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?

Thomas has already lost his mum and this was his maternal grandparents house left to his mum then to you. You've split all other assets 3 ways between 3 DCs

Your DC2 and DC3 still have a mum who can leave them her house . She can also split her other assets three ways to all 3 DCs including her DSS

It's not up to her how you decide your will

I think what changed it all for me was the fact it wasn’t ever actually a family home.my resistance at first was slightly wondering because if it was also where your new wife moved in and you grew the two youngest there.so all thought it was your late wife’s it was now there home too.
hut since you’ve said that house has never actually had anything to do with them,there is no sentiment or memories or anything that stretches them too it.they shouldn’t even be involved.it is your sons house.
the other two would get a share of what yours now and the new home they grew up in.if that can’t be because it’s rented that is by the by.they have no involvements to the old house at all.

All this time your ex wife and the children have all benefited enormously from the house... They owe some thanks to Thomas! Logically and fairly, the house goes to Thomas, and assets acquired during the marriage should be split between the 3 children. Along with a nod to the fact the debt-free gift of a property gave a lot of comfort and freedom to your family and ex wife... I expect that advantage meant she was not obliged to work and put her own children in day care, there were more holidays and toys and less pressure... She benefited enormously from Thomas's grandparents gift. A gift to Thomas.
How might your ex wife consider Thomas's position in her own parents' will, given they do not like him and are unlikely to leave him anything? I suspect she'll be happy to exclude him.

I can't believe the hypocrisy. If you have a look through the feeds on Stepfamilies on this site. Most step-mothers will justify why their step children are not receiving anything in their will and why it is just being left to their biological children (they are not their mother).Yet the same people are trying to tell you to leave the house in equal parts to all three of your children.

You are doing the right thing.You can't guarantee that your ex-wife will leave anything to your son.Does she even see him as her son the way you see her daughter as yours? Why should your late wife's legacy benefit children she is not related to. Step mothers are often told on this site to do the best thing for their child and you are right in doing the same for yours.

Totally fair.

How has the huge advantage to the second wife been addressed? She probably never had to work thanks to the dead wife's house being there for her to live in... How much of a house that you left for an only child would you expect them to give up to children unrelated to you? When those other children have their own relatives who will leave them all their worldly goods, and nothing to Thomas... Despite them growing up in Thomas's house and having a stay at home mum nice and comfortable there.. Presumably after the divorce the ex wife has a perfectly reasonable settlement and ongoing share of husband's pension etc... None of which she is likely to share with Thomas in life and certainly not in her will. Despite her huge advantage in her married life of Thomas's house being there for her to live in. It would be a cruel travesty for Thomas to share his house with half siblings who stand to benefit from their own relatives.

I’ve not read all the replies but have read all of the OPs posts.

I completely understand the stance you are taking, however, as you have been able to live rent free since your late wife died have you built up any assets for your other two to inherit? Or have you effectively used that to create a better life for everyone? I think I would view the house and belonging to you and your ex wife. Her half goes to Thomas and your half goes wherever you choose. If you specifically want Thomas to have the house then can you adjust other assets to match and equivalent amount?

Agree with @GunsNShipsabove . If Thomas absolutely is to have the house, adjust all the other assets in a way to level up some fairness.

Otherwise on your death you chuck a massive hand grenade into their future relationships. Your other kids will spend the rest of lives questioning how much you actually loved them. I think this will happen unless the split is 100% fair.

Ideally though, I would split everything equally between the kids, house, everything. It's admirable that you're honouring dead relatives wishes, but I think it's more important to honour the feelings of your living children.

But other children have no connection to the house which was a gift from Thomas’ dead mother and grandparents.

it’s only fair it goes to him.

Both my husband and I have clauses in our wills that if we are to remarry that our half of the property/assets is ringfenced for the children in case of remarriage/further children.

id like to think 100% that my husband would protect our children’s interests but I’ve seen it go awry too many times, including in my own family.

If I was Thomas’ mother or grandparents then I would be rolling in my grave if my house went to some other children I had no connection to

I think this is a key perspective point. Just to add to it - when I die, I have a lot to leave my DS. I want DH to have lifetime security and that could include spending some if he ever had any difficulties, so it should go to him first, but if I die then I'm really not happy with the idea of it going to a.n.other random and their kids rather than to DS. I can readily imagine the perspective of a low income second wife with kids who feels jealousy that they want children to be treated "equally", but it isn't and was never DH's money, it's mine because I earned it before I met him (will just work part-time now until I retire). He has his own money that he can share out, and as I mentioned upthread a little discretion for small sums can be sensible, but my own son should have the bulk of the money that was mine.

