to ask ex to put DD into his will

[sevenkeystomysoul]

Ex (DDs father) owns a house outright (inherited after his wife, the mother of his DS, passed away). His DS is in his will to inherit house. But now he has DD also, AIBU to want her to have an equal share of the house should anything happen to ex or myself?

I find posts like this quite interesting. You have come on here and asked for peoples opinions. Most people have said you are being unreasonable and wrong and you tell them to "FUCK OFF" and call them all the names under the sun?

I don't think you have any right to this house as it was paid for by an insurance on the boys dead mother. The insurance money could have been put into a bank account for him to inherit. Instead his dad chose to pay off the mortgage on the house and leave the house to him.

You never paid a penny towards the house. This all happened before you were even on the scene and you knew all along that the father had left the house to his son.

No one has said your daughter should not be provided for by her father.

You seem very agressive and I really feel for this boy in the circumstances.

I do think that the fathers life insurance should be divided between the two surviving children (should he die).

I dont think the life insurance from the boys dead mother should be divided between the two children it should go to her son, your daughter was not even born and has no legal or moral claim to it - hope this clarifys my position.

I agree with littlemoominmamma. Could your ex not write in the will the reason he is leaving the house to DS, as he felt it was his dead wife's wishes. That all seems reasonable to me. That way your DD won't feel that it indicates she was forgotten about. Then he could start a savings plan/insurance for his DD to leave to her, again explaining it in the will.

If your DD feels, through your feelings, that it is unfair, then she and her half brother won't have a good relationship in future years. That's surely most important. Particularly as you never know what is going to happen. Your ex might end up bankrupt and lose the house before he dies.

YANBU OP with a small caveat - your DD and his DS and entitled to an equal share of your ex's assets upon his death - this may only be his house but that is immaterial.

OP I have lost all sympathy for you after your unpleasant post this morning.

Yes you have been given a rough time of it - but this is AIBU and you are partly responsible by the way you have responded to posters. You have been quite agressive and confrontational to several posters who were being helpful and answering constructively but did not share your opinion. This has inflamed the situation.

If you wanted sensitivity "relationships" may have been a better place to post? And been a bit less nasty.

Also can I assume you are leaving half YOUR life insurance to your step-son and Half YOUR assets ? Or are these being ring-fenced for just YOUR daughter??? IN WHICH CASE YOU ARE BEING A HYPOCITE!!!

I can see both sides really and I think I'm coming down on the side of leave 50% of exdh's estate to ds (his mums share) and the remaining 50% (exdh's share) should be split between the 2 children - so the result would be 75% to ds, 25% to dd. It may well be that 75% of his estate is the house and dd's share could be cash / shares / investments / etc etc. I see from later posts that you would be happy with this and agree that in not mentioning your dd at all in his will be could be seen to be favouring his ds.

This has personal interest to me. My dad's dad died many years ago when I was small and subsequently his mum remarried another man who had lost his wife (they were both 60ish at this point). Both brought broadly equal material possessions into the marriage (similar sized houses owned outright on same street). They made a will that stated that in the event of them both dying the estate would be split equally where 50% would be divided between my grans children (3) and the other 50% divided between by step-grandads children (5). So basically reflecting the fact that the children should inherit as they would have done in the event of no re-marriage.

Fastforward to about 10 years ago and my gran passes away. Dad retains a good supportive relationship with his step dad over the years and he subsequently passes away about a year ago.

My dad was incredibly angry to see that his will had been changed within 3 months of his mums death to massively favour his own children and leave only a token amount to my dad and his siblings.

To my dad the money wasn't the issue. The issue was that the wishes of his dead parents with regards to assets they had worked hard for during their lives and had wished to go to their children, were ignored. After much soul searching (he didn't want to appear grasping or to add to the distress of his step siblings) he decided to write to his step siblings outlining why he was upset at this - he felt that he owed it to his parents to do so.

None of them replied, he found out that legally he had not a leg to stand on, and so walked away, but at least he felt he had stood up for the rights of his parents.

To my mind the grasping one in this situation was my dads step dad, not my dad.

I think my experience has helped me to come to the conclusion I did above - that ds should inherit what is effectively his mums assests but your exdh should split what is effectively his assets between his 2 surviving children (all else being equal and nothing indicating that 1 child requires a greater share to be taken care of like some of the situations above).

Having said all this all I think is reasonable to do is to have a chat with exdh about how he has provided for dd in his will (I would bring this up by saying what you have done and asking what he has done too rather than just asking him) and leave the house out of it.

Good luck

Trouble - The point is that the house was paid for by the insurance policy on the dead mum. If the op was to marry again the daughter would inherit from the following policys:

Dead mother of step-son

Father

Mother

Step-father

The boy would be left an orphan and his only inheritance would be from:

Father

Mother

The father obviously wants to leave his son with a roof over his head should he die (quite understandable as no one else seems to have the boys interests at heart!)

The boys mother was not responsible for this womans daughter and it is basically her life insurance that the op is wanting a share of.

This boy will be without any parents should anything happen to his dad, very very different to the op's daughter. I am sure that should this go to court this is how it will be judged as it is just common sense.

