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!!

I’m with you

if you all die, then the estate is split 50:50 ans each half goes to the respective sides

YDHIBU

Edited original post as misunderstood. Surely you just do 50/50 if he’s insistent this family get the same as yours which is fair. No way should they get most of it

Far from being ‘spot on’, that poster and you clearly failed to correctly read and/or comprehend the op.

To leave 80% to your DH older brother would be grossly unfair should the following happen ..

You and your husband die so your sister spends ten years raising your children with the help of funds from your estate but also generously donating emotional and physical care.

When one of your children starts to drive both kids have a terrible car accident and both die, too young unfortunately.

The remainder of your estate then goes 80% to the older brother. That seems unfair given that your sister reared your children.

I'd probably just do this. 50/50 seems fair then you both do with it what you want. I can see your husband POV, if my partner had lots if siblings why should they all get a chunk of my half because there are more of them

Also remember everyone is dead so you won't care anyway. Don't waste too much energy on this

You each decide where your own half would go.'surely it's a simple as that. You can leave your half to your sister, and your dh can leave his to his brother or the local cats home

I read up to a point and could see everyone misreading the question and the circumstances. Then I could see it being said that if you all died together then it is assumed the youngest died last and intestacy kicks in and all aunts and uncles are treated equally. I remember many years ago studying probate and learning a long list of the order of relatives that the intestacy rules divided the estate between. At the time relatives of the half blood were not treated the same as relatives of the whole blood. I'm not sure on the situation now but is it possible that the whole estate could go to the husband's brother on the basis that he is of the whole blood?

When we made our wills, in this scenario we each decided where 50% would go to. I chose one of my siblings as that was my preference for my “half” and my DH chose his only sibling for his “half”.

What he wants, and what he can have seem like they are two different things.

Surely you can both just decide what 50% goes to?

Why does he feel like he gets the final say?

And if he doesn't feel like he gets the final say, then, why is it even an issue, you both decide 50%.

His brother, due to age would likely end of leaving a load to his DC. Your DH need needs to give his head a wobble. The catastrophe clause is very rarely needed.

We did 50/50 to our families, each choosing where the 50% goes, then plan to forget about it. If we all go at once our family all get something from our hard work. I have purposely not included a toxic sibling in mine.

His approach has no logic to it and is unfair. He's going over the fairness threshold for what exactly? He can't explain it so don't accept it.

Your logic is the correct one and you need to stand firm especially when you've put all your inheritance etc in and it's equally contributed to.

We decided to leave everything to charity if that happened - the logic being that our families had their own money so didn't need ours. Children are now adults so it is unlikely that we'll all be wiped out together so they will inherit.

I would stop the messing around and say to him, you deal with your 50% as you wish, however my family is getting mine. And be done.

It would however make me relook at anything he was getting if you died first - as he is likely to hand that to his brother rather than your kids or your family by the sounds of things. I'd be making sure your kids got the majority of your 50% if you go first...

Well apart from the fact OP is discussing the scenario of the whole family being wiped out, OP, husband and her children.

Of course you are right and he is wrong about the will.

I wonder why he is so set on an outcome that is so obviously unfair? Is he generally unreasonable and dismissive of your views? What is your relationship like otherwise - equal?

does he want to play the big man (posthumously!) to his family se they believe the money was all his?

i would find his lack of common sense and fairness a real turn off

I think this is far too doom and gloom. You are right to have a solicitor involved, but its so incredibly unlikely that all of you will pass together, so my advice would be to put it out of your head altogether and choose a favourite charity. You are causing yourself unnecessary stress and what if arguments when you are pregnant due to a pessimistic solicitor.

DH is totally unreasonable, for all the reasons pp have stated to do with fairness, age, and so on.

It's very important to have a disaster/catastrophe clause, unlikely as it seems. Sometime tragedies happen.

Ironically, what's more like to happen is that (due to the age gap) DH will die before OP. At that point OP inherits everything and would be sensible to update her will.

First beneficiaries would obviously be DC, and GC if there are any by then. The OP can then set her own catastrophe clause, and ENTIRELY EXCLUDE the BIL and his DC should she want to 😂.

If I were the DH, I'd be being a bit more measured in my demands!

If you all go together your will specifies where your estate goes, and his, his.

So leave all your half to your DSis and he leaves his as he thinks fit.

He can’t control your assets in your will.

What I would advise is that you drop the discussion for now and agree to revisit it in a year or however long you think appropriate. All it's doing is causing an argument between you and your husband at a time when you should be trying to relax and prepare for a new baby.
The most important provision is what happens to your children in the event of the death of both parents, so as long as you have that sorted the rest can wait. Because, bluntly, if all four of you die then you won't be able to care what happens.

I would be wary of nominating a charity in the disaster clause. They have legal teams who are total vultures.

Friend of the family died and left a similarly sized estate. A clause in the will was siezed upon by the charity's legal team to try and claim that the intended inheritors were excluded so the charity should get the whole estate.

This would have disinherited the family friend's young adult children who were all fit, well and very much alive. Not to mention grieving at tge loss of their parent.

@Freshpinkroses it does sound like your DH has a total blind spot when it comes to his DB. Your wills could stand for 20 years or more. Has your DH considered the inheritance laws where DB currently lives? This could be creating an inheritance nightmare for all involved.

Either 50/50
Or
Let him do his will and you do your own
Or leave that decision to courts

I can't see how that would happen, considering the children will have already inherited their estate by that point.
The OP is talking about if their children do not survive them by the usual 30 days/the parents and children die together.

@Freshpinkroses but why does he feel that his brother should get the most??? also, if your sister is to look after your kids if you both die, then she would need a bigger house to accomodate them, wouldnt she? the number of kids any siblings has is totally irrelevant! also, unless immediate provision is made for his brother, if he dies first, which is most likely, there is absolutely to stop you changing your will and his brothers not inheriting anything.

Once again. The OP is not asking about the scenario where the children are looked after by her sister. She is asking about the scenario in which the whole family (her, husband and their children) should perish at the same time.