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?

I completely agree with this and I'm sure if you were married and agreed to let your DH be the main earner, then divorced, you would be indignant at people suggesting you weren't entitled to your half of any money because you hadn't earned it.

He’s harassing the terminally ill woman that’s considered him her Dad for 30 years…

Nasty isn't it

Well yes, but he did divorce their mother and remarry and acted as father to her children. You can't make up an entirely different scenario and then expect the outcomes to be the same.

I wonder to what extent OP and her husband have put this idea in FIL’s head and convinced him that what he’s doing is right.

Utter nonsense.

He was lucky to get the 50% (for the kids) and he should stop whining on.

If he's that great at investing, why is he now struggling for money?

He can always ask social services to step in for the kids, or their mother's family.

50% of everything that FIL toiled and laboured for and invested over 25 years has gone to two unrelated adults.

Such a horrible way to describe two people who have viewed him as their dad for 30 years.

His son was close enough that his Dad is who he lived with.

No wonder my DH’s PIL were quite so nervous when he and I met given some of the attitudes to stepchildren that someone clearly chose to view as their own (until money was involved).

No that isn't how it works. Because she didn't make a will, her money and assets have gone straight to next of kin and so on. It will never go back to the ex husband because he was court ordered to give it to the ex wife. It's not seen as his. However I notice that the ex wife's daughter was legally awarded the money. She was kind enough to give your fil half of her inheritance. What a lovely and kind lady. Tell you fil to please stop harassing her for the rest.

Your FIL is a nasty thief and you're his enabler.

When Ex-w 2 died intestate, her estate should have been distributed according to intestacy law, which means her grandchildren were entitled to a share of it because her son died before her estate was distributed

Whoever is looking after the orphans should claim to a court on their behalf. The children may qualify for legal aid for that purpose

www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/death-and-wills/who-can-inherit-if-there-is-no-will-the-rules-of-intestacy/

quote
"Grandchildren and great grandchildren

A grandchild or great grandchild cannot inherit from the estate of an intestate person unless either:

their parent or grandparent has died before the intestate person, or
their parent is alive when the intestate person dies but dies before reaching the age of 18 without having married or formed a civil partnership

In these circumstances, the grandchildren and great grandchildren will inherit equal shares of the share to which their parent or grandparent would have been entitled." ////////////////////////////////\

FIL is looking after the orphans and has 50% of their mother's estate. So FIL would be claiming from himself.

If I were the dil I'd be compiling evidence of this harassment and contacting the police to file a harassment and extortion claim.

The stepdaughter took the children's inheritance and then gifted money to FIL. If FIL dropped dead tomorrow, that money becomes part of his estate. Why can people not understand this? The children have not received their rightful and legal inheritance.

That’s where there’s a huge chunk of the story missing. It appears that op is talking either making it up. Talking shit and there’s an huge bit she has left out, like there was a will which, for whatever reason, left all the money to the daughter. And the daughter decided to give half to her step father for the kids.

Op states ‘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.’, which makes it sounds like someone intervened to stop it going into trust. Although I can’t work out how they would have done this.

But it’s clear the fil didn’t want it in a trust, even though he could have claimed from it. He wanted the money.

He wouldn’t be. The legal responsibility for the children’s money lies with whoever completed probate or administration.

It’s their grandmother’s estate. Their fathers 50% share of his mother’s estate

We don't know what FIL is doing with the money. Nor do we know if OP's version of events is entirely accurate.

Given what the OP says, the daughter almost certainly administered her mother's estate. It sounds like she has now distributed the estate and given 50% of it to FIL to hold for the children. She has therefore distributed it correctly. FIL needs to clearly identify this money as belonging to the children so that it doesn't form part of his estate.

Whatever has happened, a claim against SIL would fail as she only has the money she was entitled to inherit. A claim against SIL for incorrectly administering the estate would fail as she would say she has given the money to FIL to hold on the children's behalf. So the only possible claim is against FIL if he does not look after the children's money correctly.

The only way they can have done this is by not following the law. They've done what suits them. The children's money hasn't been protected. It is the SD who will get in trouble for this. She was the one who took all the money. FIL can throw the children out tomorrow if he wants and no one can do a thing about it.

Probably by not doing probate or administration properly.

It’s not necessarily easy, but can be possible. Especially if it was all cash/savings rather than properly that needed sold.

Whoever moved the money around without protecting the children’s share could be up shit street legally though.

If she administered the estate then the responsibility to protect the children’s money falls on her.

whoever administered the estate had the personal responsibility to set up the legal trusts to protect the children’s money.

Saying “I have it to X or Y” doesn’t cut it legally.

He isn't "holding" the money for the children. There is no trust. That is money in his pocket now. That money is his to do with what he wishes. If he dies, that money will become part of his estate and be dispensed according to his will.

Except I am pretty sure that the op would have pointed out if she thought the sil wouldn’t have acted illegally. They would be threatening her with that to get the rest of the money. Since they aren’t above black mail.

And it’s the fil that didn’t want the money in trust. The only person that benefits, is him.

Which is why, I think there was (possibly) a will that disinherited the Son. Rather than this terminally ill woman managed to swindle the estate, with no gain to herself.

If this is true. Sounds more like op is testing a plot for a book.

See my later post.

The executors in this situation are entitled to pass the money to someone else who will look after it for the children. The sister appears to have done just that. I am sure that is what she would claim if this went to court.

I don't think the OP knows her arse from her elbow when it comes to inheritance law. She seems to think all the money should belong to FIL and therefore her DH (and her). Giving SD the benefit of the doubt, if she was the one handling the estate she might have just assumed, as the only living child of her mother, that meant the money should all come to her. But that is wrong. And maybe now she thinks giving the 50% to FIL is making it right. But that is also wrong. If she took on the role of dispensing the estate, the responsibility is on her to do it correctly.

The executors in this situation are entitled to pass the money to someone else who will look after it for the children.

No, they are not. The money should be held in trusts, in the names of the children, to only be used for specific purposes in which the guardian has to apply for. The children are then able to receive what is left in their trusts when they reach the required age.

You have misread OP, and are incorrect. Try again.