Note from MNHQ: please note OP's post @ 19.08 on 22 Jan. The OP has admitted this is a reverse but we are leaving this thread up so they continue to receive advice. Inheritance money - AIBU to be p*ssed off?

why would you?

Their legal guardian has plenty of money. If it’s all tied up in the house, he could have chosen not to keep the house.

He has the assets from before the marriage. Half the assets accrued during the marriage. And now another chunk which is about 25% of the assets accrued during their marriage. Which half his ex wife’s estate. He has the vast majority of it.

Why does the kids being orphaned put financial responsibility onto their aunt? And for all we know, she may leave money to them in a trust (hopefully after all this).

If she chooses to, that’s up to her. But I don’t think it’s an obligation. And given her step father, has most of it and trying to black mail her, I can see why she wouldn’t put more money into his control.

Firstly it's got absolutely nothing to do with you.

Secondly she was far far more generous than most to give him 50% of her inheritance. Tell him to quit while he's ahead and leave her alone. It's not his money so stop calling it that.

You need to separate the divorce proceedings and the inheritance. The moment the divorce was settled was the moment that money was no longer your FILs.

After that point his ex can do whatever she wants with the money, the fact that 50% has been given back to your FIL shows to me that the step daughter respects him and what he's doing to raise the grandchildren and is more than fair.

They sound like a pretty good family based on what you've said, and I really respect that they're looking out for the poor kids who have lost their parents.

You just seem grabby.

Yes that is true and equally FIL shoulldn't be entitled to those assets the issue here is that his own biological children lose out as his assets went to his second wife's children rather than this own. He should have been putting his savings and assets into trust for his biological children or if he considered these two his own as well - then split across all this children. In his own will he can maybe balance it out but since he is now raising another family later in life, he may end up using his savings to do so.

Siblings often grow up to loathe each other. They are not responsible for each others dc

Even if I disliked my sibling, I wouldn't want my orphaned siblings going into care.

Maybe it's a culture thing, I'm not English & we as a family would all just work together to try & give those orphaned children the best chance 🤷🏻‍♀️

FIL must make sure he accounts for every penny. It should have been put into trust so independent trustees could have ensure the money was genuinely spend on their needs, he could get into a lot of trouble by assuming this is in any way HIS money. If he spends it the money will be taken from his estate and given back to the grandchildren before your husband gets anything.

You're asking why did their father choose his family over his late wife's? Because it's his family I presume.

I don't understand why the money all went to the daughter. Under intestacy laws it should have gone 50% to her and 50% to her brother's children. FiL has no right to it.

However, if the money is put in trust my understanding is that the trustees can approve it being spent on bringing up the orphans. This happened in my family and it was used to pay for boarding school.

What FIL (and the OP) don't appear to recognise is that if his ex wife had decided to put every penny of the divorce settlement on a horse, there is nothing at all he could have done about it, because it was her money. Half is now her daughter's money and the other half should have been put in trust for her grandchildren, their father being dead, because it is now their money

Looking after his grandchildren (even if not blood related) is admirable and he should get all and any help available, including proper access to anything in trust for them as appropriate (ie for their benefit) It is however coming across that he feels entitled to money that is absolutely not his. Oddly, so does the OP, who is even further from the situation. All very unpleasant.

@Bellalalala

Exactly.

It doesn't sit right.

The fil has "taken on " two small DC in second marriage and is now clearly wanting his money back that was legally left to this girl he raised by her mother.

But we are supposed to think he can do it again? Raise two small DC...he clearly doesn't like the other two he " raised".
The poor children.

One hopes if they end up in care which is highly likely any money used from their inheritance will be clawed back from.fils estate so they have "something" when older.

It's highly likely fil due to age will not last the course and he has spent their inheritance...they will have nothing and no one .

And I get your DH's feelings. His dad already left his first kids for a second family and then later when maybe regretting that has to give his money, savings and assets to the step children, once again leaving his bio children without.

Just like if FIL had died first and all MIL had been the breadwinner and all her assets and savings had gone to your DH - her own daughter would probably have been pissed off too.

What the hell are you talking about OP?

