It's an inheritance one

[Pupdate292]

I'll just type out the scenario and leave it to the vote, I'm a relative to someone in the family and I'm kind of stuck in the middle of it all. Just looking for an outsiders perspective.

So the man has 2 daughters from his first marriage. He re marries a divorcee who has a 2 year old son. His girls are around 8 years old at this point. They all have a happy upbringing, the man is close to his girls and also treats his step son as his own. His 2nd wife does the same with her step daughters.

Fast forward to today. The daughters are both happily married to very wealthy men, want for nothing. The son is also happily married, not as wealthy but has a mortgage on his own home, is in a good job, enjoys holidays abroad etc.

The man has sadly died and left nothing in his will to his daughters. It's all been left to his 2nd wife and son.

Yanbu- that's wrong, he should have left something to the daughters even though they are now very wealthy

Yabu-the daughters don't need the money, he was right to leave everything to his 2nd wife and her son as their need is greater.

It's normal to leave everything to partner and then for partner to leave to children. Did he specifically say after wife dues son was to receive it or has she decided that? Really it's her choice if it's been left to her but can understand why his daughters are hurt as they will feel rejected.

I'm sorry that your dad isn't taking an interest in you or your family, but I laughed out loud at the phrase 'I'm from a first litter'

He could have set up a life interest in the home for his 2nd wife until her death or relationship situation changed. Then the estate be divided and distributed evenly.

the wealth or the perceived wealth of the daughters is no one's business. Equally that could very easily change for them too at any given track, and if they felt happy to do so, could also have given back their share.

I feel nobody should be allowed post on an inheritance thread unless they tick a box saying they’ve read and understood this post! The sense of entitlement and belief that they have a right to dictate what others do with their money is staggering.

Er, the OP asked? What does ‘an outsider’ think is fair?

But it doesn’t matter what outsiders think is fair. The deceased had a legal right to do what he wanted with his estate. Opinions about what is ‘morally right’ are irrelevant, and the fact there are so many opinions about what exactly is morally right, each one imbued with righteous indignation and assurance, just shows how irrelevant they are. The legal position is the one that’s relevant here. And if people knew and understood that, there would be no need for the endless inheritance threads here.

I was amazed when my step-mum died that neither my dad or step-mum bothered to make a will (my dad had one before he married her).

My dad had four children (not all full siblings) and my step mum had two. The other parent of all the children died young (when my step/half siblings were children), and they had no children together.

When my step-mum died all the money in her personal account was split between her two children and the rest of the estate went to my dad. When he died we calculated their worth at the time of my step-mum's death, added interest, and split it in two (one half split between her two children and the other half split between us four). The money my dad saved after her death (lived well within his means on pension) was split between the four of us only.

That's what we considered to be fair - all made easier as it was modest sums of money involved.

What happened to the first wife? If the father was a widower when he remarried, what assets actually are a result of his first marriage? For example, many people have mortgage insurance, so if they die, the mortgage is paid off. In that situation, the second wife and her son have zero right to inherit the home, imo, since it was paid off via their mother’s passing.

Same can be said if father started a business, investments, etc with his first wife that continued with the second; his daughters deserved to inherit part, since it was also their mother’s legacy as well.

That the stepson was specifically included, while the daughters were left out is wrong, imo. That’s a step beyond ‘surviving spouse inherits’

Instead, it seems that the daughters are punished for marrying men with more money than their stepbrother.

So he didn’t leave anything for his own flesh and blood and left it to someone else’s child. What a horrible man.

How very judgy. You know nothing of their personal circs, apart from that which the OP has shared
Revolting comment

But the OP didn't ask what the legal position is. They asked what was fair. So actually it's the legal position that's completely irrelevant in this case. And also in most threads like this, where the OP is only looking for people's opinions and often a bit of support and understanding.

Saying that people can leave their money to who they like is, in most cases, just stating the bleeding obvious.

There are all kinds of reasons why an inheritance can be expected that have nothing to do with the actual money. Sometimes it's to make up for past abuse (at least we got something from this person who otherwise treated me so badly). Or because people were finally hoping for some kind of equal treatment after being overlooked in the past. So it feels like a final fuck you if you're left out. Anyway the point is that the OPs in this situation have every right to discuss it, and someone's view that people can do whatever they like is a statement of fact, but not a judgement of fairness or rightness.

