Marriage law is outdated given the increase in second/third marriages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

He didn’t give it to her children and grandchildren.

He gave it to her.

I’m puzzled by the ‘50% as the law agrees’ . This isn’t a divorce nor an intestate situation - there is no set figure for making provision for anyone in a will , no matter how long the marriage, but a widow/er can make a claim against against a will if there has been financial dependence or interdependence. (There are others who can do this as well but just referring to the spouse here - also not referring to Scottish law)

so your children are not your family?

Because in this case its normally both parents of the children. I trust my DH to look after our dc if I go first, and vice versa - its the second etc marriages where the new spouse is not linked to the first marriage dc is where the issue comes from

Presumably the assets of the first marriage will have been split fairly on divorce, so there’s a potential inheritance from the mother too.

In the case of a second marriage, there’s an extra person so children can’t expect the same inheritance as they’d have received previously. Not forgetting it could also work in their favour. If their stepmother dies first, she could leave everything to her husband who will then leave it to her stepchildren upon his death.

I’ll say it again - it is extremely misogynistic for everyone to assume that the male is the only person who has brought assets to a relationship.

No, but I don't want my husband tied to my family if I drop dead and he has another 40 years to live. Lots of people say that their spouses can live in the house until they remarry. But we have no assets apart from a (small, cheap) house. So it massively limits our options. I don't want my husband having to stay single or rely on another person economically after I'm dead.

So he made it clear that it would go on to his stepchildren in the end? What a strange man to wish his step children better than his own.

especially when it’s so easy to create a will to protect your second spouse until their death but preserve it for your dc afterwards

The law is that you can leave your money to whomsoever you choose. How do you think anything else can be enforced?

There is a right for a wife under inheritance law to not do worse than a divorcee - my stepmother sued my fathers estate under exactly that and we ended up having to settle even though 100 percent of his wealth had been created before he met her.

Your friend wants a law to say that only children can inherit, not spouses? That's barmy. She's getting 50% anyway isn't she? Of course her stepmother should be looked after. Plus presumably her mum got a settlement in the divorce, what's happened to that? Will your friend get all of her mums assets? They sound quite greedy.

My friend and her brother received nothing when their Dad died. They had lost their mother many years before and everything belonging to their Dad went to the stepmother. She even sold sentimental things that my friend would have liked to have had. I think this situation happens quite a lot.
I know I need to change my will to protect my children's inheritance.

But have you specified you want anything to go to your children. If you haven’t then the likelihood is they will end up with nothing.
Please don’t rely on someone else even if that someone else is the other parent

Circumstances change and people marry other people and children grow up and relationships break down. So many times I have heard that someone is leaving their estate to someone else and children are then going to get their share at some point in the future from this person. Rarely happens and on the occasions it does there are usually more people the inheritance has to cover

Without knowing the ins and outs of this situation, you can’t comment.

Point remains - they weren’t married or even lived together.

Because typically the children are the dead persons children. Not their step children.

English law is peculiar in that a surviving spouse can be left worse off in the case of their partner dying than they would in a divorce.

but that’s when people can and do contest wills. And courts frequently rule in a way that the surviving spouse is left at least as well as had there been a divorce.

anything joint like joint bank accounts or house ahead as joint tenants will automatically go to the surviving spouse. These do not come under the deceased estate.

anything solely under the deceased name (pensions, house, investments etc) can be left to other people. So if the surviving spouse feels this has been unfair they can contest and the courts will look at the length of marriage etc to decide whether the will should stand. They look at the situation had their been a divorce as a starting point

so OP who owns the house? Joint tenants or tenants in common?
if it’s joint tenants there is no contesting. It’s hers.
if it’s not, there is no reason why a sensible person wouldn’t give her a life interest in the property and a sum of money for security and leave the rest to you. But then some peopled are fucktards

Marriage isn't the issue, and the law isn't the issue - it's the way people behave and choose to write their wills.

IF someone leaves a dependent child or spouse without means to support themselves, there is support within the law to challenge the will.

Anyone, married or not, can leave their estate to anyone they like.

Men are notorious for leaving everything to Dw2 , who is typically younger, and actually often doesn't honour the understanding to leave a fair share to her step children, and may even marry again, and leave the whole lot to her new DH.

My friend saw all the money and assets from her mother's family (her maternal grandmother) go to her Dad, then to her step mother and then to her step siblings. She didn't get a penny. Or her grandmother's beloved dinner service.

