Why don't sole beneficiaries of a will share more?

[malificent7]

I mean in cases where it's clearly unfair. Such as the step mum inheriting all when there are children about or one sibling unexpectedly inheriting everything.
Jusr a bit shocked about inheritance threads ( and concerned about my own stepmum getting everything).

@TheitsmanI am sorry this caused an issue in your family. I don’t think this person was the cause though and they didn’t ‘have ‘ to share anything .
Really if the person who died had wanted it another way they would ( should) have made a Will to indicate what they wanted. I appreciate that to personalities and other family dynamics come into it though and I am sorry for your loss.

I think sometimes people think mirror wills guarantee that their intentions will be carried out by their widow or surviving partner, but they don't. Anybody can change a will at any time and there's no obligation to tell anyone else.

And he chose to ignore his wife’s infidelity as many do and stayed married to her rather than divorcing, not so unusual. She cared for him and he honoured his wedding vows. Your take on their marriage doesn’t trump his choice.

If someone has written a will (and they were competent and there was no coercion and it complies with laws around inheritance if they're in a country where you can't disinherit certain relatives) then why should their wishes about who they leave their money to not be respected?

It was their money. They knew what they wanted to happen to it. If they felt so strongly that didn't want someone to have it that they wrote their will to ensure that person or people got nothing then that was their right.

@NonPlayerCharacter
Why would you prefer to leave everything to your partner than your children? And how do you feel about the possibility of predeceasing your partner and then everything eventually going to your step kids and none to your kids”

We’ve been married for 35 years. He’s older than I am and disabled, so not impossible but less likely. Our children are adults and doing well. There will be no further partner/step kids in either scenario, we both know that. The surviving spouse will need the home and income from pensions, the kids won’t. Either way, they will be receiving a substantial lump sum when we downsize in a few months.
They have both told us that they want us well taken care of as we age and expect any funds to go on making our quality of life as good as it can be for as long as possible, because they love us. We love them too, hence anything left will go to them equally.

I don’t think it is any different if your father is married to someone who isn’t your parent. Their money is theirs, not their children. One would hope the surviving partner would consider their dead partners children in their own will but like anyone they could leave it elsewhere.

The problem is when at least some of that wealth comes originally from the dead parent who left it all to their spouse presuming that s/he would ensure that their children eventually inherit - but the surviving parent remarries and it all goes to him/her and potentially their DC. The first parent to die should have locked it down in their will, but many don’t .

Don't underestimate the impact that would have on him. You say he has an income. Do you think that won't be affected by your death? You're leaving "everything" to your child rather than your husband. Does that include the house he's currently living in?

I'd actually be fucking pissed off if my spouse left everything to the kid and made no provision for me. After all, doesn't the kid inherit on his death, so she gets it anyway?

A lot of people really struggle to say what they want!

Or they have pressure applied on them by a spouse or child.

Or they make a will leaving everything to someone, expecting that the money will eventually go to the children when that person dies.

I’m planning to give at least some money to my kids well before I die and I would definitely give them some if I planned to marry.

Counter question....why don't people who write the will ensure more of a share for others?

In the event of remarrying the wills should reflect this possibility by placing money/property into a trust for the benefit of the surviving spouse only for their lifetime, after that it is distributed in accordance with the trust.

Not necessarily- this is the issue. If he remarries he can leave his wealth to his new wife and it can trickle down to her DC not his. Both parents need to protect their DCs’ interests - they should not assume that the surviving one will do it.

So create a trust now, so that nobody can scam you out of it if you get ill or have dementia. Wills can be changed any time.

You write a new will after you marry
What this poster means is that marriage overrides an existing will.

I just realised that your "I'm leaving everything to my child" comment isn't where you started off, in your OP, which is about a sole beneficiary taking it upon themselves to ensure the estate is divvied up "fairly". So it seems your OP is just you being disgruntled about being left out.

If you make that choice, that's up to you, and your will should be carried out as you wanted. At the same time, though, I think you should consider your husband. Your last post came across as though you would do that out of spite, in a way, like "well, I wouldn't even dream to leave out the children in favour of the spouse". Not sure if "spite" is the right word, but perhaps you know what I mean.

Yes, I'd forgotten about that situation. So a couple should make preparations for their estates by discussing now how to protect their children's interests rather than making a unilateral decision (which is how OP's last post sounded) that the child gets everything.

Not if it's all been left to you! Why would she, when it's become yours?

I think this kind of misunderstanding, and assumptions about inheritance, are a huge cause of many inheritance dramas. Sometimes people will exactly what they want to happen, but too often they don't, and then the beneficiary can legally do what they like.

Exactly! 👏🏻

Yes up to a point but some elderly people can be manipulated and either don't get or don't listen to professional advice.

My old fashioned grandfather was going to leave everything to his sons (after my grandmother got what she was entitled to).
Fortunately my grandmother fought hard and he got professional advice also so that in his will his daughters were looked after too.

Basically it’s shit planning ( maybe deliberate) by the deceased before they died. I supposed context and circumstances play a big part. Me and DH both brought pretty much the same to the relationship financially and had 2 children each from a previous relationship. We have made a joint will where if one of us dies the children of the other get a lump sum each which reflects pretty much the equity in our respective houses when we met which was very similar, and if we both die the estate gets carved up 4 ways equally. But I suppose that’s harder to do if one spouse is financially dependent on the other or one brought a lot more to the table. Personally, I was very keen to make sure that my children didn’t lose out when I re married but others might think differently or can’t be arsed putting the appropriate plans in place

He didn't want to include his daughters in his will??

Quite satisfied that what I've done (on legal advice and with the benefit of being a lawyer myself) is appropriate for my situation. But this may be a good solution for others in different circumstances so I appreciate the input.

Surely this applies whether family is blended or not though?

even if you have a traditional family, mum dad and kids. If one parent dies the other inherits.

nothing to stop them remarrying and leaving everything to new partner.

to avoid that you would need to keep everything separate on marriage. No joint accounts, no joint tennant on a house.

everything separate so each spouse can leave their 50% to their kids. Possibly leaving said spouse homeless as a consequence.

what if you marry a man with significantly more assets, and you’re a sahm. If he then leaves his assets to his kids, your shafted.

people seem to make this about second families and kids being cut out. Reality is anyone can be cut out. Like I said, when my dad dies everything went to my mum. His estate was large, and would easily be worth over a million now. I will get nothing as she was a sahm who didn’t want to work, so everything has been sold and liquidated to pay living costs. Should he have left me his half, so my mum couldn’t mismanage/spend it all and I get nothing?

Would anyone here, if their dh died, give their children his half of the assets?

if your dh died leaving his half to his children, should you be ok with that? Even if it meant you selling up once the children were adults to pay them their half of the house

Depends on circumstances - abusive parent deliberately leaving a child out is very different to leaving everything to one child with special needs to help support them.

Also once it's inherited it's the property of the person who inherited it and if they choose to share it out that's their choice regardless of what the deceased wanted - which is also why you shouldn't rely on promises to do the right thing.

Why shouldn't stepmum get everything? She probably contributed to the pot. Kids usually get inheritance when both parents die.

Well exactly. But if parent 1 dies leaving to parent 2 who dies leaving all to step parent who keeps it all or gives to own family then kids will never inherit any of their families estate. And if I was parent 1 particularly I’d hate this.