Should I include her in my will?

[Sillysausage76]

I got with DH over 15 years ago. I have 4 DC and he has 1. When we meet he moved into my house as its bigger. He rented his house out (dsd lived with her bf and child). DSD always made it clear his house was her inheritance and she wouldn't consider sharing it, fair enough. DH house turned into a money pit and so he sold it, not making much, he did put money into the business as have I. My house increased drastically in value. Me and dh have a joint pot so to speak but my house and assets will go to my 4 dc, dsd won't be left as much, she now wants every split equally. This isn't going to happen, my parents are also still alive and as long as no care fees needed I will inherite from them. Is it unfair not to include her in my will? She has never really accepted me but I don't think bad of her, she was spoilt as a child. She won't inherite from her mum or bf parents.

Your will, your choice. Personally I wouldn’t leave her a penny with that attitude.

So how old was she when she declared she wasn’t going to share her inheritance? Could she have been trying to declare her own importance maybe because she feels that you don’t care about her. She has no mum of her own anymore right?

Ffs, just cut her in a little bit why don’t you.

I'd be very careful giving her a 50% share in the business due to her attitude and overall feeling of entitlement - it could well end up being to the detriment of the other shareholders. Speak to a solicitor before deciding on this on how to protect the other shareholders.

I don't know what age she was when you married (you may have said, I've only ready OP posts briefly) but would say please don't be too swayed by posts calling her entitled, a cheeky mare etc. I would try and overlooked her attitude within reason.

She's likely to feel quite outnumbered in this new family and maybe a bit nervous about protecting her future asset given she may not have much.

Fine to ring fence your house but I think she should be left her father's share in the business or the proceeds of his house at least, if not the business.

Perhaps now you two are winding down a chat about her coming on board on a more reliable basis? It's understandable she's refused in the past if hours aren't guaranteed.

You wouldn't cut one of your kids out for being a bit lippy, would you?

i think she should get whatever he put into your business.

Why is she even talking about your will! It is none of her business. I wouldn’t dream of talking to my mom and dad about theirs, let alone stipulating what should be given to me. I would be telling her it’s none of her business. She sounds like a right piece of work.

What OP would or wouldn’t do regarding her own children is irrelevant - this isn’t her child.

It’s up to the DH what he does with his share, and he wants to leave it to OP. She isn’t entitled to what her father chose to put into the business.

I think it would be fair she got the 50% business value but only if your OH did die before you (not guaranteed). So put a caveat in on that.

someone said you need to make reasonable provision but I would be annoyed and surprised that extended to a step child. Especially one that has never lived with you or depended on you. Do let us know what solicitor says on that.

someone also mentioned you need to reflect that OH put money into the business. But you put unpaid time in which has a value. Plus your OH has lived rent free in your home for x years so he has the benefit of that.

very grabby SD.

That isn't the point. The point is that there are 5 adult children involved. Your way, one is left with zero even though her father brought some business and property assets as well as whatever work he did to the table. I think he should ensure something is left to his child but if that's not happening for whatever reason, I don't think the OP should cut her out (of the business which included assets of fathers house). Her own house, yes. That's hers. A lot of posters are basing this on the SD's attitude. I don't agree this should be taken into account for just sounding entitled.

When her dad owned a house why was there ever any question of her sharing that as inheritance? It would have been ring fenced for her in the same way your house is now ring fenced for your children. Who would she have been sharing it with?

That is entirely the point! OP’s DH is as free to choose what he does with his own assets as she is.

That he didn’t and doesn’t want to leave it to his child doesn’t oblige OP to step in and compensate her in his stead. She isn’t owed her father’s money if he doesn’t want her to have it.

You might want to read OP's updates

No, It's about what's right. Why should one of the five children be cut out completely when the OP has benefitted from the proceeds of that second house and the husband's business input? Why should her children and not her? Why would it be the right decision to skip her? You don't leave one out for just for behaving imperfectly. I don't know why he may not have ensured his daughter had some provision but that doesn't mean the OP shouldn't either. Maybe this is why the daughter felt she had to be so clear about her inheritance

OP isn’t more responsible for providing for his child than he is - and he isn’t. It’s entirely up to her father what he does with his own money, and if he wanted to ring fence money for her he could have chosen to do that, the same way he could choose to leave it to her rather than OP. He didn’t and he hasn’t - oh well. Neither you nor she needs to like it, she isn’t entitled to money that never has been and isn’t hers.

Why should one be cut out? Because their parent doesn’t want them to inherit their assets. It’s that simple.

It really isn't 'that simple'. Absent an explanation of why her father would have not written her into his will, the decent thing to do would be to factor her into his contribution to the marriage assets, not hers. What if his will couldn't be found or he didn't make one as he does suddenly? Does that make it morally right for the stepmother and her kids to claim everything that the husband brought or added to the marriage. Either way, this is likely to be her decision as he is older and if he hasn't included his child, she should take the opportunity to put that right rather than put everything into the pot for her family.

Given that they don’t live in a country where he’s prohibited from not including his child in his will, it really is that simple.

She isn’t entitled to his assets if he doesn’t want her to have them - the reason is irrelevant, he’s a grown man of sound mind that doesn’t need to justify his decisions to her. Again, OP isn’t required to compensate her because her father made a decision she and you don’t like.

Is it ‘morally right’ for OP to claim what her husband has freely given her, that he wants her to have? Pretending for a moment that what’s ’morally right’ even comes into it (and isn’t entirely a matter of subjective opinion) - yes. It’s hardly like he isn’t living well himself off the investment and the material comforts of being with OP, so let’s not paint it as if OP has vampirically drained him

It's completely about subjective opinion, this is a chat forum. Mine is that it is morally right for the OP, if she outlives her husband, to factor his daughter into what he brought to the marriage. If she didn't care about opinions, she wouldn't be asking. I've no idea where 'vampirically draining ' and such suggestions came from.

To add, it's not always about what you can get away with going by the letter of the law or policy, it's sometimes about looking at the principle, the bigger picture and the right thing to do. iMO, this would be including the daughter in law in said proportion of any assets. Her pushing verbally to protect those assets before the house was sold, has zero relevance. It's actually quite understandable in the circs

DSD always made it clear his house was her inheritance and she wouldn't consider sharing it, fair enough
Firstly, an inheritance doesn’t exist until the person dies. Secondly, she has no say in what her father’s will says, or yours.
We see people on MN talking about their parents’ property and assets as their inheritance. It’s no such thing when the parents are still alive, and on death it’s only theirs if the parents say so.

Not quite, given that the bottom line is the law. Hence why it’s that simple - she isn’t entitled to his assets.

Op is free to pay as much or as little attention to anyone else’s opinion as she wants. That’s up to her. Incidentally, and I’m speaking generally now rather than specifically about OP, being interested in what others may think doesn’t mean you’re obliged to change your own, or that you’re even questioning your own.

Except it can of course be about exactly that.

But sure, if you don’t think the bigger picture and principle is about respecting that independent adults have the right to decide for themselves what they do with their own assets. I do. The daughter is not entitled to lay claim to something that was never hers to begin with, that her father doesn’t want her to have.

I'd say that was very much the smaller picture.

No shit.

Thankfully, it isn’t.

Not sure why you're swearing but in my view, it is.

It’s a common idiomatic phrase, no need for feigned confusion as to my use of it.

And again, no shit. And also again, thankfully the law doesn’t reflect your opinion as to what constitutes ‘the bigger picture’.