This may be a bit late and also perhaps irrelevant but I thought it might help to show how this would be dealt with in Belgium which has a forced heritage situation, even if there is a will, that protects certain heirs so that they cannot be excluded from inheriting part of a person's estate. (This is prevent a second wife/husband inheriting all and leaving the children from a first marriage with nothing. You may want to give your whole estate to Battersea Dogs' Home or equivalent but here you're just not allowed to!)

Quote: "If there is one child, he or she inherits at least half of the assets, two thirds are reserved if there are two children, and three quarters if there are three or more children.

The surviving spouse has a life interest in one half of the assets of the deceased, in particular in the family home.

If there are no children, the parents or grandparents are entitled to one quarter of the assets for the mother's side and one quarter for the father's side."

It is also normal practice in Belgium to write a marriage contract before getting maried (dh and I didn't bother, having nothing of any value to worry about!).

So what this means is that when the OP's ex dh's first wife died, the half of the house that was her ex dh's remained his but the other half would have been split between him and his ds. Hence 1/4 of the house would have belonged to the ds. (The surviving spouse can remain in the house as long as s/he likes however, ie the children can't force him/her out so that they get their inheritance. This is relatively new. Until about 20 years ago they could force the surviving spouse out!)

On marrying OP, they would have had a marriage contract so their houses at the time of marriage remained their own. If something should happen now to the OP's ex dh and he is unmarried then his 3/4s of the house will be equally divided between the two children, ie ds would get a further 3/8s making a total of 5/8s and dd would get 3/8s.

I too cannot understand the nastiness on this thread. The OP is not trying to take from her ex's ds - she is just looking out for her dd knowing that she will be unable to. I think 50-50 would be wrong but the way they do it here would seem fairer or the 75%/25% suggested by others.

Not sure if you'll be back to see this sevenkeystomysoul but if you are I hope it helps.

Very simply:

Both children will inherit from their mothers (boy has already done so because his mum died)

Both children will inherit from their dad 50/50. This will not include the house as this was paid for with the boys inheritance from his mother.

If the boys mothers inheritance was divided between the two children it would mean the daughter would be getting 1/4 more than her brother as he would not inherit anything from HER mother.

Opps! crap at maths the boy would have a third less than the daughter. This is also not taking into account the mother marrying again and any inheritance from a step - parent for the daughter.

Also step-son would I gather have no home, unless he paid your daughter off.

maryz - is the house your's or it it joint with you DH? My understanding was that if you are joint owners then the house went automatically to your spouse on death, and that only if you are tenants in common can you choose how to bequeath your share?

Crazycrazy- what Maryz is saying is she would bequeath her assets to her husband but that on her husband's death she would want the house passed to her children (i.e. cut out any future children). I imagine this is a pretty common thing- I'm pretty sure a close relative of mine did something similar.

MaryZ- having read this thread I am actually going to change mine as well. At the moment DH and I just leave everything to one another but we've both decided that we'd like to ringfence those assets for our children in the event that the surviving spouse had further kids.

Never let it be said that MN isnt thought provoking

What I find most extraordinary of all is that most people are skipping the fact that they are all family.

I htink this just highlights just how differently people seem to view half siblings and full siblings, and that is just depressing (and I speak not only as a stepmother with children, but also as someone with both a half brother and a step brother and sister, and I view them all equally. They are just as much my relations as my full brothers)

What is also sad is that everyone seems to think that money is more important than family ties.

The people who actually come across as most money-grabbing in all this are the ones insisting that the house is the OP's ex's son's, and his alone.

It was never left in trust for him. And as I understand it, the policy that paid off the house is one taken out by the ex and his dead wife, in order to pay off the mortgage before the sn was even cnceived. If she had died at that point, the house would have passed ot the ex (as it did) and then the OP would have lived there, had her dd, etc etc.

The house has never been the ex's ds's. Wils extrapolations are being made that the sn's mother bought it, paid most of the mortgage, had apolicyto pay it off for the benefit of her (then nonexistent)ds, etc.

It is really sad, tbh.

This is a family. Albeit a modern, split many ways andmany times family. The ex has 2 children, and shoudl provide for them fairly.

I am, as I said before a mother and a stepmother. If I wre to die before dh, our various policies wouldpay off our mortgages and leave dh with a bit of money (as thye would if dh dies beofre me)

In either case, nothing is actually partitioned off for the children of this marriage or that marriage, and I would not exclude future children of mine (and wouldnot expect dh to exclude future children of his, as applicable)

AFAIAC, in the event of my/dh's death, there are currently 4 children in this family, and they will inherit as is fair (we have, as I said earlier in this thread a severely disabled child to furhter complicate our situation,and soanysplit of assets will probably not actually be equal (although our wills currently provide for equal splits))

If there are any more children, whether mine and dh's, or mine, or dh's, I would expect the applicable wills to reflect this.

Second marriages are not usually entered into to spite first relationships, and children form subsequent relationships/marriages are not usualy born with the sole intention of usurping children form previous relationships.

This is how many families are now, and people need ot grow up and stop trying to ringfence assets from "before" etc. Families live and grow together, and should share. There really shouldn't be this self-centred attitude of "this is mine and thatis yours"