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?

This is why you shouldn't get married if you aren't prepared to lose half of everything.

Quite! My ex got nearly £100k when we divorced, despite most of the equity in my house having been accrued before we even met, let alone married.

I can't imagine what mindset I'd have to have to expect half of it back if I outlive him.

You brought care into it. Someone mentioned responsibility you decided to use the extreme situation of kids going into care. When it’s irrelevant unless fil is threatening to put the kids in care.

No, I don’t believe anyone has a responsibility to takes other peoples children unless they choose to. Especially, when terminally ill themselves.

It’s not assumptions. It’s all there in the Op.
The ex wife got plenty of ‘his’ money. Enough that in 5 years she didn’t really touch the capital. The breakdown of the divorce is in the Op. the rest is basic maths.

He has over 75% of what he considers ‘his’ money.

Any man, who marries someone but always considers all money to be ‘his’ is not a good man. And by definition- grabby.

If I've understood this correctly, your FIL had a 50/50 asset split with his ex wife. She died and the money went to her son. The son died and the money went to the daughter. Now FIL wants 'his' money back?

He's done a very kind thing by taking on the children of his ex wife but despite him contributing financially more to the marriage, that money was never 'his'. Courts grant 50/50 asset split based on more than just financial contributions.

I think the daughter has been exceptionally kind in giving half to the FIL to help raise the children but she doesn't have any legal or moral obligation to do so.

If FIL is struggling financially then he needs to see if he's entitled to any benefits. It's not and never was his money.

your fil ex wife had two children, no will means it should be split between the two. N this case one has died. So the other gets 100%

it’s all correct. She has been good enough to give back her brothers share, which she didn’t have to. In fact she could have put it in trust for them but has given it to fil to help him look after them

if she has terminal cancer then who knows more money may come their way

just be grateful for what she had done

Any man, who marries someone but always considers all money to be ‘his’ is not a good man

Especially considering it was a 25 year marriage.

Not like she blew in, hung around for 18 months and ran off with half his money

That’s not correct unless the ex wife made a will specifically to say so.

If she died intestate her estate would be split 50% to her DD and 50% to her DS’s children. It would only have been 100% to the DD if the DS had no children.

Sounds like the unluckiest family ever. However, regardless of what fil wanted, the money should have gone into trust for the children. With him able to apply to the trustees for expenses. What is the terminally I'll aunt doing with it? Spending it? Leaving no will? In which case it will land with the kids and someone needs to advocate for them.

There is no mention of the DIL financials - how about thinking about if SHE needs the money. She is dying from cancer FFS, probably can't work as a result and needs that money to live on. We have established that FIL shouldn't 'need' the money as he has already received 50%. Legally she was left the whole lot and has given the 50% over, she has already contributed massively. Maybe his bills have changed a bit, but I know my water is exactly the same as we're not on a meter and a chunk of my energy bills are the cost of the standing day charge. My telephone, TV, car expenses, council tax, insurances etc are all unchanged so therefore my costs of running a house are not greatly impacted by having kids. What would the kids NEED bar clothes and food etc? Are we expecting other people to fund his holidays now? If the kids have an expensive school trip or something they could appeal for that item to be funded, needing 100% of someone's inheritance is a ridiculous request. Literally, to try guilting a dying woman out of money left to her by her mother is the lowest of the low. And I question the OP morals here too - why is she involved? What does she get out of it? Making sure the money is back with her husband's family before FIL dies so she gets more maybe??

Why do you think it's FILs money? It was money awarded to his second wife after the divorce. That means it's her money. They were married and it doesn't matter who made the money. It was rightfully hers as she was in the marriage and contributed to the money in one way or another ie, she looked after the children whilst he worked presumably.

It's quite right that she would leave her money to her own children. I think the daughter has been very kind agreeing to return half to help FIL. Particularly as she is ill herself.

Tell that to all the people asking for child maintenance!

Kids don't cost anything!

You’re harassing a dying woman for money? What’s wrong with you.

those poor kids.

That is incorrect. The son’s inheritance should have been split 50/50 to his children unless he had a Will stating otherwise.

Something is not right with this situation, and the more I read the more suspicious I am of the OP and her DH and father in law. Also, given OP has not come back to the thread says a lot….

And even if this whole sorry tale is true, the basis of it, the ex wife getting 50% of the home after 25 years seems entirely reasonable to me.

