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 think people are being unfair to the FIL. He has now late in life got to look after, pay for etc, two children on his own. Technically, they’re not actually even his grandchildren.

It’s going to be an absolutely massive expense for him.

I can’t work out why the children did not get their father’s half of the FIL’s ex-wife’s estate. If they had done, it would have been completely reasonable of FIL to have applied to use some of that money for expenses for the children, of which there will be a lot.

What is not reasonable is to expect all the money the daughter has received. I don’t know why he would think that was reasonable. Maybe the terminal illness makes him think differently. Does the terminally ill daughter have children or a spouse? Or would the children FIL is looking after potentially inherit from their aunt when she dies anyway?

Bad nomad.

People often don't realise the law and why should they until they are at the receiving end of it.

But what op must realise is and make her fils realises...

The law is very clear and strict on inheritance matteras.

What fil or anyone else thinks is irrelevant.

As pp said there is no legal claim here.
Legally however he has onus on him to ring fence that money from his steps sons inheritance to the children.

I'd like to know if he dropped dead or did throw them out what recourse the DC have for their money.

It doesn't matter that the aunt is terminally ill, people need to stop harping on about that. It's simply not reasonable to say "Hi, because you're dying you don't deserve an inheritance."

She has a legal right to half the money, she has that half. The children need a trust for their share, which can pay out expenses to grandad to raise them, and he can claim additional benefits if needed.

They’re really not.

there are very strict rules on what can be done with the inheritance of children.

You cannot just hand the money over. A trust has to be set up. The FiL could have been made a trustee and taken over the legal responsibility, but he can’t just be given the money with the ability to spend it however he sees fit.

Ex wife died with no will and no spouse - money is split between her two offspring.

Inheritances don't have to be "claimed" (per the OP), they flow from the date of death. So son did inherit half.

Son then died also presumably without a will, so his money, in lysing the inheritance which was his whether it was literally in his bank of not, flows to his offspring. So his kids share his whole estate between them, held in trust if they are under eighteen.

FIL has no skin in this game. He doesn't get anything for looking after the kids. He can use the trust for the benefit of the kids (with the permission of the trustee, which probably ought to be the aunt) and that might include some day to day costs.

On another note - what an unfortunate family, with all these premature deaths!

Any recourse they have would be against whoever did probate or administration of their grandmothers estate.

Atm it sounds, legally, like that person (presumably the aunt) hasn’t done what they should.

That the Aunt has gifted her Dad money is irrelevant in terms of the children’s inheritance legally speaking.

I agree with you, except for this part -

Legally however he has onus on him to ring fence that money from his steps sons inheritance to the children.

The FIL actually does not have any legal obligation to do anything with the money he was given. It was given to him freely. It is nothing but a gift in the eyes of the law. The only person who had a legal obligation to protect the children's money is the person who took on the responsibility of handling the estate. Which I assume is the SD. I think, if push came to shove, the SD is the one who would be made to pay back the money owed to the children.

Intent.

He was given money from step d for him or for children.

Step d probably should make that. Intent very clear.
If it came to law I'm sure it could be argued it's obvious it's from step son estate for his DC not for fils green fees

I know all this. It is other people who seen think the aunt chucking 50% of the money in her bank to FIL is the same as the children getting their inheritance. As it stands, the children have not received their money. Their aunt took it all.

Intent doesn’t matter.

The administrator (assuming there’s no will) has the legal responsibility to set up a trust.

Technically, if the FIL has legal responsibility for the children, could issue proceedings against the administrator on behalf of the children…

I know, I was building on your point to address the OP suggesting the son never had his inheritance because he died.

The kids have had nothing. The aunt has mishandled the estates, the FIL is a money grabbing leech, as is the OP.

But she's the only living child of the woman whose estate it was. How does it belong to the next generation down?

The stepdaughter never dispensed her brother's inheritance into his estate. If she had, the money would have been put into trusts for his children. Instead, she held on to it all, then gave money to her stepfather.

if the FIL has legal responsibility for the children

This is another point - I very much doubt he has this legal responsibility and social services ought to be involved.

Because the son was still alive when the mother died, so he inherited.

The fact the money wasn't in his bank doesn't change that.

So, that was part of his estate, plus anything he had already, and when he died (even if it was only an hour later) it then passed to his children. Not to his sister.

The money passes from the mother to all her children. Those who are living receive their share. For those who are deceased, their share passes to their children.

In this case, both children were actually alive when the mother passed away. That means the money was to go directly to both of them. The son then dying doesn't change that because the money was already in the process of going directly to him. It became part of his estate. His children would then inherit it. As they are underage, the money is supposed to be placed into trusts for them to access when they are old enough.

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

Intestacy link again. Even if the father of the children died before his mother, the grandchildren still inherit his portion.

As it appears he died afterwards, presuming he didn’t have a will (very careless
if so given he had minor children) children inherit on a statutory trust from his intestacy.

Ah sorry. I'm just a bit annoyed at all the people thinking everything is ok and the children haven't been screwed out of their inheritance because aunt gave FIL some money. 😩

Because her son dying doesn’t mean his sister just gets his share.

His children get his share.

A lot of these conversations are based the Aunt being the executor.

Except the only person who benefitted from the money going to Fil rather than the kids, is fil. Who actually expected all the money. Fil wanted all the money and got half of it.

Op said ‘50% didn’t go to the children because it would have to go in trust’ and some nonsense about fil needing the money to raise them. Which he could put of the trust.

Given he isn’t above blackmailing his step daughter, it is possible she was the executor and was bullied into mishandling the money.

I very much doubt, the fil is above blackmailing his step daughter with consequences of mishandling the inheritance.

Or maybe she actually wasn’t the executor at all.

Actually makes me wonder if this isn’t all sorted and op is using this thread to see if that is something they can achieve. Get fil all ‘his’ money back. Ensure the Aunt and kids don’t get any. Give some to the ops dh etc.

I wonder if there are any benefits or allowances for bringing up these children given that he's not their dad. Like a foster allowance kind of thing. Is that a kinship carer or something like that?

It doesn't matter that these children were not his blood - he choose to treat them as his kids and went to work while his ex presumably worked part time or not at all because of the kids.

Yes but she gave it to the man looking after the children not the post man or her best pal for a trip to Dubai

Ok, lets give the full legal answer.

When the mother died, the children's inheritance automatically went into a trust since she was intestate. If the sister was the administrator of the estate, she was the trustee. She is entitled to transfer her responsibilities as trustee to someone else under the Trustee Act 1925. It appears she has transferred her responsibilities to FIL.

OP comments that there is no trust because the money is needed for the children now. That is wrong. The money is in trust. It is likely that FIL is now the trustee. So the children may have cause for action against him if he fails to administer their money properly.

See my previous post. Yes, there is a trust. It appears he is the trustee. The rest of your post is therefore wrong.