I think you’ve done the right thing. I would have done the same thing as you in those circumstances

The grandparents left the house to their daughter and her husband. OP says they gave it to "us".

Then OP says this:
My late wife left everything to me. She did not leave anything specifically for Thomas.

So the house passed from the grandparents to the parents, and then just to the husband ie the OP.

The house now belongs to the OP. And he is going to leave it to just one of his children. It's the youngest son I feel sorry for. Presumably this is the house he has grown up in so far.

The youngest son has never lived in the house. It has been rented out.

the youngest son has no connection to the house. It would seem odd for him to inherit half a house that the grandparents intended for Thomas. The youngest son wasn’t in any way connected to thomass grandparents or Thomas’s mother. Why would he get half the home they have to their child and grandchild?

In the same way Thomas will not inherit from his half brothers other grandparents.

People aren’t reading the ops posts.
he’s already said the new wife and family never lived in Thomas house as it didn’t feel right. So actually the two younger kids have no memory’s or sentimental or other ties to the house! Op moved to a new home when he re married and rented Thomas house out. This changes things massively and really means it’s nothing at all to do with new family and kids.

I think you’ve made the right decision for Thomas and honouring the memory of your late wife and her parents. Your other two DC will surely inherit something from your ex wife’s side of the family at some point anyway?

the youngest son has no connection to the house.

Yes he does. His dad owns it.

I 100% think it's right to leave the house to Thomas. In my mind that would be his inheritance from his mother who he lost.

HOWEVER, as your ex wife, Thomas's step mother, I'd be inclined to change my own will and not leave him anything, instead leaving all of my assets to my own children as I don't think it's then fair for Thomas to inherit from his mother, you and then their mother too (your exW).

I have a fairly large estate in trust for myself. When/if that comes to me in the event of my parents death (hopefully not for a long long time), I intend to do whatever I can to ensure the property is kept sectioned off for my children. It is not for my step children, and I do want to make sure they don't inherit from my parents, my children's grandparents as harsh as that may sound (they don't have a grandparent relationship with DSC and they have their own).

It does seem like you’re giving your youngest son the short straw a bit. He doesn’t inherit from the house because it was originally owned by one half-sibling’s mother, but he doesn’t get a half of what’s left because you’ve decided to give a third to a half sibling who is not your child. He gets told “share” at every turn but the others get told “have this”.

To some extent it will depend on the size of the estate, but if that house ends up being the majority of it, your youngest son will do very poorly compared to your eldest and I think that would lead to bad feeling. Have you considered how any debts to the estate would be settled before it is distributed? Would the house be ring fenced, or would it be expected to be sold and a relevant proportion come out of it?

I think you should be really careful re your step daughter too. You've only known her 3 years (which is short really) she calls you dad, you're leaving everything equally to her and you're not even with her mother anymore. I think personally that's way too fast.

What happens if your ex decides you're not seeing her anymore? Things may be okay between you now but you could meet someone else, have more kids, have a disagreement etc.

I agree with PP above that your youngest son is drawing a short straw there. Thomas inherits a whole house whereas your youngest has to split anything he gets with his half sibling who isn't even your child and was only part of your life (so far) for 3 years.

It does seem like you’re giving your youngest son the short straw a bit. He doesn’t inherit from the house because it was originally owned by one half-sibling’s mother, but he doesn’t get a half of what’s left because you’ve decided to give a third to a half sibling who is not your child.

This. In the case of Thomas' house it is considered to matter that your younger child is not his mothers, yet when it comes to the rest of your assets, it doesn't matter at all that the SD is not yours.

A non-express trust. You will is just formalising the gift.

I do have one other comment; you're separated from the ex, so it's worth remembering that information about your private business doesn't need to be shared with her any more.

Presumably this is the house he has grown up in so far.

Don’t presume, just read OP’s posts. Only Thomas has lived in this house. He would have lived there as a young child, experienced his mother’s death there. He would have moved out when OP remarried and presumably moved back when OP and wife split. He is the only child for which this house has ever been home. The other children have no attachment to this house.

We have to make a will based on the idea we will die tomorrow! If OP dies, this house will become Thomas’s (who has now lost both his parents) home. The other children are very young and have a home with their mother. If the house is split between them, and the house is sold, Thomas will have some money, no parents and no home. There will just be money sitting in a bank till the other children are 18..

I think OP had done the right thing. If he has any other money or assets he can always be divided, to some extent, in a way that might equalise things a little.