's nothing to do with the Will. She's only in her 50s.

When she/the father die the marital assets (i.e not just the father’s money) at that point will be split 50/50.

It’s not unfair if the people whose money it actually is, have no issue with dividing it that way. Even if half rightfully is her father’s, it’s still not OP’s. She has no claim or entitlement to it.

YANBU. Your father exploited your mother and he and his wife are still living with the financial benefits of this exploitation. doesn't matter if it's ten or 29 years ago.The least they could do is split it three ways equally. Did your father go on to support your mother so that she could earn a nest to save for her children for their future? Probably not by the sounds of it. Houses in London were expensive for many by the 80's and already unaffordable to many. Ask your dad and his wife for money to help you buy a house and explain your predicament

I am amazed at the amount of double standards on this thread. 1st of all why should the family home be the op and stepmother's ''joint asset'' if he brought it into the marriage through a divorce. Yet the massive inheritance the stepmum receives years later is ''solely hers''.

If the stepmom never bought the house with her money and I'm assuming the op's df brought it into the marriage throught his divorce settlement then it should solely be his if her inheritance is solely hers.

YANBU op and I also don't think the stepmum would receive anywhere near the support she has on here if the genders were reversed.

I'm not sure of your logic. I think you are confusing the Will with what the stepmother is doing at the moment. The stepmother isn't dead. She is effectively giving the money she inherited from her parents straight to their grandchild. It's nothing to do with the Will. She's only in her 50s.
When she/the father die the marital assets (i.e not just the father’s money) at that point will be split 50/50

no there is no confusion here- that poster is correct. The stepmom is keeping her inheritance as solely hers but sees the family home she contributed nothing towards as a joint asset. That's not fair.

I think I understand your point OP. It seems like what's your father's is half your step mum's and what's your step mum's is all hers. That's unfair. If there's one pot and half of that goes to your step mum then brother and your dad's half is split three ways that's fair. If your step mum gets to protect her own pot from you all but considers the rest of the family pot half hers that's not fair. They can do what they like but it's not fair and I understand why you are hurt

This is it nailed perfectly and many posters are either deliberately or accidentally not seeing that.

But yes, if it's never been a marital asset in any way shape or form I don't understand getting upset about it either, even in a hypothetical way

it is as she is married to the husband so legally he gets a share of it, that's the way marriage works legally.