Ex-wife #2 died with most of the money she received in the divorce, in the bank. The ex-wife #2's daughter, who doesn't have children, has therefore inherited all of ex-wife #2's money, which in reality is pretty much all of my FIL's money

No, it’s not his money at all, it was his ex wife’s. Did you think everything in a marriage should automatically belong to the man?! It’s not his money, it was hers and she’s left it to her daughter. He has absolutely no right to demand it, it’s not his, and she has no duty to pay for her cousins to be raised. It was very nice of her to give him 50%, now stop being so fucking entitled and grabby.

That’s relevant how?

They got married over 30 years ago. If he didn’t want to be married to someone who didn’t work full time he didn’t need to be.

Yes times are changing. There’s still advantage to having one person at home more. Maybe less so recently. I am the main wage earner in my family so can’t comment. It’s often that the earner is happy with one person being at home more, right until divorce. Then they hated it and think it should impact the divorce settlement

I don't think OP cares much if the FIL is a nice, or good, man. OP and her DH simply want the money to find its way back into the DH's inheritance.
Which is legally and morally wrong. FIL agreed the terms of the divorce, end of. It was up to ex wife who she left her estate to, end of.
The children's money ought to be put in trust (which doesn't necessarily mean it can't be used in the coming years for their well-being). If no closer relative is willing to take them on and bring them up then a discussion with SS will have to be had. Maybe there are fostering allowances that could come into play, etc, if it's all about the money.
Poor children.

?

No! His own assets were retained by him after his divorce. Non of his assets went to his DC. He still has his assests to pass onto his original dx.

But of course again it's common for men to ignore first blood dx and move onto another Ready made family

The step son moved in with his Dad.

Just because they were the closer in terms of relationship doesn’t mean there are no other relatives.

I was brought up by my paternal grandparents. Maternal ones weren’t interested (one) or able (the other). It happens.

It sounds very much like the FIL viewed his step son as his son, and the son viewed him as his dad. No odd given the lengths of time involved in the marriage

@Bellalalala I'm not sure how else to explain why I would feel responsibility for my orphaned nieces & nephews. That's our family dynamic & completely normal to me.

Their legal guardian has plenty of money. If it’s all tied up in the house, he could have chosen not to keep the house

We don't know if he has plenty of money or who decides what's enough. If my parents took in my nieces I wouldn't expect them to sell the family home to support them. Why should they?

Why does the kids being orphaned put financial responsibility onto their aunt? because they are family....I don't understand why this isn't obvious 😆

FIL has no obligation to raise the gc but I think it's right they are with family as opposed to in care don't you?

I am not English.

But still don’t agree. Why would the kids need to go in care if the aunt doesn’t give her inheritance up?

Because the man who considers (and always considered it, his money) says so? The same man who only took them on assuming he would get all ‘his’ money back now his ex wife is dead?

The FIL has the vast majority of the money. From the divorce to getting the grandkids money. If he is threatening to put the kids in care unless she gives him her money, that makes him a dick.

Personally having thought more about the logistics I think it's better the children inheritance from their dad is totally ring fenced for their future because it seems they will end up in care regardedles.

You're asking why did their father choose his family over his late wife's? Because it's his family I presume.

you lost me? The question was about blood relatives & whether they had any responsibility to contribute to the nephews? wouldn't other relatives also be their family?

I'm sure fil is sadly no spring chicken,so I think it's likely they might end up in care anyway or Forster care

I have not read the full thread. If the ex wife did not leave a will, her estate should have been split between her 2 children so when the son died his estate would have gone into trust for his 2 children. Is that not how it works?

poor children to lose their dad and grandmother in a short space of time, that’s sad.

This sounds like a law degree questions about what sound happen to the money in the most unlikely set of circumstances possible.

that 50% needs to be protected for the children. You FIL can draw on the money for costs relevant to there housing and upbringing etc but should keep careful account of this.

He may be quite young. I'm in my late 40s and my mother had six grandchildren at my age, the eldest who was 12 when she turned 50.

But still don’t agree. Why would the kids need to go in care if the aunt doesn’t give her inheritance up?

I don't understand what you are reading in my posts. Where did I say if the aunt doesn't give up her inheritance the dc need to go into care.

Again, in my culture & what is normal for me is going into care wouldn't happen & all family would contribute in whatever why they can whether it's time or money etc to give the dc the best chance. There's a middle ground between no contribution& giving all of the aunts inheritance to the FIL, I never said she should do that.