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?

Silverfrog- I guess the point is that I dont have a responsibility for any children that Dh might go on to have with someone else. I'd be dead. I'd want to die knowing that my children would be provided for. That would give me some comfort.

I have no doubt that DH would go on to provide for all his children, with his future partner. Those children would be nothing to do with me and therefore have no call on my assets. If DH then decided to "even it up" by giving the new children more from his assets then that would of course be his right.

I cannot see how that is unfair.

I think the real issue with the Op's dilemma is we have no way of knowing what the DS's mother would have wanted.

I honestly find all this insistence that it is split down to the nearest penny, exactly equally according to genetics, really depressing.

The only things being divided up in our wills are personal effects. There are a few things that will go to my stepson as the only male heir.

There are a few things that will go to my stepchildren because, due to engravings, etc, they are only applicable to them (name changes due to marriages)

There are no equivalent things for my dds. Do I care? Not a jot. THere is a brooch which should go to dd1 (handed down mother to first born daughter for about 7 generations now. It is both hideous and worthless ) but tbh, that's not going to happen given she is so disabled.

Really, it's all just money. Do feelings and family mean so little to all of you?

If dh dies first then I inherit everyhting to be passed on to all children equally. If I remarried and had more children, then I would still consider them all equal - the ones that, biologically speaking aren't mine, and the ones that are.

If I die and dh inherits it all and has more children, then they are all still his and therefore equal. (provision for disability aside,as mentioned earlier)

Infact, as chippingin pointed out earlier, it is probably right that inthe even tof dh's death first my stepchildren should inherit a sum then, rather than wating ofr me to pop off too.

Really, emotions run high at thebestoftimes following the death of a loved one. Many people could do with taking a step back, minding less about an exact split to the neaestpenny, and being thankful for having been part of a loving family. THAT is what it is all about, not aout how much we inherit.

Does your ex pay maintenance for his DD?
As a lawyer has already pointed out your ex is legally obliged to pay maintenance to his DD, if he was to die before she turned 18 then it would still be taken from the estate.
So your daughter will be provided for! Maybe not some big lump sum, but its his choice what he leaves to his children.

If yes what exactly are you complaining about?

I think its outrageous that you think you have a right to tell your ex what to put in his will??? Thats like me saying to my parents I best be getting a third of everything you own when you die!

And in response to one of the other posters. The OP did NOT pay any monies towards said house so NO she doesnt have a right to it!

But the op isn't saying she is entitled to the house. She has never said that not once (and I have read the whole thread).

She is asking that her dd is provided for in the event of her ex's death. At present only his ds is named in the will.

OP has stated several times that she doesn't expect her dd to get equal to his ds, just to be provided for.

Honestly some of you are really getting irate over misreading the information given and i find it all a bit depressing too. OP having said that hasn't helped herself by having a tizzy and telling people to f*ck off but all she is trying to do is look out for her dd.

Why do people keep saying the the op didn't contribute - she isn't asking for money for herself, it's irrelevant

This man made 2 children, on his death, his assets will need to be distributed. I think he has duty to both, regardless of where his assets came from. The op made 1 child - any assets of hers on death go to that one child. She has no obligation to the ex's son, her ex has an obligation to both his children

I agree with the person who said 2nd (and 3rd) families are seen as inferior - that is sad

Silverfrog. I do see where you're coming from- I admire your stance on this- but I think there are 2 mitigations

1. If it wasnt for IHT DH and I would cut each other out and leave everything directly to our children, so by ringfencing for them we're just doing what we would have done but by a more circuitous and tax efficient route

1. You're assuming that future marriages will be to a reasonable person. The wicked stepmother might be a stersotype but they exist for a reason. I know someone who, on her father's death, was refused her mother's wedding ring because it formed part of the estate left to said step mother. There's no way of knowing what's going to happen if the step parent out lives the biological parent, espcially if there are "informal" arrangements for IHT purposes.i.e. father leaves everything to stepmother but informally arranges for her to divvy it out to the children. She doesn't. Your children get nothing.

So, if a woman had one child and was unfortunately widowed and now owned a house outright and went on to have another 2 children, would everyone still think she should give all her assets to the first child upon her death??

I can see your point, TheBride.

Im my world, that is where it all comes down to trust.

I trust that dh would look after all children equally. He (I hope!) trusts that I would do so.

Yes, that could be seen as naive. And in a way it is. But I am by no means unaware of what goes on when families split (as my complicated family realtions show, I am the result of amutli-blended family!). My own father walked out andnever paid another penny towards the upkeep of my siblings and I (no maitenance,no mortgage, no school fees). He dressed this up,after a while, as being my mother's partner's responsibility as he was now living with us. Bollocks was it. However he stepped up as far as he was able, and also provided forhis own son too.

The best thing we can do in this modern, mixed upworld, is to teach our children that they are not entitled to anyhitng. You are right, I could die and dh marry some unscrupulous gold digger and my children be left with nothing. BUt I cannot provide for every eventuality, I can just live my life.

