Marriage law is outdated given the increase in second/third marriages

[Itsmyaccount]

I'm really interested to get people's thoughts on this as a friend has recently been through a very difficult situation with her dad and his decision over his will and it's got me thinking.

Her dad remarried when he was in his early sixties after having been married to her mum for 3 decades. Work wise he's a very successful man and as with any high flyer quite a lot of sacrifice had to be made by her mum and by extension my friend to facilitate him being able to build that career. Things like moving abroad when work dictated, limits on the amount of time he was around when she was growing up when the hard graft had to go in, all for the long term intention that the hard sacrifice would pay off in the end for the family. Sadly the pressures from it contributed to the eventual divorce.

That then leads me onto the current situation. As said above he went onto re-marry shortly after the divorce. Her step-mum has kids of her own but all kids on either side were young adults when they married. They were in very different situations financially and at the time he had made sure my friend knew that his will would be such that his wife would be looked after if he pre-deceased her but that the lions share would be protected for her (his daughter).

Her dad has continued on with his financial success, a few years ago even came into a large sum of money when he sold a company he started when my friend was younger. That triggered him to re-visit his will and he has since decided that his current wife is entitled to 50% of everything due to the length of marriage (of which the law agrees), he briefly had it that his wife would inherit everything trusting that she would divide it equally between her kids and my friend when she then passed (assuming he predeceases her as he's older). This has caused a great deal of upset. My friend isn't close with her step-family and is finding the idea very hard that they are effectively profiting off of something they've not themselves made a sacrifice for as by the time they married kids were already grown up and the hard foundational work requiring the big sacrifice had long since passed.

This brings me onto the thread title. I've tried to put myself in her shoes and honestly I think I'd feel exactly the same way even though the sums in my case would be much smaller.
It feels to me that the laws on marriage and inheritance were written at a time when second, third (fourth even!) marriages were so uncommon it didn't need to account for how you can legally protect assets for your children (or whoever) without having to do a serious amount of mental gymnastics to achieve it. I do actually know of another friend whose dad thinks it's so important to protect his finances for his kids he refuses to even live with his long term partner, let alone marry her. That to me seems sad that actually should he want to marry her (which who knows maybe he doesn't want to), he is choosing to not as the complication it would cause for him and his kids inheritance is so great.

YABU - yes the law is fine as it is
YANBU - things have changed a lot and law needs modernising to better protect everyone given blended families are on the rise, not just your spouse

So he now has it that his wife gets 50% and his dc from previous marriage 50% what is wrong with that? You do not deserve an inheritance and the dc’s mother will have received a settlement on divorce, if the business continued to thrive once he had remarried (as in case here) why wouldn’t his wife deserve money???

a very entitled child here op

It's not just wills, is it? It's family ties.

Dh's parents divorced 50 years ago when he was a small child.
His father remarried 20 years ago, when our eldest child was a toddler. His new wife is 15 years younger than him, and had children who were then teens who moved in.
His father has seen our kids about once a year for an afternoon ever since. We have never been invited to stay over. I once suggested we visit only to be told the house was not baby friendly.

In the meantime her children have grown up, married and had kids and her grandchildren visit all the time. So my FIL is way closer to his step grandchildren than his blood grandchildren, who he barely knows. So I guess if he leaves everything to his second wife and then it passes down to her children and grandchildren he won't care. It hurts a bit on our side though. He made such little effort.

Oh and remember that biological mums can also effectively disinherit dc by spending all the money. My mil burnt her way through millions! Doesn’t matter her money and the house is worth a bit once all expenses paid from very complicated situation it’s not much considering. But her prerogative, nobody deserves an inheritance

@Mustbethat I agree there are circumstances where you should be able to exclude anyone you wish and the example you've given is spot on for that, I'm sorry you've experienced it it sounds awful.

I'd personally like to think that in the majority people don't find themselves in a position where they'd have to exclude people but maybe that's naive and more commonplace.

