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?

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.

Before the divorce, you were quite happy to leave everything - including the house you inherited from you late wife - to your new wife (now ex-wife).

After your death, she could have decided to leave everything to her two children, leaving Thomas with nothing.

How foolish.

On second reading, I see that you had left the house to Thomas.

Apologies.

You have absolutely made the right decision with your will. The only question I have is whether your step-daughter, who I assume you have known for less than 5 years, really needs a third share of the remaining assets, it seems overly generous to me, but that's your decision.

Perhaps not that extreme, but yes I am in favour of much higher inheritance tax.

Everything you’ve said is totally fair, Thomas’s mother and grandparents were not your other dc family and strangers to them so there is absolutely no reason why they should inherit any of this money.

Having now read the OP's various updates, I do think it makes a difference that the two younger children never lived in the house. Given the ages of the respective children and assuming OP is hale and hearty I agree it would be a good compromise for the OP to gift the house to the oldest child in the next few years (or sell it and give him the money) that way it doesn't become an inheritance issue.

It's pretty clear that OP sees the step-daughter as his child and intends to continue to have a father-daughter relationship with her so I am surprised by the number of posts arguing he should cut her out of the will.

Agree with hollygoloudly

Yes I agree with your decision too. It's his mother's house so of course he should get it.

His half siblings will presumably get something from their mother's side of the family that Thomas won't get.

This is completely different. He is the father to all 3 children, she is the mother to 2.

He's not the father to the girl.

Presumably the other children will inherit for her, but he won't. I think your decision is not only fair, but it is probably what his mother would have expected and hoped for.

Completely agree you're doing the right thing @macadams

At this moment in time you're continuing to protect your son's only inheritance from his mother. Losing his mum at such a young age will have emotional impacts at all sorts of stages in his life - I think it's wonderful that you're removing the possibility of him feeling like he has no choice legally but to share a part of his lost mother with siblings who didn't know her.

You're also making provision for the two other children you've taken responsibility for, your step daughter who has zero legal claim on your estate and your youngest son.

Hopefully you'll live long enough to revisit this decision in years to come, with the benefit of knowing how your eldest child feels about this inheritance. That may change what you both want to do, it may not. But in the meantime you've taken the right steps to ensure your son is in a position to inherit as I'm sure his mother would have wished.

I understand why your ex-wife is defensive, but honestly it's none of her business. You were just being courteous letting her know the changes you've made.

I have half siblings whose mother died. They received money from the sale of the family house when by dad downsized, whereas we didn’t. We didn’t even question it tbh. They lost their mum ffs!

I understand your reasoning and on face of it seems “reasonable”

but I would certainly not be going down a route where my legacy to my children could be division, upset, breakdown of their sibling relationships etc. with the best will in the world most people would respond with great difficulty that their brother, who they treated as an equal, was being singled out for special treatment even if we were talking £50 . It is extraordinarily difficult to shrug that off, even if they never say it to their brothers face, it will always be there from point you die.

at the very least you need to take responsibility for dealing with this potential relationship issue now- not leave it for them to struggle with as a nasty surprise after your death. You need to get them together in a room, explain and ask them honestly to voice their concern,s disappointments or whatever. They need to air and get through any feelings of division with their eldest siblings whilst you are alive to carry the burden of the consequences of your decision. This is not your eldest sons mothers decision any more- don’t rob off responsibility to a dead woman. The estate is yours and it is entirely your decision

personally I think their are better ways to honour your sons mother and treat your children equally with mutual respect and dignity.

firstly you could leave the house to eldest, but then split your other assets to your remaining children only to redress or rebalance the difference as much as possible. You might not, depending on other assets, be able to make it equal but it sends a clear message that you feel obliged to honour eldest sons mother, but you are taking responsibility to try to even up what YOU leave in your inheritance as equally as is possible

or you could determine the probate valuation of the house when eldest mother died. If that house was ENTIRELY his mothers or her relatives, and your name was not on the deeds, then leave that sum, the probate valuation, to your eldest. Then everything else, including gains in property value since the property passed into your possession entirely on eldest sons mothers death, is shared evenly between all three children. Whilst eldest mum may have wanted the house to go to him, it was worth what it was at time. Why should just the eldest only thing benefit from property market increases on their family home belonging entirely to you - that increase has nothing to do with the deceased mother.

