Was Mils will fair?

[PurpleInGaloshes]

Looking for some impartial opinions on a family situation.
My mother-in-law recently passed away. She had four sons, and none of them were estranged from her. If anything, the youngest son was generally considered to be her favourite.
My father-in-law passed away many years ago, and they had bought the family home together years before he died.
Two of the sons are married and have their own homes. The other two are unmarried, have no children or partners, and still lived with their mum. They didn’t contribute towards the mortgage or upkeep of the house, but they did pay household bills and buy food.
In her will, she left the entire house to the oldest son only. The other three sons received no share of the house.
From what she told the family before she passed away, she believed the oldest son would “do the right thing” and give a 50% share of the house to the other son who still lived there. However, since inheriting the house, the oldest son has said it’s his house, he can do what he wants with it, and he has no obligation to share it.
I completely understand that it was her house and she had every legal right to leave it to whoever she wanted. I’m not asking about the legal side—I’m genuinely interested in what others think as my expectation, as bare minimum was that she would’ve have left it equally to the 2 sons that lived with her.
Do you think she should have left the house to all four sons equally? Or, if her intention was for the two sons living there to benefit, should she have written that into the will instead of relying on one son to share voluntarily?

She obviously should have left shares to the kids she wanted to have a share of it, instead of trusting the eldest son.

I don't understand people like your mil. If she wanted it split a certain way she should have stipulated that in her will in the first place. Why just expect the eldest son to do 'right'? The sensible thing to do is set things out clearly in your will.

No, imo it should have been left equally between the four of them, unless there was cash or other assets available to "match" the inheritance for the others.

I'm in a similar situation and finding I have a
quandry. I have one adult son living with me. It's his home and I'd like him to be able to take his time and have some practical support to move out when the time comes, but he can't have all his brother's inheritance.

There is no “should” - she was free to do exactly what she wanted with her estate.

However she was remarkably stupid if she wanted the house divided between two sons to leave it entirely to one. If she wanted it split, she should have put that in the Will.

Estate to be sold and all money shared equally to each of her chilften.

An absolutely bonkers thing to do if she wanted to actually have a completely different result to be intuited by the oldest son.

In fact she just made it harder and provided both sons with a potentially larger tax bill if they did decide to carry out her unspoken wishes.

I completely accept the position that it's the doners money/property to do with it whatever they please but it seems so inevitable that favouring one child, seemingly arbitrarily, so blatantly over others is going to cause upset and resentment once you're gone.

From what she told the family before she passed away, she believed the oldest son would “do the right thing” and give a 50% share of the house to the other son who still lived there

This is total madness! Why didn't she 'do the right thing' in the first place?

Was there definitely a will? Or is eldest BIL just saying everything was left to him?

It is very unfair to the other sons, but do you think your MIL could have told the eldest what she was doing and he promised to give half the house to his brother? I ask because a member of my extended family died and left everything to his daughters. They had sworn to him that they would allow his wife (their stepmother) to live in the house till she died, but they disregarded their promise and made her leave.

If she had wanted the house to be shared between the two she should have put it in the will. Bonkers. She has now left a right mess behind and will no doubt cause a lot of stress and unhappiness. Well done MIL!

Ideally she should have split the value of the whole estate equally between the four. If everyone agrees this could still happen.

How sad that your MiL didn’t think properly about all her children. And how naive to assume that her eldest son would ‘do the right thing’. It’s not like we are still living in those times when inheritance almost always got passed to the male first born. The point of making a will is that it enables you to set out what you want to happen!

I hope that this does not cause a horrible family fall-out.

She was only going to leave half to one of the sons who lived there? So only 2 out of the 4 sons were to receive anything in her eyes? That sounds very off. It should be split equally.

Is there some reason she did it like this? Is the younger son irresponsible/a spendthrift/something else that meant she was uncomfortable naming him in the will? At the very least, I would have expected a clause like, “I leave my house to my eldest son, Bob, in the hope that he and younger brother Harry will continue to live there.” That’s not legally enforceable, but it would have made her intentions clear. Does the oldest son intend to kick his brother out into the street, then? Sadly, he’s right - it’s left to him! He absolutely can do as he will with it. Personally, I could never countenance not leaving what I have equally between all my DC, but failing that, your MIL really should have left it to her two sons who lived with her if she wanted them to carry on living there.

In her will, she left the entire house to the oldest son only. The other three sons received no share of the house.

I am always baffled by the stupidity of others...

Honestly it aas a dumb ass thing to do
if she wanted it to go to the 2 of them... leave it to the 2 of them.

Now everyone has to live with the consequences. Which presumably will involve fallings out and estrangement

Everybody has the right to dictate what happens to their money/things after they die, so there is no specific course of action she should have done.

If she wanted to leave it to one of her sons that is her business and no one elses.

But she was pretty stupid (and her son that lost out was a bit silly not to work to persuade her otherwise) expecting someone to carry out her wishes on trust after she died.

Were there other assets or have the other 3 inherited nothing at all?

Madness. She has caused so much bad feeling now between the brothers for ever.

I am one of four and we always knew that everything would be left equally to all of us which is what happened.

I am the oldest and if everything had been left to me I would have divided it anyway. But the will was fair and everyone knew where they stood.

The oldest son could vary the will to give his brother the share his mother wanted. But why she didn't just write the will that way in the first place I don't understand. Which part of the family said that was her intention? Perhaps it was just an opinion that the oldest brother would 'do the right thing' and look after his younger single brother generally rather than give him half the house.

Questions, questions, questions. There must be more to this.

How old is the will? Is it possible there's a newer one?
Is it lodged with a solicitor, or does someone in the family have the original?
Who is the executor? Do they know reasons for her decision?

This is a very strange situation. If she made the will via a solicitor, she was very poorly advised, and I would follow that up with them. Ask if there is any documentation on why she decided on leaving it all to one son.

I have always thought that (assuming no estrangements) a parent should divide the estate equally between all children. The eldest son could instruct a deed of variation and share the estate more fairly, but it doesn't sound like he'd be inclined to do that.

Well I think it was a poor choice to trust someone else to share it and if she wanted it shared she should have. Leaving a will like that is almost certainly going to end in family conflict.

No other assets of much value tbh. None of the sons are irresponsible and all went to see their mum regularly. IMO she should have treated them all equally and split the house 4 ways. But she didn’t. I don’t understand how she can do this - it’s almost like she loved one more than the others. I’d be gutted if I was the other son (I’m gutted on his behalf - all the things he’s done for his mum over the years and he left out) (yes I know she can leave whatever she wants to whomever she wants to - I do think it’s unfair)

IMO it’s totally unfair and I could never imagine a scenario where I’d think it was the right thing.

However, that’s her will so he can now do what he wants with the house as its sole legal owner. And if it was me bring one of the brothers I’d never have anything to do with him if he didn’t split it equally.

@MathsMum3 - I think I will ask some more questions and see if there is anything else I can find out. The legacy she leaves behind is not a happy (or fair) one.

Clearly unfair unless this is a massive drip feed. The poor other sons.

Split four ways is what I'd do unless there were special needs/ disabilities involved for the sons still living in the house in which case I can see an argument for leaving it just to them.

Simple answer, no it wasn’t. It was hurtful. I would hope it was done out of stupidity, listening and not fully understanding advice she’d come across.