AIBU to resent FIL expecting DH to provide for his sister?

[Porterpoets]

DH and I have been writing our wills and something has come up that I’d really like to hear opinions on.

We have DC and I am the higher earner. This is relevant because it’s the principle of this that I take issue with, rather than the actual effect it will have. We have two good incomes, we’re comfortable- not rolling in money, but we manage well and our only debt is the mortgage on our family home.

DH’s elderly father, my FIL, is quietly well-off, but relatively thrifty and can be quite controlling, belligerent and often uses emotional blackmail to get his way. He also can’t see the irony in much of what he does vs what he says.

DH has an older sister, my SIL, who is single, works hard for not much financial reward and rents a modest flat. Her dream is to buy her own home but on a single, mediocre income that’s way off. She’s also only ten years off retirement herself so it may never happen at all. She has no dependents and is fiercely proud.

So here’s the issue. FIL has told DH that when FIL dies, DH becomes ‘the man of the family’ (wtf does that even mean?!?!) and must take care of his sister financially. Being a 21st Century feminist, she would baulk at this idea, but that is what he has said.

The irony here is that FIL is still with us and hence he is currently “the man of the family” and yet he refuses to put anything in place to help SIL out financially with her dream of buying a property today. He refuses to look into gifting her any money nor anything that would benefit her financial situation whilst he is still alive. And yet he has laid this moral obligation squarely at the feet of DH, once FIL has gone.

DH is an incredibly moral man and has sworn to this, taking it to mean that in his own will, he will leave a not insubstantial sum to his sister before anything goes to me and our children in the event of his death. He knows his sister well enough to recognise that if he offered or gifted her any sum whilst DH is still alive, she would refuse it, as he has DCs to provide for and he is the younger sibling (her pride is at stake if she were to accept).

Now, I’m not concerned about this part of DH’s will from a financial point of view because I earn a good enough salary that if the worst were to happen, I would not be reliant on any inheritance from DH’s estate. Similarly if I went first, I have plans in place that would ensure DH and DCs would live comfortably.

However, I can’t help but resent FIL’s actions. Of course it’s his own money and he can do what he likes with it but he is emotionally blackmailing DH (and will continue to do so beyond the grave) into redirecting DC’s inheritance. Whilst writing our wills, the solicitor asked DH several times to repeat his request and clarified to him what that might mean for our DC if my financial circumstances changed and he died, with this bequest still in place. I don’t know if I read too much into it, but she appeared quite surprised by it.

FIL is not a poor man. If he were really concerned about SIL being “provided for” he could see to that now, whilst he’s still alive. Why put the moral and financial obligation on DH?

AIBU?

You only have one course of action - amend YOUR will to remove anything for DH. Everything you have must be ringfenced for your children. Otherwise your hard earned money will go to the sister in law! Not much else you can do, don't get involved with their bonkers chat.

The numerical bequest will take precedence over any residual bequest. So basically when settling the estate the bequest to SIL is paid first and whatever is left goes to you and the children. At the moment your dh probably thinks that he will die with an estate worth a fair bit and a bequest of say 50k would not be a problem. But he has no idea what will actually happen, what his cash flow will be like, how much liquidity you might need if he dies, how life might unfold or what your children might need in the future. I feel for that solicitor watching a man make a stupid decision and trying her best to make him think twice.

You really do have a dh problem. FIL is not your problem - you didn't marry him you don't have children with him. How he settles his estate for tax purposes is not your business. If he leaves everything to your dh then a simple deed of variation giving half to his sister can solve that.

But your dh and the father of your children IS your problem. I can see why he ended up the way he is because of who reared him but stop framing this as the decision of a moral man. It isn't. It is the decision of a damaged man from a dysfunctional family and as a result he is prioritising his father and what his father thinks his sister needs over his own young children. I think he needs to talk to someone about this - a therapist not a solicitor. What other things is FIL going to ask him to do??

That still wouldn't make sense as he's 10 years younger than his sister, so it's more likely his sister will die before he does.

Wow, I’d be furious OP. Your DH should be telling FIL that he should make provision for his daughter now if he’s so concerned about her. It’s up to SIL to manage her own life quite frankly.

And who is SIL going to leave all her new found wealth too if she has no children. The local cat charity?

Your husband isn’t particularly bright.

If he dies before his father then his sister will inherit in place of his son’s.

Your husband shouldn’t bequeath anything to his sister. Instead, his father should set up an irrevocable trust while he is still alive.

It seems like your father in law is deliberately trying to deprive you of assets in the event your husband died before you.

Why doesn't FIL just leave most/all of his wealth to his daughter then she won't need supporting by your DH. Currently if your DH pre-deceased his father his sister would inherit from him and then from FIL. It seems a daft arrangement, by all means promise to look after her when FIL dies, but that doesn't mean he should create a will in her favour before FIL dies. Her situation may be vastly different if she inherits a lot from FIL. Or is this old fashioned patriarch intending to leave everything to his son?

Why does this sound like a kind of weird modern day version of the start of Sense and Sensibility?

I agree with this. I would also point out the utter irony of these two “men of the house” actually using a woman’s labour and wage (yours) to make up their shortcomings. Once again we have a “traditional” man who is perfectly happy for a woman to make more of the money while he publicly claims to be the “man of the house” and is happy to put her money on the line for his legacy.

Your dh is the problem putting his adult sister above his children and wife!!!!

