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?

No drip feed at all. Even the sons who lived separately saw their mum regularly (including the wife’s and grandchildren).

All sons working and self sufficient - incl the 2 that lived with her. That’s why the will doesn’t make any sense to me. My Husband has seen the will so it’s apparently legit.

Was there some cultural idea in play?
Something like that the oldest sibling gets all the resources and has the responsibility for providing (in this case providing home) for the younger ones?

I've met this concept in my country's (EU) fairytales. It was seen as a way to not divide the estate like houses and farm land, keeping the specific houses and land in the family for many generations.
It makes some sense - my grandfather worked in a forest he owned, planting trees which would have matured in two or three human generations.

Sounds to me as though she relied on her eldest son to guide her (perhaps replacing her husband in the role) and was perhaps manipulated by him.

@FourSevenFour nothing like that at all. Eldest two don’t have any children either so no one to pass it down to. Culturally, it’s left for the boys to inherit - the youngest is the only one with Sons so if she wanted it passed down then the youngest would’ve inherited. The will
was made about 15 years ago.

I think it depends.
If the is a Stately Home, then it is customery in the UK, for it to be left to the eldest son, but provision would be made for the other family members.(Daughters were often given their 'share' on their marriage.)
If this is NOT a stately home, then at the very least, it ought to have been left to the two sons who lived there equally, though if it were me, I would have left to all my children equally.
This would mean the house would most likely having to be sold, unless one of the resident persons could raise a mortgae on the house to pay off the others.
Promises mean nothing; if it is not in the will, then it is not legally binding.

Are they old farming family?

Very traditional were we live to leave property and lands to oldest son.

Just to add - they are all of similar ages - about 9-12 months apart from oldest to youngest.

Not a farming family and only traditional when it suited her (eg dowry expectations etc)

Maybe he could look into contesting the will.

I wonder if people like this realise what resentment and fractured relationships they leave behind by doing things like this.

Also not a stately home. Box standard detached house. Nothing special (in the nicest way possible)

It happened with 4 in my dh family - one son got all but it was a farm. But if there is no farm its hard to understand.

Even if you leave aside fairness, it was just bloody stupid. “I’ll leave it all to him and I assume he’ll split it fairly”. Why? Why would you not just write the will the way you want it split.

My situation too. It breaks my heart to think of my child losing their mum then having to sell their home but I have to be fair to each child.

... dowry expectations ...

Ok, if she is traditional when it suits her and had dowry expectations (!), than she was obviously having some pseudocultural ideas about how are things done, which were probably impractical, outdated, misinformed or purely batshit, but it explains why she decided that her ideas are more relevant than just writing a will which would actually lead to the target state.

Have the three brothers who haven't inherited spoken to the older brother and told him that he is going against their mums wishes, which were well known amongst you all?
What is his reasoning for going against what she wanted???

Is the oldest deficient in some way? IE unable to provide for himself in a way that the other 3 can?

Will the other son living at the house be kicked out now?

That's all sorts of totally unnecessary family drama.

This. Specifying what you want in a will is the only way to be sure your wishes are carried out.

As far as not dividing everything equally between all 4 children, I don't think there's anything very wrong with that if, for example, some of the children are already very comfortably off and some are struggling.

Totally unfair but not sure there is much anyone can do at this point. Contesting a will costs a fortune. I would be gutted for the other brothers.

It definitely is not fair. No doubt the two sons who have their own homes worked hard to build a deposit, and still have mortgages. Yet the eldest son, who has never contributed to payments for a house, now owns it outright! And it's even less fair for the other son, who now has nothing.

Imo this is a potential time bomb. What if the son who inherited goes on to marry, and subsequently the whole of your MIL's estate passes to the wife? What if one of the home-owning sons becomes ill or falls on hard times, such that financial help is needed? Your MIL was very short-sighted in her decision, which is why I'm wondering if she took legal advice. In situations like this, where some children are disinherited, a solicitor would have kept a record of the decision process, in case of any future contest.

If I were you, I would remain calm for now, and find out as much background information as you can. I believe you have up to two years to contest the will, or arrange a deed of variation, so take your time and ensure you have all the facts before you do anything.

I don't think you've mentioned yet - how does your DH feel about it?

Yes quite. Why bother to write a will and not say what you actually intended. It's not like it would have been more work.

I would double check the will personally to ensure that older brother hasn't done anything questionable.

Also, if the other brother lived there, couldn't he have a dependency claim on the estate?

I've just seen your update that the will is 15 years old. I would check the National Will Register to see if a more recent will has been lodged. Most solicitors will do this as part of their service when they are involved in will writing.

If there are 2 sons still living in the family home why is only 1 of them supposed to be given 50% by the one who inherits it?

Or have I misunderstood?

@BMW58thats exactly it - I don’t understand it. Even if not fairly shared amongst the 4 sons - then at least with the 2 that lived there,

Dowry? This bit stood out. Are they a SE Asian family? Because that would also explain the cultural expectation that the oldest son "looks after" the rest of the family including younger adult siblings. (Even though in this case it sounds like he doesnt!)

Writing a Will based on someone else ‘doing what is right’ is a very foolish thing to do, for one thing the one who is expected to do the right thing might find themselves in circumstances where they simply can’t because they need the money themselves, or they might fall out with the other people or just turn out to be greedy. Personally I think the ‘right’ thing to do is split it four ways, even if one of the kids is a millionaire, because they could then say I don’t need it and pass it on.