AIBU for only leaving my son the house?

[macadams]

Since my ex wife and I recently got divorced I changed my will to leaving equal shares of my assets (aside from the house) to my three children instead of all to my ex. The only thing I hadn't changed in the will was to leave the house solely to my eldest son, Thomas.

After I had everything finalized I ended up sending the updated will to my ex so she could keep it for her records. She was quite upset when she read it. She says that it is unfair and that all my assets, including the house, should be split equally between all three kids in the event of my death.

My reasoning for only leaving Thomas the house is because he is actually the son I had with my late wife. The house was from her parents. Being that Thomas is the only one of my children that was also their grandchild I feel it is only right that he inherit the house.

My ex wife knew about the history of the house, but had mistakenly assumed all these years that all three children would get an equal stake in the property. I had actually told her to look through the previous will when we first got married, but apparently she only glanced at it. Obviously there was a lack of proper communication, but we cant change the past. So here we are.

Am I being unreasonable here? or is my ex wife?

If you’re married and your home is jointly owned, can you even leave your half directly to your child? I don’t think so. I think your half would pass automatically to your spouse unless you were tenants in common.

Hopefully the OP has made sure the house is entirely in his own name.

I think your MIL (your first wife's mum) would be justifiably angry if you left the house she and her husband gave you, ultimately intending it for Thomas, to another woman's children.

The house should very clearly be left to him only.

Agreed. But it’s likely that Thomas’s mum couldn’t have left the family home to Thomas when she died.

So it’s not true that her wishes have already been fulfilled and should now be disregarded.

Did your second wife bring thomas up or was he practically grown by the time she came into his life?

If she did then the 4/6th to thomas 1/3 to each sibling model might be fair. Otherwise the house should go to thomas 100%.

Surely the property was dealt with in the divorce though.

Practically grown, she never lived in the house. One of the children is not biologically related to Thomas or OP at all, the marriage only lasted 3 years…..

I think the ex-wife was very out of line to guilt OO about this. OP seems generous, thoughtful, and loving to all children including the non-bio child he has accepted as his own.

rhomas is more than a decade older than these children. I can’t wrap my head around some of the opinions, which is what makes mumsnet fun actually.

He actually did not. Middle child is not his, but if being receiving 1/3 of OPs asserts because OP seems like a truly loving and generous man.

iP was married for 3 years though. Non-bio child is no relation at all to Thomas and ywt an asset from Thomas grandparents, through his dead mother, should be shared 3 ways? No way

*He actually did not. Middle child is not his, but if being receiving 1/3 of OPs asserts because OP seems like a truly loving and generous man.

iP was married for 3 years though. Non-bio child is no relation at all to Thomas and ywt an asset from Thomas grandparents, through his dead mother, should be shared 3 ways? No way*

Yes, I missed a couple of updates when I made my comment, including the fact that one of the children isn't his and that his ex wife never lived in the house or contributed to it. Those things do change my opinion a bit, and they also make the situation really complicated and messy.

I do still think it's a bit much to leave the whole house to one of his children and, as a result, significantly less to his other biological child. It doesn't seem right, unless I suppose he never contributed to the house making it his wife's rather than his. It seems uneven, I would probably be looking at selling the house, so that I could leave deceased wife's portion of it to Thomas and split OPs between his biological children. But I don't know if he ever put money into that house, perhaps he was just in a position where he was living in a house that was entirely his wife's.

The step child element of it is another complication. Personally I wouldn't expect to be giving inheritance to a child whose life I was only in for three years, I'd be astonished if ex wife genuinely did that for Thomas. It's OPs choice if that's the route he actually wants to go down I suppose, but his youngest son is coming out quite short changed in all of this.

i also missed the update, and think what you are doing is ok, although I would leave more to your own children than a 3year long step child.

I was all ready to say YABU because I really am a split everything equally kind of a person but in your circumstances I think you're right. Is your ex wife planning on leaving Thomas an equally share of her assets or just her own 2 children because it's the same thing, that house is from his mother in reality

Your plans for the house are fine but giving your ex a copy of your will was ill-advised. Why on earth did you do that?

Why is it unfair? The other DC aren't his late wife's children.

@KosherDill I was told it would be better so there wouldn’t be any surprises after I died.

With your updates, and the fact that you were only together for a few years, then absolutely Thomas should get the house.

I think you're generous to split your assets with your step daughter considering how few years you were together.

Ok it's the youngest son being left out that I find odd. The girl who has been step daughter for 3 years, well it depends on how the relationship continues now you are divorced from her mother.

Basically the house will be yours by the time you die, and you will be leaving it to one of your children. That's just not on, I think.

It's still inheritance from the oldest childs family though so I think he's right. I don't think he should be splitting the rest equally with the step daughter though, it seems like he's treating his second son as bottom of the pile

The first child has a dead mum and dead grandparents, who can only access his inheritance from them if his father remembers to pass it on. The second and third child have a living mother and her family, as well as their father, who they will inherit from. Now you think fairness equals taking away the first son's inheritance from his own dead mum and her family, meaning he grows up without a mum AND inherits less than his siblings due to them being given their brother's inheritance as well as their own.

Are you the ex?

The step daughter is a different story altogether. If OP has adopted her, then she is now his child. Alternatively, if her father and his family are entirely uninvolved but OP has taken on parental responsibility and takes her with his son throughout their childhood to continue raising her. In either of those situations she has every right to still be treated equally in the will. If there is actually a father on the scene, or if OP isn't continuing to act as a parent, then a smaller % of the estate would be fairer to the older and younger sons.

The OP has already said he didn't adopt his stepdaughter and that her dad is not involved.

He has also said that his son Thomas's maternal grandmother is alive. (People keep assuming his maternal grandparents are both dead.)

Are you the ex?

Don't be ridiculous.

As pps have pointed out, the people who have gone before have gone. The house was left to the OP, not to the son. It's now his house. The wife left it to her husband. She didn't leave it to Tom. And now it's his and he has more than one child.

By not dividing everything equally you could quite easily be creating a rift between your children. Family and those relationships should be held above all other things and creating possible rifts between siblings should be avoided at all costs. Split equally.

Didnt see updates have changed my mind, but would try to split equally between two biological children.

It's obviously really complicated and you are trying to do the right thing by everyone @macadams. I kind of feel for your younger son though as it sort of feels like he has been demoted to match your step-daughter's position instead of being elevated to position of the elder biological son.

I thought this too. I think @macadams should give the house to his eldest son (it is rightly his). His assets should be divided between both of his biological sons. He shouldn’t give equal amounts to his youngest son and former step Dd considering he has only known the step Dd for 3 years and has already divorced her mum.