I realise now the original question in my thread was not quite hitting the nail on the head but the responses have been broad and great.

To step away from my friends example and to speak more generally I think some of the things that sit a little less comfortably with me personally in this thread are the prospect of 'greedy children' and that it's a point of judgement if someone anticipates being left remaining assets in a will assuming their parents don't want to give it to charity etc.
I'm very lucky that my parents are still together and happy, me and my sibling both have children of our own and have built our own lives and financial security, but are still very much involved in my parents life and vice versa. It's not been something we talk about often but it's not a secret that my parents intend to pass on their (modest) assets to us. Even if there is nothing in the end knowing that's their intention makes me feel good. I don't believe this is an unusual way to go about it, in fact I believe it's the norm! I don't personally feel grabby and entitled for that and am also not counting pennies on how much I'll get, it's just whatever is left.
At the end of the day if you choose to have children with someone that's a lifelong commitment not just one when it's convenient for you and I think it's a lovely thing to want to pass on something to them when you're no longer about and how you go about that does have a bearing on how they may feel, @Wheresthebuttons your point feels quite valid here.

To me, family isn't restricted to only being important when kids are dependant, that feels a very narrow view and I just wonder what the point of having kids is if you intend on distancing yourself from them when they've grown up and scrubbing your conscience of thinking about them when you're gone?

As posters have said people live a lot longer nowadays and a will may come at the end of those days but a whole life came before it, not just a last decade or so.

I've definitely broadened my view on the 'point' of marriage from posters thoughts for later in life ones post children and it's actually triggered a conversation between myself and DH on if we die too young whether we'd re-marry or not (both agreed it's a no!).

If someone is signing a legal contract once, never mind twice or three times without understanding what it means then that's not a lack of mental gymnastics, it's a lack of common sense.

There are really simple ways to protect your assets, but you need to want to do so.

The law is fine as it is. Your friend needs to get over her sense of entitlement to her father’s wealth. It’s not even like he is cutting her out.

OP what you're saying doesn't make sense. The default shouldn't be it goes to everyone then you need to go and exclude people. Surely you can see how ridiculous that would be?

Oh sorry that’s not what I meant! Just that it’s important to have the ability to exclude someone in general not that the starting point is everyone and cut down from there that would be odd

The remarriage is a red herring here. Your friends DF could just as easily have remained unmarried but will his estate to an unmarried partner, friend or charity. Or spend it all before he dies.

The reason your friend is in this position is because people in England and Wales dont have to leave any of their estate to their children.

Marriage isn’t relevant - FIL didn’t similar leaving 50% to his partner (not wife) thus basically giving her children and grandchildren more of his money than his own children and grandchildren.

Exactly. The OPs point about blended families makes no sense given that people blend families all the time without getting married.

He’s not giving her children and grandchildren anything though?

he is leaving his money to his partner. Presumably to support her and make her old age comfortable, as you would any spouse/partner.

if I cut dh out of my will and left everything to my kids, he’s have no home and no money heading into retirement. How is that fair?

this is the issue. People are seeing a wife’s/spouses money which will support them, mean they aren’t left homeless etc, and seeing it as money going to the next generation. It may filter down, but it’s not being left to them and there may well not be anything left after care fees.

if her children care for her themselves instead of losing it all to a home, then why shouldn’t they inherit? I’ve seen many a post on here where a child caring for a parent is deemed entitled to a larger share of inheritance, if not all, than children who don’t assist with care.

Basically the issue boils down to whether you think we should keep the current testamentary freedom or do as they do in some countries and require parents to leave children a certain amount of their estate.

Though that wouldn't prevent people spending their money as they wish and/or on care in their lifetime.

