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?

Extremely lazy and terrible of the Mil to assume that one of the sons would "Do the right thing" and divide it out. Why didn't she do things properly? 😔

Unless they are two sets of twins very close to each other, how can this be? Or are there step/half/adopted brothers involved? And does that play into the split? From what you're saying, even if eldest brother acted on mum's intentions, it would still leave 2 out of 4 brothers with nothing. I'm confused...

Yes - SE Asian- however, eldest has no one to pass it down to. One of the married sons has 2 sons if mil really wanted to keep it in the family.

Yes, the eldest son inheriting the family home is still practised by some unfortunately.

Presumably eldest son is expected to leave it to his nieces/nephews.

@YorksMa - as in 9-12 months between each of them - I think there is 12months from the eldest to the second eldest, then 9 months difference with the 3rd brother, then I think 11 months difference with the youngest. (Hope that makes sense - basically she was pregnant for about 4 years with little time in between)

@nomas he’s selling it to the brother who lives there (at full market value)

Please don't use the word FAIR.

Its massively subjective and divisive because everyone has a different view of what it means.

For example, try getting someone who insists that "X should pay a fair share of tax" to ever define what fair means for
a) X
b) themselves
Without it involving some kind of threshold that excludes themselves.

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.

If "the family" knew about it then the time to discuss and deal with it would have been before she died. Too late now.

What you or anyone else believes is "fair" does not come into it - she would have been advised and discussed the consequences and risks of this approach with her solicitor and she still chose this.

I suspect she thought the two who were already independent didn't "need" the money and out of the two at home (or even all of them) she had a "favourite" child / thought the other at home couldn't be trusted with an inheritance.

It is a cruel legacy to leave behind you. We had similar in dh's family and 10+ years on the relationships between siblings have never recovered and probably never will. Sitting from the outside without the emotion, I can see exactly why she did it and none of it was any of the brothers "faults", it's just a shame they can't take the emotion out of it and repair their relationships.

My FIL left his home to my DHs brothers. Two of the worst people I have ever known - in and out of jail, abusive to my DH when he was a child, chronically unemployed - because they lived there for the last few years before he died. They didnt provide care, that fell to my DH and his sister. But still they were left the house.

No one is entitled to anything. We dont need the money and I have no doubt that my DH would have refused it and / or allowed his brothers to stay there. He doesn't have happy memories of that house. But the fact that his father made clear where his loyalties lay as a final fuck you from beyond the grave is something my lovely husband will never fully recover from.

Unless there is a compelling reason, just split your assets equally - don't leave that kind of legacy to your children.

If I were the other brother who lived there I would look into contesting on the grounds of reasonable financial provision.

I do know of cases overseas where wills have been contested on cultural grounds (e.g. tradition has unfairly influenced the will) but I don't think there is precedent in the UK.

@YorksMa - yes - 2 of the 4 are still left without anything. Although my expectation would that it at least would be split 2 ways with the two who lived there. Not only has the 2nd brother have to deal with losing his mum - he’s also now saddled with having to deal with did his mum really love him as well as having to buy his own home from the eldest - which he afford - but still doesn’t make it right.

Is it fair? No. Does it need to be fair? No.

I’m inclined to think that she had no intention of the house being shared, given that had she wanted that she could have stated in that in her will, but said she did in order to avoid any fallout in her lifetime.

In my experience, when it comes to money after a passing, greed usually over rides the 'do the right thing' option.

Now the thread seems a bit disingenious.

MIL was from a different culture, even when she seems to cherry pick a bit what suited her.
She wrote a will based on her belief of how the topic should be dealt with.

Yes, it's not fair from the modern UK point of view.
If the eldest doesn't "do the right thing" it means her way failed.
But discussing that younger son has sons or relative age differences is totally irrelevant, her logic clearly operates with the status of the oldest son, rightly or wrongly.

This was the same for us. I would have trust my elder DSis and DB to have everything shared but it just shows that you can't always trust 'loved ones'

I don’t think it’s disingenuous. I’m genuinely asking whether people think it was the right thing to do. I completely accept she had the legal right to leave her estate however she wanted, but legality and morality aren’t always the same thing.
She’d apparently told family members she expected the eldest to “do the right thing” and make sure the brother who’d lived there for years was looked after. Instead, he’s now saying it’s his house and he can do what he wants with it. If that was always a possibility, I don’t understand why she didn’t simply reflect her wishes in the will instead of relying on trust. That’s why I’m asking if people think it was a reasonable way to divide her estate.

Probably should have left it to the two sons who lived with her and the remainder of the estate to the other two sons. Never assume someone will do, ‘the right thing’ Other option would be insist the house is sold within a year of the date of death and split the sale proceeds equally between the four sons.

Did all of the brothers know this was their mum's wishes?
If not, who knew?
If they did know, then this isnt a case of 'did my mum love me' but 'why isn't my brother doing what mum wanted'

Only the eldest knew about the will. Everyone else found out afterwards.

What she did was selfish. Why not reduce the likelihood of family drama by stating your intentions clearly in your will in the first place? I think it would've been ideal to split everything equally between all four brothers, but I can understand that it might be more complicated than that if two of them are living there and would be homeless otherwise.

Do you think she wrote the will under duress?

What a mess and the usual thing is to split everything equally between the children in the will. They would have done better I think if there was no will at all

Since she went to the trouble of making a will, I can’t imagine why she wouldn't have put in it what she really wanted to happen. So we have to assume she actually wanted to leave it all to one son, which seems grossly unfair.

Well that’s interesting in itself!