At the end of the day, the step children benefited massively from FIL marrying their mother and FILs own children were massively disadvantaged by it. So there wil be mixed emotions depending on who was on the receiving end of what.
1st and 2nd families and step kids and blended families is a recipe for unfairness.

Definitely something not right. Either bollocks.

Or, since op said ‘50% didn't go to the children because it would have meant it going in trust and they need the money to be available to them now.’

There was clearly a decision somewhere, to stop the gulf Rena money going into trust. I have no idea how.

Even though the fil could have received money from the trust to raise them, someone didn’t want that. Since Op, her dh and FIL all believe it’s his money, I assume them.

Can you even do that though? Refuse inheritance on someone’s behalf? And now it’s gone to FIL, would he need to pay tax on it?

If it was made from an investment fund it’s not like he’s toiled blood sweat and tears down a mine to “earn” it. He got a good deal on his second divorce settlement.

Genuine question, how are fils biological children disadvantaged by It.

and that’s between ops dh and his father. Not the grandkids or their aunt.

Which was FIL’s choice - he didn’t have to get married again, or disadvantage his children from his first marriage. The “blame” should be squarely at his door if there’s resentment.

There is such a lot of misinformation on this thread. Perhaps people making assertions as to the law could post links to back up what they say?

Firstly, as many others have said, (but lots have said otherwise) the aunt was not entitled to all her mother's money just because her brother was dead. Their mother died intestate and, assuming that she was domiciled in England or Wales, the assets would be split 50:50 between her children, with their children taking any share of a parent who had pre-deceased them.

Link for anyone who wants to look it up.

www.gov.uk/inherits-someone-dies-without-will

So the aunt inexplicably appropriated her nephew and niece's money, but appears to have given it back (or at least given it to FIL to be used for their benefit).

Secondly, as the children are minors, it would go into a statutory trust on death of their grandmother intestate as their father had predeceased them.

www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/trusts-settlements-and-estates-manual/tsem3436

A trust does not mean that the children cannot benefit from the money until they are adults. It means that while they are minors, trustees can manage the money, buy and sell things on their behalf.

Statutory Trusts are governered by the Trustee Act 1925.

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/19/section/31

Link here to the specific part of the legislation that allows income of the trust to be used for the child's benefit. The following section allows advancement of the capital.

So FIL would definitely be able to apply to the trust (or, if he was a trustee, pay the trust money) for the benefit of the children. Which of course would mean to pay for food, clothes etc etc.

I have no idea why FIL would think he is entitled, morally or legally, to the money that belongs to their aunt.

The aunt would be well advised to make a will, otherwise her money will go to her father (if alive) or her nephew and niece, again on statutory trust, if not. Which may, or may not, be what she wants.

No, it isnt.

When the mother died, both children were alive. At the point, her estate was 50/50 to each of her children. They each owned 50%.

Before they had finalised probate, the son died. But he still owned that 50%. So that half gets split between his children.

It does not go to his sister. It is not hers to do what she wants with. She shouldn't have take it and given it to the OP's money grabbing Fil.

It belongs to the children and should be in trust for them

50% of everything that FIL toiled and laboured for and invested over 25 years has gone to two unrelated adults. Normally that inheritance would be passed down to his own children. In this case his own children saw 0% despite his assets and savings now being down 50%. Had he stayed with their mother or not remarried, the money that went to these unrelated adults would have gone to his own children.

On top of that, their dad was busy raising another woman's family while they grew up.

OP - are the children in England or Wales? If so, does FIL have a Child Arrangements Order for these children? Or a Special Guardianship Order? If not, it would seem nobody has legal parental responsibility for them?

As a step-grandfather he is not classed as a close relative so Children's Services need to be notified as this falls under Private Fostering regulations.

One way or another, there needs to be a social work assessment of these children's circumstances, which would ensure their needs are being prioritised.

FIL should claim any financial support he is entitled to, and make sure he is not stealing from the children.

They’re not her kids to pay for! Nothing like child maintenance, of course fathers should provide for their own bloody kids.

I don't disagree. The aunt should never have gotten 100% - 50% should go to FIL to raise the kids as it would have to the son to raise the kids and aunt has done that.

And the aunt and her brother weren't FILs kids to pay for. Nor are the grandchildren his kids to pay for.

Mothers should privide for their own bloody kids but in this scenario the mother didn't and so FIL did - when he had no duty to do so.