Marriage law is outdated given the increase in second/third marriages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

How would that work? What if it left you financially struggling? If you’re independently wealthy or there’s enough to round fair enough, but what if you’re a sahm with no pensions or assets and giving half to your children leaves you very little to see you into old age?

I do know someone who left their share of the family home to their children. The children forced the house sale and left them homeless. By the time they took their share of the cash assets too there wasn’t enough left to live on.

Wow, at least we knew FiL was a prick and likely to pull something like that, he was not kind to the step kid. What a horrible surprise for your family.

The assets were split after the first marriage ended. The second wife should be his priority. She is his wife as much as his first wife was, and not a second-class substitute.

Not sure where I've said she wanted her step-mum to go without but maybe some of my previous comments didn't make it clear! Her ideal (and for many years the understanding was) what happened in @turkeyboots 's scenario which for me having now read all the comments seems like a really sensible way to go about it, also seems quite a principled approach on your step-mums part to not only be willing to do this but to initiate it!
It's a nice sentiment from a previous poster that this way more people benefit but if I'm honest I think it's quite an ask on someone to be happy for your step-siblings also benefiting when you hardly know them.
What's a bit sad is that I think the more I read I wonder if her dad likely knows what's possible and is hiding behind some excuses to justify the decisions he's made.

I have no idea on the divorce settlement, would be a bit of an awkward ask!

I think I'll end my contributions there as the answer to my question on if the law needs updating has been largely answered and I don't want to get into a detailed debate about a family situation that isn't even my own just sparked my thinking on the subject.

Thanks all for your contributions this has been a very interesting read over the last day!

Yes, this is the case where I live, but it's not ideal either.

This is a bizarre way of thinking of things. The assets he had at that point are just the assets he had at that point. His future earnings aren’t his alone because the financial commitment to his young children doesn’t end just because his marriage ended.

In all reasonable circumstances, the law just sets necessary conditions for
a will to be valid (needs to be witnessed, etc). It doesn’t dictate how an individual should spit their assets whether they’ve been married once, twice or never (of course it does if they haven’t made a will, but that’s not the case here). Nor quite frankly, given the myriad of possible permutations and combinations could it.

Your problem is not with the law, it’s with how your friend’s father has decided to split his money, which is different. And ultimately boils down to his money, his choice. I mean if he wanted he could give the whole lot to charity.

Now having said that, the law does provide minimum protections through “reasonable financial provision” but that’s not gong to come into effect here. She’s financially independent.

No, and he paid his share of the kids costs until they graduated.

he is not financially responsible for them as adults though. They will get a much larger inheritance from their mum than he will manage to accumulate since the divorce. He never got back on the property ladder as his wages minus CM barely covered expenses. Meanwhile the house he bought in zone 2 london in the early 90’s, that his ex wife now owns outright, is worth ££££££££.

Exactly that. I’ve been married to my bloke for almost a decade longer than he was married to his ex. He walked away from the house he co owned with her with nothing. We’ve built all our assets together.