If he wants to leave something to his child then he needs to write it in his will otherwise he has effectively disinherited his daughter

There should be a national campaign to point out to everyone whether they have children or not, even those parents who are still married to the mother or father of their children that if they want to leave something to their children or pretty much anyone they need to write it in their will and not expect others to do their verbal bidding after they have gone. Apart from this idea that someone is going to give away money and assets that they legally own to someone else because someone said that was what they wanted (if they really wanted this it would have been written in their will and if it wasn’t then that just says they didn’t really want to) But if someone does follow the verbal wishes of the now deceased person it leaves the recipient of these gifts open to having to repay it if the person who inherited goes into a care home or dies themselves.

If the father in this case hasn’t mentioned his daughter in his new will then he just needs to come to terms with the fact he has disinherited his daughter and doesn’t believe she deserves anything from him. Stop pretending he is a nice father and hiding his real feelings behind a fantasy scenario

And would be people to be willing to have other obligations - in France children can’t be disinherited but the children also have legal obligations to support their parents financially if they need it.

Marriage isn't the issue. Its the people who dont make proper wills

I bet you would feel a lot differently if there was going to be a big estate left in his will. This is what my husband is facing. His mum decided to cheat on his dad many years ago and he remarried. His wife is Irish and the family is very tight knit. I guarantee that not a single penny will go to my husband on the event of his death - it all will go to his wife (who has no children of her own) and then onto her siblings/ nieces and nephews.

It’s for this reason that my husband and I will never remarry if we ever split up/ one of us dies.

Kids growing up these days face a lot more financial difficulties in adulthood compared to the boomer generation for example and like it or not, won’t have any decent future or security without some inheritance to fall back on. It’s all well and good to say no one is owed anything, but it’s a simple fact. I would hate for my money to go to some random person I’m not even related to because I chose to remarry.

My dad left a big estate. I never saw a penny, it all went to my mum, and there is nothing left.

you can also never guarantee a previous spouse will not remarry. Life happens.

There is a lot going on here that I’m not going to put down here but suffice it to say that this woman (who didn’t live with FIL and did the bare minimum of caring for him during his final years with dementia, including never visiting him in his retirement home that she encouraged him to move to, away from his home town but nearer her, and that she said she would move into as well, something that became clear was a flat-out lie) will almost certainly end up giving more money to her children and grandchildren than FIL did to his own.

She would never have written a will like this, not in a million years.

Point being - marriage is irrelevant to the OP’s point.

There is a very large estate in my father's will. It would be life-changing for me. But it's his decision, not mine.

I've also got the same arrangement with my not-first husband. Everything will go to him and he can pass onto my children and his children IF HE WISHES but there isn't much anyway, and he needs a roof over his head. I've made this clear to my DC.

Fucking hell, thats cold. I know no one should expect an inheritance, but to actively disinherit your own children. Don't you want YOUR family to benefit from your estate?

Mustbethat
It’s tricky.
dh walked away from his first marriage with nothing (her affair). The kids were young and there was no way to keep the house without just signing it over to her.
so his kids have already had their “inheritance”- he worked hard for that house, paid a huge deposit and nearly 20 years of the mortgage by himself

If you say that your husbands children have had their inheritance then by the same thought process you too had your inheritance from your father.

Your father left everything to your mother he didn’t leave you anything and your husband gave his wife a divorce settlement he didn’t give his children anything

You and your dh’s children haven’t had any inheritance and only when the mothers die and their wills read will there be any sign of you or these children getting and inheritance.

My husband is my family. My children are adults with their own careers. I've discussed this with them and they understand the situation.

(Maybe it will encourage them to look after him in his dotage!)

*WitchesofPainswick *so you have disinherited your children

Presumably she sees her spouse as family?

why would you actively disinherit a spouse?

why is it ok to leave everything to a first spouse, and nothing to children, but not to a subsequent spouse?

if you actively disinherit a first spouse and leave everything to your children, that’s bad. But actively disinherit a second spouse in favour of your children, that’s good?

my dad effectively disinherited me
by leaving everything to my mum. is that cold? If not why not, it’s exactly the same.