And I prefer to live my life trusting dh to be reasonable, and to know I owuld be reasonable above all.

I have always foundsquabbling over assets and ringfencing (other than in a tax efficient, logical way) distasteful (not a direct comment on anything you've said, sorry if it comes across thatway. Just a personal viewpoint of mine)

another one who thinks money isn't everything. I have a half brother and we had something similar to this where he felt that proceeds of an endowment policy should be paid solely to him. This ignored the fact that premiums had not been paid by his parent but by our shared parent. We said stuff the money, if it bothers him so much he can have it.

you really think that a woman in that situation should only allow one of her children to inherit her assets?

If thats the case, then my children would inherit in different ratios - my eldest was born in a house worth 60k, my youngest was born in a house worth 500k - so youngest gets more if that rational is followed???

The reason the op won't be passing on her assets to step son is because he is step son - the father is the father to both children

I can't believe anyone is suggesting that the OP's dd should inherit form her father in a different ratio to her brother purely because the OP is not intending to leave anything to her ex-stepson.

As I have already explained, my will leaves things for all my children (both biological and step)

DO I expect dh's ex to remember my children (her children's siblings, after all!) in her will? Do I heck as like! Whyon earth would she? my children are nothing to her, and she nothing to them. At the same time, we are not reducing my step-children's inheritance because "they are also inheriting form their mother" - what abizarre concept!

It is extraordoinary, this insistance on total equality.

hold on a minute, we're back to amking htings up.

We have no idea whether, if the OP and her ex were still together, the OP would be providing equally for he (then) stepson too. the fact is, they aren't together, and the OP has no obligation, biologically, or morally, to the boy.

If dh & I were to split, my will would not take into account any future children he had, but it would still take into account my step-children. I owuld expecthis will to take into account al children in fair proportion. And vice versa.

The brutal and blunt fact is, the boy's mother is no longer here. Maybe her view would beto split it equally, given that it now belongs to the ex (that's right, not the son, the ex). THat is what I would want if I were to die.

Mybelongings/assets would all pass to dh. They would now belong to him. He could on to have another 20 children, if it so pleased him, and I would expect him to divide his assets (which now include "my" assets) accordingly and fairly between them all, taking into account the circumstances of each child. I would not expect some sort of heirarchy of the children, where the ons from the first marriage get x, the ones formthe second get y, and the ones that came at the end are lucky to get anyhting at all because everything is already ringfenced for the children born previously.

Thatisnot what happens in a "normal" family. You don't leave everyting to your firstborn, then only things acquired after the second oneis bornto the second,and then about 20p and a half-use dpactof nappies (because thatis all that is left) to the third. You divide it all up fairly according ot each child's need.

It shouldbe no different for blended familes (before orafter splits)

sorry for typos- am on phone!

OP is right to want her DD provided for - but in this case an equal share isn't fair morally or enforcable legally. Why isn't mortgage free Ex paying into insurance policies - maybe he is? Why does OP think Stepson should get less as she has no assets to leave her daughter?

OK she lived in this house, did she contribute financially? Also not sure but could her ExH move her out of the marital home without any financial implications? Does anyone know?

What happened when she moved in, did she sell her own property and if so what did she do with that money? How did she pay for the house she subsequently lost when she was made unemployed? Was there any money from her husband as part of the divorce?

Yes, I understand what yu say re: differences in attitude to stepchildren.

BUT (and it is relevant, I feel) I have been step-mother to dh's children for over half their lives now. And hopefully for a good few more

The OP was involved with the boy and his father, as a family unit for a max of 3 years, I think.

Thereis a difference there, of course, otherwise we'd all be going around leaving half our belongings to previous partners and their children, irrespective of length or seriousness of relationship.

It is an interesting discussion, isn't it? And it's not always straightforward what one should be doing.

I would be very pissed off if I died and my hypothetical husband had a relationship with another woman for a very short time, she got pregnant and he then changed his will so that our child and this new child got an equal share. Obviously I wouldn't know about it though

If the ex had got divorced from his wife rather than her dying, they would have split their assets equally. Then if he had got together with the OP he would have 1/2 of those and then I think it would be fair enough to split those between both children.

So I agree (in a long-winded way) with the poster who said 75%/25%.

I want to know how old the ex's DS is. If he is still a child, I do find this all a bit distasteful

What I like about the Belgian system is that it is fixed in law so that it, in theory, reduces squabbles and stops the sort of unfair situations like alicet's dad found himself in. However, I think there are still problems as adult children inheriting will have to pay inheritance tax even if they can't touch their inheritance because the surviving spouse remains in the property. This could cause enormous financial difficulties for the children involved. This is why they used to force the surviving spouse out of the house but this isn't possible anymore. It is also seen by some as unfair that the surviving spouse doesn't inherit everything but, as I said, the situations you hear about (young women marries older man, inherits everything when he dies and maybe shares with her own children whilst his children get nothing) makes me glad it's in place nevertheless.