"... To clarify, it’s a nominal sum that DH is leaving to his sister, not a percentage, so it will degrade with inflation, over time"

Hold on - do you really mean "nominal", as in very small or in name only, or do you mean a "fixed sum" or specific bequest?

If it's really a nominal sum then who cares. But a fixed sum or specific bequest could be relatively substantial and significant

[Edit - Ah. I see you clarified what you meant]

It seems like your father in law is deliberately trying to deprive you of assets in the event your husband died before you.

Is the sum of money your husband is leaving his sister significant enough it would put you in a huge financial bind to pay out, or even possibly force the sale of your home?

It still in a way forces you as the higher earner to subsidize his sister ahead of your own kids. That would not sit well with me.

I was wondering if this is a "cultural" thing...

Why did you put this in the will before your FIL died? The FIL was talking about what happens when he dies, not when your husband does.

What your FIL is (vaguely) suggesting already sounds mad but then your husband seems to have taken it one step further!

This!

He owns his large London home outright so presumably that will be split between DH and SIL-

Thing is @Porterpoets I suspect he's leaving it to your DH. Bonkers if he does, but a fairly straightforward legal "deed" of something or other will enable you DH to split it 50/50 with his sister. That's the only ethical ting to do in that situation.

But there's a whole novel written by Jane Austen which turns on the brother's lack of ethical consideration in just this situation ...

Why do you think taxes will be wasted if he leaves it all to his son rather than splitting between son and daughter? It’s the estate that pays IHT, there aren’t individual allowances for beneficiaries.

@Porterpoets - "... Whilst writing our wills, the solicitor asked DH several times to repeat his request and clarified to him what that might mean for our DC if my financial circumstances changed and he died, with this bequest still in place. I don’t know if I read too much into it, but she appeared quite surprised by it..."

"... Foolishly perhaps, it hadn’t occurred to me that FIL might have left it all to DH (Christ, you’re right, he probably bloody has…) If he has, the suggestions made for DH to split between himself and SIL is a very wise and reasonable one and I would certainly then insist on a change to DH’s will to remove SIL..."

Forgive me but what I don't understand is why your husband has been so foolish as to have already changed his will in favour of his sister while his father is still alive?

Has he considered what would happen to his estate - and to you and the children - if he were to be hit tomorrow by the proverbial bus and die before his father?

I'm not at all surprised that your solicitor thought all this was odd. She was under a duty to point out all the cons and disadvantages of this foolish course of action and the effect it might have on you and your children

Surely the only sensible thing for him to do was to wait until his father died, see how his estate was to be distributed, and only then amend his will if necessary?

Your DH has spectacularly put the cart before the horse!

Forgive me but what I don't understand is why your husband has been so foolish as to have already changed his will in favour of his sister while his father is still alive?
Has he considered what would happen to his estate - and to you and the children - if he were to be hit tomorrow by the proverbial bus and die before his father?
I'm not at all surprised that your solicitor thought all this was odd. She was under a duty to point out all the cons and disadvantages of this foolish course of action and the effect it might have on you and your children
Surely the only sensible thing for him to do was to wait until his father died, see how his estate was to be distributed, and only then amend his will if necessary?
Your DH has spectacularly put the cart before the horse!

Very good point @Manxexile

Apologies if this has already been mentioned (I've read all of your posts, but only skimmed the others) but this is a really terrible idea.

Let's say he's said £10k to his sister and then the rest is split between his children.

What if his estate is worth £15k when his will is read?

What if his estate is worth £15m when his will is read?

It would be a much more sensible idea idea to leave a percentage of the total to everyone.

Something about what your FIL has said makes me think perhaps he is planning on leaving the whole estate to DH… is that possible? If so, in your DHs shoes I would do a variation of the will and ensure SIL is ‘provided for’ fairly. If not and everything is shared equally then she will already be ‘provided for’. Either way no need to leave anything in his will.

If so, in your DHs shoes I would do a variation of the will and ensure SIL is ‘provided for’ fairly.

Being fair in this situation is a straight 50/50 split.

Let's hope that @Porterpoets and her DH are ethical enough to recognise this, and don't argue themselves out of doing the right thing. Anything else is havering and venal.

My first thought was that FIL is leaving all the money to "the man of the house", in which case, your husband can just give half to his sister saying "what dad did was ridiculous, here's your share of inheritance".

I might be tempted to ask FIL "So what do you do for SIL now financially that I need to keep on doing?" (my guess is that it will be ....nothing, but you might surprised).

I'm thinking that your DH is looking forward to being the Big Man now and having the power and dominance his pa had, dispensing money among the women and children he presides over as he sees fit

Also, excellent question raised by @Manxexile re jumping the gun on wills

Absolutely this. Ignoring the massive elephant in the room which is that the OP is the higher earner of course. It’s pathetic really.

@SqueakyDoor @SethBrogan I can assure you, very much not the case. Not in his character at all and would rather bury his head in the sand about all of this. Not his jam.

I plan on speaking to him this evening but I very much doubt that the idea has crossed his mind that FIL is not leaving it all 50/50. If that is the case, he will be horrified. It might sound ridiculous but written down it seems a probable outcome but never once did that cross my mind before.

And for those pleasant enough to insinuate that we might screw SIL over if it is all left to DH, thank you @ParmaVioletTea no we certainly would not ever dream of that.