Saying that people can leave their money to who they like is, in most cases, just stating the bleeding obvious

Well yes, it would be nice to think the legally correct position is ‘the bleeding obvious’ and doesn’t need to be stated but a quick perusal of any inheritance thread shows that many are blissfully ignorant of it or else think it can be discounted for the ‘morally right’ course of action, conveniently forgetting that the ‘morally right’ thing is very very subjective. So the bleeding obvious needs to be stated, and people need to understand it. Perhaps if more people understood it, there would be less entitlement and consequent hurt over what testators choose to do with their assets.

I’ve just re-read the OP. I had misread initially and thought the son was a child of the father and his 2nd marriage. But no the son is a stepson.

so that is even more unfair and cruelly thoughtless of the father to disinherit his daughters. And doubly immoral and greedy on the part of the 2nd wife to not use her own will to correct her husband’s cruelty.

I don’t think it’s cruel at all. My stepfather left everything to my Mum and it will go to me and my siblings eventually.

Because his own children were already well provided for and more importantly acted like utter shits to their own father, who was a kind and lovely man.

Your opinion is hardly a disinterested one @Rainbeauxcat as your stepfather and mother have behaved exactly the same way as the OP’s family. Your father has disinherited his actual children.

And I really don’t think children of a second family should comment on the dynamics of the first family. You have no idea what behaviour went on or what sort of a father he really was to his older children.

Regarding him disinheriting his own flesh and blood, perhaps let's hope some of the SAHM and women who are not fully financially independent of their DPs will be beneficiaries of their DP's wills and estates even though they might not be those DP's flesh and blood.

Your spouse isn't the same as your child.

Saying that people can leave their money to who they like is, in most cases, just stating the bleeding obvious

If it's so bleeding obvious, why do we have so many threads about it and why do inheritances cause so much trouble?

@GoodThinkingMax

Yes I do. I saw it through the 40 odd years I knew them all. He was in his first marriage for 10 years (his ex had affairs and later remarried twice) and married to my Mum for 35. He let his ex have everything - house etc and started again.

He was nothing but kind and supportive to his kids and to me and my siblings and later our children. We were there to support him through serious illness while his own kids did not give a fuck.

The difference was he told his kids that they could have any heirlooms etc in advance (which they took) but the will would exclude them.

Surely husbands and wives leave everything to each other. Then on the second death things should be passed equally to children of the marriage.

Just because this relates to non biological relationships there shouldn't be an assumption that the husband or wife misses out and kids get their inheritance early

Why should it be divided equally? My mother had nothing to leave so not really an issue but my siblings moved abroad and made alot of money, I stayed local and then she lived with me for 10 years. If she'd had anything to leave would it have been wrong to leave more to me, the one who was there for her?

His thoughts and motives should have been explained by him at the time of making the will to the daughters. I'm sure hearing an explanation from their father for his reasoning would have been easily understood. The decision was logical but does not make it easy for them being left nothing, I.e. does he care about us less? Now the whole sibling dynamic will be affected.

Because most people thing they are entitled to somethingvwhen their relarive dies, and therefore become very taxed and opinionated about others' inheritence issues. Indeed, they are often banking on it 'not for myself of course, but for my DCs..'
So yes, it is fucking obvious that one can leave ones money to whomesoever one pleases, but in the joyful knowledge that if one of the relatives doesn't get anything, they will post it here and everyone will tell them how unfair it is and how morrally indefensible those in the family who did get stuff are for not sharing.

I think the DSM should consider splitting her will so that 50% goes to her son and the other 50% is split somehow between all 3 of the children. You can’t guarantee that a parent will have some money to leave to you but if there is money there that is somehow not coming to you I can see exactly how it would make the DDs feel. I think the DHs money should have just gone to his DW, it’s the mention now that the DSS gets some that’s quite inflammatory, the DM could just have helped him out quietly.

Whilst I can understand why you would feel that way, I think it would hurt any siblings very much. The division of inheritance is the final act in someone's life, to leave different amounts to your children without explanation and conversations with all kids prior to death is a bad idea.

People often feel that it is an indication that the parent loved them less.

It causes conflict between the siblings as those receiving less feel it is unfair and those receiving more feel it is fair and righteous. Often those relationships never recover.

Yes people can choose to leave what they want to to who they want to. But if you love your kids then you need to think about the impact on them in doing it in an unfair way.