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!!

This is not worth spending so much time on as it's the least likely scenario ie that you all die.
Spend more time on the others (you or he die first and then you both die and who looks after kids and what do they get)
50/50 between the two families is normal and then it doesn't matter how many kids everyone has (because of course people may die or be born in the intervening period). So I'd say split 50 50 to be divided evenly between siblings and their children (if you want to include) however many there are. So if his brother is already dead then his nephew and nieces split it up

@Freshpinkroses his only brother should get 20% and your 4 siblings should also get 20% each. they do what they want with their inheritance. your hubby is crazy to give someone has has hardly seen for years and whom you have never even met a vast sum like 80%, that would most likely tip the brother over the edge again!

Write a disaster clause in your wills with a Trust Fund for your children's spouses/their children, all siblings, nieces and nephews. Appoint an independent non relative trustee along with a family member from both sides.

That way, the trustees can appoint funds as and when all agree are needed at specific points.

That's what I'd do. But I wouldn't be thinking of a disaster clause either. I'd let intestacy or whatever rules apply to simultaneous deaths apply.

because I don't want to leave his brother 50%

Why don’t you want to leave him 50%?

You could leave 50% split between your siblings and their dc, and 50% to BIL, who can enjoy his retirement and will any remainder to his own 6 dc. Presumably his dc are also young enough to acquire wealth like your siblings are. I suppose his dc may consider it unfair as dc in your side inherit but he can’t have it all of the ways - lots to his brother (because old) and lots to his brothers dc (because “fairness”) and crumbs to your siblings and their dc because “young”.
.

This sounds very reasonable - I don't really see how he could possibly justify leaving his brother more than 50% of the estate, especially considering he barely sees him. I suppose you don't need to have mirror wills, if you can't agree? If the worst happens and all die together then your half of the estate can go to who you want it to...

We've got a similar size estate and go through similar angst over the 'worst case scenario' but for different reasons. It's hard. We need to change our will again but no idea what to.

It doesn't really matter. There's no expectation that any of these siblings would inherit from you and there will be no emotional fallout as long as you don't pick favourites among your own siblings. I really wouldn't give it this much headspace especially as it is unlikely to ever happen. Why not give each surviving individual £1000 and the rest to charity?

Yes, it's bizarre, isn't it? Inheritances normally pass down to children and grandchildren, rather than sideways to nieces and nephews; but almost always from an older generation to a younger generation, such is the natural order of things.

I get that, in the event of a whole-family tragedy, things might change, with somebody else in the extended family ending up with the money by default; but there would still be no expectation at all in advance of ever inheriting in this way.

I would still be very interested to know whether OP's DH has mentioned this plan to his brother and, if so, how the brother responded.

Leave your estate to your family and his to his in that extremely unlikely eventuality. Really hardly worth considering. I would probably name a charity as the backstop.

Just thinking out loud, but what would happen if you made this provision in the unlikely event that it happened, by leaving the money to people in one family, and then they all died in a tragic accident?

Surely it's no less likely?!

So the only fair answer is you each decide what happens to 50%. He can give it all his bro or his bro and the kids. Or all to the donkeys. You do the same. You can put it in trust for your sister's kids or give it them or send it all to Justin Timberlake. Literally make it 50% free choice each.

That scenario can't happen because if the parents die but the kids are alive, the kids inherit (presumably) and the parents' wills terminate then. They don't stay in place forever.

The money would be in trust for the kids who at that age could not have a will and when they die the intestacy rules would kick in or any rules associated with the trust.

The thread is about a potential catastrophic event i.e. the simultaneous deaths of parents AND children.

Just wanted to give an update; my husband read through all the posts on this thread and has admitted that upon reflection, it would make zero sense to give his brother any part of my 50%. We have subsequently agreed to do 30% split between the nieces and nephews and 70% between our siblings. Finally I can put this out of my mind!! Thank you to everyone who read my post and gave sensible advice!

It should all be equal. Your dh is clearly being unreasonable

Ah, great news, OP, thanks for the update; glad you eventually got it all sorted.

So my husband and I, just married and we have decided a trust.

We can specify, if one dies, the other has lifetime interest, then spouses can choose which asset can have their choice of beneficiaries if the other spouse dies. If the beneficiaries die, the assets remain in the trust.

If we both die, the trust goes to children and heirs.

If its catastrophic, and we both die, with children dead and heirs dead (!L we have split the trust to our own beneficiaries (for me it was my cousins, for him his brothers)

A trust is how you do it

But OP's issue was how to split the money that would have been released, should this very unlikely tragedy have happened, not the method by which it would be conveyed to the beneficiaries.

Even if you set up a trust, you still need to specify who would benefit from the trust; that's the whole point of it.

No matter what OP wants; if the assets haven't been a product of the marriage, they have no say over them. It sounds like OP has objection to what DH wants to do with their own assets... which I why I made mention of what my DH is doing with his assets vs what we are doing with our joint assets.

@toomuchfaff i think the opposite is true I think the DH wanted to use her assets for his brother and they are equal because he earns more

@Quartz2208 you are correct. I have more cash in the bank, put a lump-sum into our home and have a bigger life policy, but my husband earns 20% more than me so overall even though I technically make up more of our estate, we both contribute about the same in the bigger picture. Funny how some people think its my husband who has more lol.

ah in that case then OP should be specifying on own assets. Both can specify on joint, each can specify on own.

When I read it first time it wasn't clear if the asset was a product if marriage or pre existing hence a mention of both

OP needs to have involvement of solicitor to put the trust together as they directly dictate the conversation of joint asset vs single asset and distribute them as such asking the relevant person what they want to do. If its a joint then there needs to be agreement between the 2 or they won't accept. At least if solicitor is mediating then DH mat see they are being unreasonable