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?

That 50% belongs to the children. It doesn’t belong in your FILs pocket.

This has got to be a wind-up.

If OP is to be believed, FIL is texting a terminally ill woman demanding to know why she wants to keep her inheritance.

This is really a job for social services because it sounds to me like these children are being financially abused.

I hope the poor aunt has the foresight to put whatever she's leaving the kids into a trust managed by people unrelated to FIL even by marriage.

It is still not his money.

I presume the authorities know he is looking after two children unrelated to him. If so, surely he has been assessed and made aware of any financial support for guardian which does not involve stealing the children’s inheritance.

Your FIL is very wrong and shame on him for guilting her further and shame on you and DH for siding with him. I reiterate that your FIL should be grateful she gave him anything at all. It's irrelevant that she has no children. It's FIL's tough luck his pension isn't enough to sustain him, maybe if he hadn't gotten divorced twice he wouldn't have run out of money. Also, just because he set up investments doesn't mean he should get the money back, you three have talked yourselves into a circle of "unfair, unfair" and your FIL is trying to bully that poor woman. I hope she stands her ground.

I don't know about the legalities but morally and sensibly I think the 50% should be used to cover the expenses of looking after the children

Those poor children - they have lost their grandmother, mother and father - their aunt is dying and their grandfather has taken their inheritance.

If their aunt is leaving them any money in her will from her 50%, I hope she puts it into trust for them.

So in your scenario wife #2 should have walked away from her marriage with no share in the marital assets???? That’s not remotely reasonable. Even if she didn’t work in paid work, I’m sure her unpaid labour allowed your FIL to have a pleasant life and be able to work all the hours he wanted to.

The intestacy laws were then followed and her daughter has been extremely gracious in returning half her inheritance to her brothers children. Your FIL needs to calm down and appreciate non- financial contributions to his life.

If the son was slive when his mum died surely his share of the money went to his estate. It doesn't matter that he died before the money was distributed. Do unless I've got the order of deaths wrong his children should get their dads 50%. So with the daughter giving the money to FIL the GC are the nes being robbed.

I dont understand, if the wife no. 2 had left half her money to her son, why didn't he leave it to his children?

If she left it all to her daughter, then the daughter has been incredibly generous giving half to your FIL for the children.

Of course she shouldn't give him her share.

Well other people on the thread do know the legalities and that money is rightfully the children’s and should be in trust until they are adults.

It is morally reprehensible to steal their money and spend it on their upbringing. It is the guardians responsibility to finance their upbringing by whatever means, including benefits if need be. They have no moral or legal right to access the children’s own money.

Read the thread. She died without a will, she didn’t leave it to her daughter.

It should have been distributed 50% to daughter and 50% to be shared between the sons children in the first place under intestacy law. The daughter was wrong to take it all in the first place and she has rightfully handed back 50%, but it should have been handed back to the children in trust, not to FIL.

It doesn't belong to fil.

Goodness, what is going on in this family, with everyone dying so young?!

I actually understand the father-in-law's point of view here; he's taking on these children to raise with no support financially and that's not really fair. But it was up to their father to have made provisions for them to have been supported in the event of his death with life insurance or something similar. I think the sister was kind to give father-in-law half of the money that would have been her brothers had he not passed away, but beyond that I don't think she has any additional responsibility.

The sister was not remotely kind. She should not have taken the money that would have been the brothers in the first place, it doesn’t default to her, it defaults to his children. And she should have put it in trust for the children, not hand it over to FIL. She has done nothing good here. Nobody has. Nobody has done anything right by those children who cannot act for themselves.

I understand The money should have potentially gone into a trust for the children but if there isn't anyone who can raise them and support them financially without that money then what good does a trust do them? They need taken care of now. Here in the US there's cash assistance that you can draw from the government if you're in a position of caring for a child that isn't yours, they're also kinship care programs and they could draw from both parents social Security but I take it you all don't have that sort of provision there.

Don't bank on anything until it's actually IN the bank.

It's not his to even have... I'm astounded as to why you all would even think he has a claim to money that not his.

I don't understand why FIL thinks the daughter shouldn't have any of her mum's money?

It's just sad that those poor kids are being let down by a bunch of grabby adults.

And my earlier points on this thread is that yes the FIL should be looking to see what support is available if he needs it, we do have a welfare state in the UK. He should be drawing upon that, not using money that simply is not legally his to use.

This money is not his, it was not the daughters, it was always legally the children’s under our intestacy laws. And when the children are older they will likely realise that it has been misappropriated for whatever reason and he will be sued or possibly worse as stealing somebody’s money is a crime here in the UK.

The money should have been inherited by the children and not your FIL. It’s not his money, it was legally and morally his ex wife’s to do as you pleased. Who inherited the sons estate? Can’t this be used for the children? If he’s on low income he can claim benefits for them which is enough to cover living costs. He can also do equity release. He’s very cheeky to expect money from the daughter, and out of order sending her emotionally blackmailing texts. He’s lucky to have received money from her. Are you worried that your husbands inheritance will be used up caring for the children?

Where are they based? I’m pretty sure in England, if ex-wife died intestate, the law would have the son’s share go to his estate if he died before distribution. And if he was considered to have died before or at the same time then the grandchildren would inherit his portion of the estate (see the grandchildren section on the Citizens Advice website)

Ex-wife’s daughter should not have received the whole estate and so shouldn’t have been in a position to “gift” 50% of it to FiL, that money should have gone to the children, in trust. FiL should be finding out what benefits he is entitled to to help him bring up the children and should be talking to the trustees of the children’s trust to see if they are prepared to distribute some of the funds to help improve the children’s lives now. Similarly ex-wife’s son’s estate, when he died intestate, should have gone into trust for the children and trusteees should be able to consider any request from FiL for money to help make the children’s lives better now.

This whole scenario sounds like people have been playing fast and loose with their duties as executors of the ex-wife’s and her son’s estates.

Are you worried that your husbands inheritance will be used up caring for the children?
Of course it is, did it sound like the OP gave a shit about the grandkids?

This makes no sense.

The daughter has handed over the 50% that that you and Fil feel should have gone to his step son.

Why do you think she is not entitled to inherit from her mother at all? What basis do you have that FIL Shiism get all the money.

He was married to his ex wife for 25 years. Regardless of your opinion on who worked harder, they were legally married and that was hers. Legally and morally. The money she got in the divorce is not fils money. It’s was his ex wife’s. Her daughter has got half and the other half has gone to the guardian of the grandchildren.

The only mistake the daughter has made is giving it direct to FIL. If this whole tale is true, surely there’s tax implications here? It should have gone into a trust for the kids. Because at the moment, FIL has half the money to do as he please with it.

I can’t believe anyone would think the fil is entitled to 100% of his ex wife’s estate. Or even if you try and pretend it’s going to the kids, why they would be entitled to their grandmothers full estate.

If your fil is bringing up the kids on a low amount of money, there will be benefits he could have claimed. But now with a load of money sat in the bank, he probably can’t. Instead he will spend the grandchildren’s money on bringing them, rather than them having something saved for them for when they are older.

Honestly I despair at some people on here 😂