I don't think the law should dictate who people can make beneficiaries of their will.

But men, as ever, show themselves naïve, and failing to prioritise their Dc.

But you’re still risking the other parent not leaving anything to their children.

they could remarry.
they could die intestate after remarrying.
they could live the high life and spend the lot.
it could all go on care.

you can trust your spouse, but shit happens. Financial abuse as in oil’s case, old people fall for scams, people do meet new partners.

i just find it strange that people think kids inheritance should be ringfenced, but only for second marriages. If children are entitled to an inheritance then IMO that should be in all circumstances, and children should always inherit regardless of whether you’re on your first or second marriage.

each spouse should leave their 50% to their children, not the other spouse.

which btw I do not agree with. You should be able to leave your money to whoever you want. I just don’t get the logic that leaving to a second spouse disinherit children, but leaving to a first doesn’t. It can. Maybe less likely, but the only way to guarantee your children inherit your assets is to leave them directly.

So surely all the posters advocating for children to inherit, and calling people “cold” for leaving assets to a spouse to secure their future, should be expecting not to inherit from their own spouses but their children should instead.

Slightly different but ive always said i will never marry because i don't want to lose my home that I have worked hard for and now own outright. if the marriage was to go pair shaped and end in divorce I would lose half of my home so it would probably have to be sold or me buy them out which I couldn't financially do anymore.
What's mine is mine and im not willing to lose it to anyone, I do have dc and my house is their only inheritance.

I don't know how to vote as this is my exact family situation. DF has a very complex will (thanks to v sensible 3rd wife) to ensure some sort of fairness. She shouldn't be made to sell up in her old age to pay me an inheritance, but equally she shouldn't be able to keep all DFs assets and leave them to her own kids. Add in different inheritance rules across the different countries we live in and it's a mess.
Thoughtful consideration is needed and not blind faith that the current spouse will "do right" by the kids from a previous marriage.
MiL got a shock when FiL died as if she'd died before him, he was planning to disinherit his step kids. Made the funeral very tense.

If mil had died before fil, he was planning on disinheriting one of his children and giving it all to the other!

no family break up, or arguments. Had a good relationship. The other sibling had just persuaded him they needed it more.

over half a million.

as it happened when he did die that sibling got everything except the house, which fortunately was joint tenants so it went automatically to his wife.

the other sibling had no idea.

Just because your house is small and cheap is besides the point.
You are cutting out your children in favour of your dh.

You haven’t a crystal ball

You don’t know what your house might be worth in the future. (Look at some of the areas around London/Manchester etc and how much things have changed in 40 years

You children might be adults and everything is going well for them atm but divorce, disabilities, illnesses and accidents could have 1 or all of them facing real need. That small cheap house might be the difference between physically and financially being able to survive.
Having a roof over their heads and knowing their mother was able to offer that lifeline to them is something that you as their mother should be providing. Not giving this lifeline away.
Whilst it might seem incomprehensible atm that your children might not be in the same or better positions in the future it is not a guarantee.

I don’t see why you can’t word your will to let your dh live their till his death and then the house can be sold and be divided between dc.

You could let him remarry and he could still live there with his new wife but on his death she has maybe 2 years to find an alternative home whilst paying a reduced rent to the children

Saying your dh is your family makes me wonder what you actually think of your children.

I wonder what you would have done if they had turned round when you told them the contents of your will and said they didn’t agree, didn’t understand why you didn’t deem them family, didn’t provide for your children in your will.

You have to look at all what ifs when you make a will.

What if you win the lottery and find yourself wealthy. As it stands your children will get nothing

But the vast majority of spouses leave their houses to each other.

why does the same not apply to a first marriage? You’re still cutting out children in favour of a spouse, and you still can’t guarantee they will leave anything to the children.

You mean divorce law, not marriage law, right?

What do you think of the Scottish system (by the way it's not automatic - a man could leave everything to his 2nd or 3rd or whatever wife and family and the other kids would have to go to court to contest the will)

If I win the lottery I'll give it to my children.

I should also point out that my DH isn't a massive knob, and having raised my children I'm pretty sure he'll do the right thing. But what the right thing is in potentially 40 years is for him to decide.

Id assume that the divorce settlement reflected his first wife's sacrifices?
In terms of leaving 50% to his now wife, my opinion would be influenced by how long they have been married.

I'd be quite happy to share my inheritance with my children.