Who's being unreasonable regarding Will

[Freshpinkroses]

Name changed as this could be outing and I'd rather avoid extra tension while trying to figure out what's fair.

So, bit of a background: my husband is 18 years older than me (54) and he has just one older sibling which is brother (66), his brother has 6 children. My husband barely knows his brothers kids and he sees his brother very infrequently (about once every 5 years or so on average).

I'm 36, we have a 4 year old daughter and I'm currently pregnant and due to give birth in September. I have 2 sisters and 2 brothers who my husband and I see every single week, so we're really close (we did have a little fallout this year but everything is good now). Also my sisters each have one child.

The reason for the background is that my husband and I need to write a will, we haven't got one and since we're about to have another child we just feel it's really irresponsible that we don't have this stuff sorted out. We agreed on everything in the Will in the event of either of our deaths as in who we'd make the children's guardian and who would be the trustees etc. What we can't agree on is in the event us and our children died, who our estate would be left to. Even though my husband is older than me, we each bring an almost equal amount to the table (he brings about 20% more than me right now but my earnings are increasing each year so this will level off). The total value of estate is about £3m. He believes most of this should go to his brother and his brothers children??? I can't understand his logic for this and it's really infuriating me as he said himself he wants my sister to be our children's guardian if we were to die, yet he'd want to give his brother almost everything if us and our children were to pass. I personally believe our estate should be divided equally amongst all our brothers and sisters at very least and I'm even willing to flex and let him give his brother 20% more than my siblings. What are your thoughts on this?

YABU- his brother should get majority (roughly 80%)
YANBU - it should be divided close to equally amongst all of the siblings

I welcome any other ideas/thoughts on this.

Thank you in advance!!

You could also go 50 50. And his brother gets 50% and your siblings 50%

That may feel fairer to him?

Chances of this happening surely are slim.

What's his reasoning for his brother getting most of it?

I'd say leave your 50% to your family and he can leave his 50% to who he likes. Or split equally between the siblings but that does favour your side given numbers.

Of this £3m, how was it funded? Mainly him? Jointly?

@Jaigh I already specified how it was funded.

Would a place to start be looking at the default that would happen if you both died intestate?

The vast majority of your estate should go to however is going to raise your children. Obviously.

@Enko and @LittleOwl153 sorry I should have stated that his brothers children and my sisters children would be included in the divide of the estate so my husbands side would be getting more than 50% of the entire estate anyway.

Sorry - failed to read your OP. Please ignore!

In the event that you and your immediate family all die, I would split 50/50. 50% to your husband’s brother and 50% shared between your 4 siblings. It’s such a remote possibility, it’s really not worth spending much time thinking about.

The OP is talking about what would happen if the parents and the children died.

@PriOn1 the question is in relation to if we all were to due (me, husband and our children so no survivors) who do we leave our estate to and how is it divided.

It's not worth arguing about because the chances of you both and your children all dying is so slim.

However dividing the whole estate 50% to your siblings and their offspring and 50% to his is fairest. As there are more kids on his side I might go 45:55.

However be aware that if your primary instruction is that in the event of your death he gets everything, then he will be at liberty to re-write his will after your death and do whatever he likes.

Don't leave anything to the siblings. Leave it all to your children, surely. And put it in trust, so the guardian can't blow the money before the children are 21. But also ensure the guardian has sufficient to actually raise the children in your absence.

I know, I’m sorry, a complete brain fart from me there! As you were! 😋

Can he articulate why he thinks this? Seems bizarre to me.

Yes, this. This is what I meant to say. I was too hasty and didn't clarify. @Changethetoner is spot on.

do talk your your lawyer and get this written carefully. there have been cases where A and B are married and have wills saying that (1) each give all property to the other or if the other is dead, then (2) each gives property to own sibling.

the problem was, if there was a car crash where A dies and then B dies 2 days later in hospital, item (1) of the will kicks in first (B inherits), then when B dies, B's sibling gets everything and A's sibling gets nothing. I think there are ways for lawyers to write a will to avoid that, but do talk to them.

You say you can't understand his logic, but you haven't told us what it is.

Has a chunk of your wealth has come from inheritance from his parents?

Is his brother significantly less wealthy than your siblings?

In the event that both me and DH and the DCs all die in an unlikely catastrophic tragic event, our Estate goes to charity.

Oh I misunderstood at first and thought why wouldn’t you leave it all to your own kids!

In your current situation I say 50% to his side, 50% to yours.

To save any stress or arguments, leave it all to me.

@trippily he actually doesn't have a decent argument other than he'd like for his brother to have a good retirement If we were all to die. My argument is that his brother is 30 years older than me so there's a very strong chance he wouldn't outlive us and our children which means almost all of our money would be going to his brothers children (who I have never met!!), when my family are all hard working and much younger and could do with that extra income to really change their lives, not just piss it away having a fun retirement. I just feel so strongly about doing it equally.

The usual thing would be to leave it 50:50 to each side of the family, surely? So 50% to his brother (and/or descendants) and 50% to your siblings (and/or descendants). What's his reasoning behind the 80%? It seems very odd.

Also, you might want to look at what happens if one of you dies, and presumably leaves the remainder of the estate to your spouse. If you and the children were to die, what's to stop him re-writing his will and leaving it all to his brother then?

It's all very unlikely, as it will most probably all eventually be left to your children. But if you are looking at all eventualities, then you need to think about this.

It’s such an odd position for him to take! I could understand it if the bulk of the estate he had before the marriage but given that’s not the case it’s bizarre

id want to understand his thought process - sure it’s a very unlikely scenario- but if he’s got some odd attitude about money you should know now

Did you ask him why he thinks your siblings shouldn’t also get the same for their own retirement even if it’s a bit further away!!