One child has inherited AGAIN

[EWAB]

A decade ago my younger son benefited from a massive inheritance.

Essentially my MiL bypassed her three children and left everything to her 6 grandchildren.

The grandchildren: 2 siblings, 3 siblings and my younger child.

SHE WAS ENTITLED TO DO AS SHE PLEASED. IT WAS HER MONEY.

The fallout was quite seismic for lots of reasons. My partner felt that as he only had one child the family of the brother with 3 children benefitted disproportionately.

It was said at the time and I believe this to be the case that the will was designed like this. to stop my elder child from a previous relationship from benefiting as he might have done 40/50 years later if the money had gone directly to my partner.

As for my relationship, my partner refused to consider changing our wills leaving more to elder child who was at the time very unlikely to inherit from his own father. He is now on property ladder but any inheritance will pale into insignificance compared with younger child’s

Well it’s happened again!

Late MiL’s half brother has left his entire estate to the MALE grandchildren of his siblings. Younger son and partner’s nephew and we think 2 or 3 others.

HE WAS ENTITLED TO DO WHAT HE WANTED WITH HIS OWN MONEY.

I genuinely can’t contemplate my two sons having such vastly different lives.

I want advice to come to terms with it . I have disabled voting. I can’t talk to anyone.

I think for some of us it's just the gall with which some mothers approach new relationships when the first didn't work out - as if they are really blind to the fact that their DC are their DC not the new partner's and certainly not the new extended family's. Then the 'step' family somehow get labelled as unreasonable or unfair when all along it is the parent who failed their child by breaking up the nuclear family and everyone else is just dealing with the fall out,

Agree- with the exception of dependent children where the state shouldn't have to pick up the tab if deceased parent has decided to leave it all to X cause, it should be a personal decision.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4246754-Ex-adopting-step-child?page=14&reply=107520940

Is the youngest son your joint son with your husband or your step son?

I can understand you being a bit miffed/upset about it. It’s hurtful they chose to leave nothing to your son (and second will only leaving money to the men? WTF is that about?).

How does the younger son feel about it? Is he oblivious to the unfairness? I’m just wondering what the fallout would be if you were to push the idea with your husband you wanted to make it more equal. You could leave him something but a greater proportion to the eldest. I know some people are dead against anything but absolute equality but I believe it should be based on who needs more help.

This is to be expected. The two children can not be equal, so they will inherit different amounts and that is life. You can NOT pressure your dh to leave more to your son! That is not right and you are likely to blow up your relationship.

"That was decided by the adults though..."

If any of the beneficiaries were under the age of 18 at the time then what you did was unlawful.

If a beneficiary is under the age of 18 then they cannot sign the deed and it cannot be signed on their behalf by anybody else.

You would need to get a court order to do that and the court would consider whether the variation is in the beneficiary's best interests.

"I've never asked the two youngest whether they felt cheated."

You'd better hope that they never find out about what you did. That's likely to cause all sorts of problems especially for whoever purported to sign the deed in place of the children who were beneficiaries.

It's generally not all the inheritance. And you have quite a negative view of families. I think most families are OK, yes always some issues but it's very common for older people to have dementia (and living with it before diagnosed) and so vulnerable. It can make it complicated when people remarry or when people have to sell their house when their husband/wife has died if children insist on their share but there must be a half-way house.

I certainly think it is neater to just give the money to my children (they're only young still). I intend to - if I'm in a position to - to gift and help as much while I'm alive, as that's often when people need it.

This is a great idea. Gives your oldest a bit extra later on.

I have had the same issue in my family. It is what it is. You cannot expect your inlaws to enrich those who are not their own blood.

Your elder son is not blood and they don't have to leave him anything. Youe husband accepted your son because you came as a package but his family doesn't have to. I don't want to sound rude or upset you but expecting anything from his side of the family to be left to your older son is entitled. You already know this but I do understand why you are pissed off. It does come across as if they never accepted you or your son but I don't think that's the case. Really you should be upset with his father and his family who have shown no interest. I suppose it's not the life you dreamed of when you had your son to be estranged from his father and his family. I wouldn't think too much of the wills you and your husband have worked out a solution where your oldest is sorted out. You're lucky to have a good husband and father in yours and your children life.

I'm sure it feels terrible. However... I've left my estate between my sons, and my one biological grandchild. If either or both of my sons predecease me, their share goes to that child.

I love my step-grandchildren to bits, btw, but made decision is because they have their own biological families (in the case of two of the kids, far wealthier than me) from whom I expect them to inherit. If they don't, that's an issue for their biological parents to raise and deal with, I'm afraid.

My husband - not my sons' father - feels much the same, and his estate is largely left to his biological nieces.

But your husband can't tell you what to do with your estate.

Not sure how I would feel if my husband told me I need to leave bigger proportion to his son from the first marriage because he won't be inheriting much from his mother, or because my parents are not including him in the will...

Can you not ensure you gift your oldest son more when he is older? so a depoist for a home etc?

Thats what I would do.

But whole life insurance policies are v expensive (because the outcome is basically a certainty so it's really just an investment vehicle). A term life insurance (the normal sort) is used to pay out while you have obligations like a mortgage but if the OP lives to old age, it would have probably expired.

the son is already an adult I think- she mentioned he's on the housing ladder

If it is a HUGE amount your second one is getting, you could then just leave everything of yours to your first born? Although, your dh has the right to say where is share goes, I am just talking about any of your own estate/inheritance. But make sure to explain to your younger one why the reasons are. He should understand.

That would be your choice, which doesn’t mean that someone making a different one would be wrong. He may love and care about his brother, but that doesn’t oblige him to share the money rightfully his, bequeathed by his relatives. Than doesn’t mean he’s lording it either.

It’s not a given that he could share it tbh, even if he wanted to. That would depend on whether he has full control of the money as an adult, or if it’s managed by a trust.

I know exactly how I'd feel 'no way!' In fact it would make me work harder to secure my DC's inheritance from me, and make it watertight.

“The fallout was quite seismic for lots of reasons. My partner felt that as he only had one child the family of the brother with 3 children benefitted disproportionately.

Seems like your partner is mistakenly viewing his child’s inheritance as his own.

It's unclear from the OP if there are female DGC who also haven't inherited.
To be honest to me that would be a lot worse than not including a step DGC.

I don’t know what there is to come to terms with. Your child is not their relative. Your first child has a father and that father’s family and I am sure they would not leave anything to your younger son so it evens out.

The late half brother sounds like sexist trash though.

I got a bit lost with all the relationships but honestly, it does not matter. People can leave their money to whomever and however they choose and it is NO-ONE else's business. I don't understand why this is even a thing especially as the OP has even stated this in the original post. I don't understand the drama.

Haven't read the whole thread. However, I think it's totally weird when grandparents leave money to grandchildren, and their parents complain - 'this isn't fair because I only have two kids and my brother has four'. To me that doesn't seem unfair at all - the money is split equally between the living grandchildren fgs! That's who the grandparents wanted to bequeath their money, not their own children, so...

However, leaving money only to MALE relatives is awful and another matter entirely!

My childless uncle had a similar reaction when his father, my grandfather, skipped a generation in his will. My cousins and I were all independent adults at the time, and even had we not been, the money was ours - not our parents'. I think this attitude stems from a notion that children are not separate entities from their parents.

@EWAB

We do not really own anything tangible - we are merely tenants at any moment in time.

Everybody has the ability to make their own decisions with what they have.

The deceased cannot control what beneficiaries do once inheritances are vested.

We can teach our children values which change the rules.