But even in these 2 scenarios, you have a duty to explain and sinus’s with all your children before you die. Do not leave them with any doubts or questions as to why you choose to do what you did.

But it's Thomas' grandparents house, it's nothing to do with the other children. I doubt the grandparents even knew these other kids.

It’s a hard one. I totally understand why you have done what you have though. Personally I would
contain a letter in the will for each of your children explaining the reasons, and that the other two will inherit from their mums side and hopefully will even things up.
perhaps the actual money you have to pass on can be split only between the two children with your ex wife.
I wonder if you asked your ex wife if she intends some of her money going to Thomas when she dies- likely she wouldn’t.- then point out that it’s not too disimilar then to the situation your ex wife would have been in. If she was alive your children from another marriage wouldn’t expect a share of that pot.

You are doing the right thing and being fair.

Each person can decide how they will write their own will. And if they don't like it, too bad. By that time, you are dead anyway so you won't care that they are more upset about the will than about your death.

They could have a rift anyway and how awful for Thomas to have his dead mothers assets go to a half sibling and a step sibling that he might not have anything to do with anyway?

I think that’s fair, but maybe increase the other assets for the other two but only if you want to. It’s your decision.

So eldest is your ex-wifes step child?

Is she splitting everything equally between the 3 or only her 2?

If her stuff only goes to her two then the house from his bio mother obviously goes to him and her house goes to her two.

Wills are often tricky.

This is a close call IMO. I think OP's plan is the slightly better thing to do on balance but it wouldn't be ridiculous to argue it the other way. A lot turns on just what level of additional benefit the other kids are likely to get from having an extra set of grandparents to OP's eldest.

I think it partly depends on whether you inherited a mortgage-free house or whether your PIL's 'gift' was a deposit on a house which you have continued to buy since. Your posts imply the former, so that's what I'm assuming, but if it's the latter then I think there's a stronger case for splitting it between the children. As is, absolutely right to leave the house solely to Thomas.

Options are as thus:

You leave the full house to Thomas.

You take the view that and your wife each owned a 50% stake in the house. Your son should get his mother's half and a third of your stake, so 2/3rds of the property overall. Your other two children should split the remaining 1/3rd to give them 1/6th each.

You split it equally between all three.

I think that as it's a property that's come through the maternal line that the the property should continue in that vein- it's Thomas's house. I think you should explain when the other two are old enough that it was never your house to give to them- it was his grandparents and his mothers. Even though it is in your name, you are honour bound to respect their intentions for the property.

I would split the house in half - half to your late wife and half to you. . Thomas to get a full half as the only offspring from his birth mother. Your half you then split between your three kids, Thomas included. So he’d get 4/6. If that makes sense?
that way your two other children still get some of your house, but not the bit that was from Thomas’ mum.

After reading the post this is so baffling.

So you DS is an adult, she is NOT a mother too him and only met his when he was an adult and appeared, married you and devorced you in under 3 years (I mean come on).

Your other bio son is 2 so no clue of any of this.

Your SD is 6, you have been in her life half her short life but in terms of lifespan not long at all and are not her bio father or even step father anymore (where is her bio dad?).

You leave house to oldest, split the rest between oldest and your other bio DS.

She splits her stuff between her daughter and and your bio DS together.

Anything else is unnessacerily complex - the only reason she wants the house split is because her kids 'win' more while yours loses out.

The way your going on in your OP you make it seem like you where both the full time main equal custodian parents of children for a long period (it read for example as if you had married when you DS was 3 and raised him together then gone on too have 2 bio kids who where raised at normal siblings and then devorce when you DS was a teen), but you where not, you where together less than 3 years and 1 'child' is already an adult and one isn't yours.

You have your kid, she has hers and you managed to pop one out together in that short period but she has no stake in your adult child (who she is essentially nothing too) inheritance at all.

This sounds about right to me. Your oldest DS is inheriting from his late mother, your younger children will inherit from their mother apnd all DCs will inherit equal shares of your other assets. I would just make clear why you are doing this so all DCs understand and it doesn't seem like favouritism.

I suppose an important question is who is your ex wife leaving her estate to? If she's sharing it between all your DCs including Thomas maybe you should think again. Perhaps you should ask to see a copy of her will.