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?

@Geebee12 same, I would want my dc to have a similar lifestyle as opposed to losing their parents & having a huge shift. That's logical to me as opposed to few holidays/days out etc to protect money for when they are older.

This could be what the sister is thinking...he is still bitter and trying to right what he sees A wrong from the divorce.

Not sure your FIL should be spending his GCs inheritance, pretty sure there are laws around that. You all sound very grabby and awful. Where's your FILs 50%?

Exactly. It seems he has done quite a bit for that family over the past 25 years. Quite a bit.

I meant DM would have to get on with it if she'd not passed away before son died, not aunt.

How do you suggest the children be supported, then?

Erm......yes? He's already got the kids 50% of the money to use, why would he need more? He was already having to pay the bills for the home he lives in, that hasn't changed for having the children. What could the kids need in terms of food and clothing that could come to more than that 50%? He will be entitled to child benefit to contribute to this, and if he is really struggling (which it doesn't sound like he is) he can get tax credits to top up his income.
It's an odd OP that he is making lots of money from investments etc in one sentence and able to pay for 50% of a house outright, yet in another sentence she making him sound on the breadline on a pension. Changing the narrative to suit I think

The way it usually works is that children's inheritance is put into a trust. From that trust, things like educational fees, and other appropriate expenses, can be paid. This ensures that the children's money is protected while supporting the person caring for them. There may also be family carer payments that can be claimed.

I hope the children's aunt formalises this before she passes away, if she is leaving her money to these children.

50/50 after 25 year of marriage sounds fair enough to me..

The basic rules of inheritance where the deceased has not made a will have not been adhered to.
let’s call wife 2 ‘grandma’ G. Her children D and S, Ss children Y and Z
G dies intestate. Her estate therefore should be split between her children D and S. However, before the funds are distributed, S also dies. The inheritance due to S should legally have gone to his children, Y and Z. For some strange reason, their share has been paid to D. She has rightly, both legally and morally, handed back 50% but not to the correct people - Y and Z. It is THEIR money and as such should be held in trust for their upkeep and future.
their step grandfather cannot keep this money - it does not belong to him.
I cannot believe his argument that he can’t afford to keep Y and Z because he only has his pensions. This is because you’re talking about investments etc as if he was relatively wealthy so must still have money left over after his second divorce. He has the former marital home, the cost of living there won’t be any more whether he lives alone or with 2 children.
What he needs to do now is make sure the children’s inheritance is put into a trust immediately. Otherwise he’s stealing off them!

@MuthaHubbard but we don't know whether she would have committed to raising the gc & just got on with it. It's a big ask. Particularly for an older person.

And even if she did do that it doesn't mean FIL has to just get on with it. That's the whole point. He didn't have to take in his stepsons family when they were struggling & he doesn't have to raise the gc.

Didn't the children own parents have any assests at all?

No house, money, jobs?

i agree that the daughter is no longer in the wrong and that the other 50 should have, legally, been put in a trust for the children BUT… how is FIL supposed to pay to raise two kids that are not even blood related to him in the first place?

The kids need the money NOW for their upbringing not in a few years time for a house deposit.

… and yes, we have a welfare state but, have you ever tried to live on these benefits? When I was claiming as a lone parent years and years ago, I was only getting £24 a week!

I would ask fil to document any money he spends on them in case her is questioes and to take legal advice.
I'm very skeptical re all this stuff.

Also what about their own parents assests? The sons money's the partner....their savings, pension's and so on.

Their aunt has kept strictly and only what she was legally entitled to. You really need to understand this is her money, and that these are not her children; FIL is not entitled to a penny, so you and your DH are doing him no favours by perpetuating the daft idea that this is his money rather than having belonged to his ex. Your approach of expecting her to explain herself is incredibly rude and guaranteed to push her away. Inheritance can be get emotional, "this is what mum left for me to help with my life".

FIL can use the step-son's money to raise the grandchildren for as long as it lasts. He also needs to claim the child benefit and review any benefits entitlement. If he had his original money plus 50% of marital assets, then it's really hard to see how he is so skint AND it's so much money that it's worth creating a fall-out over. Now, if FIL and the grandchildren are struggling financially, but their aunt is not, then he could ask if she can contribute something over time out of sympathy for the orphaned children, but you do that by involving her on their lives, sharing photos, and dropping in concerns about their future - not by making demands.

Unless son died within 28 days of ex-wife’s death, 50% of her estate was due to the son and 50% to the daughter. When the son died (assuming no will), his 50% should be split between his two children and held on trust by FIL. That’s the law.

None of it is FIL’s money (and you’re not entitled to expect to get your grabby mits on it). Technically, FIL could argue he’s using the trust money for the benefit of the children by covering their necessary expenses that he can’t otherwise cover but he’s obliged to show every, single transaction was for their benefit. Sounds to me like FIL has the children’s money, the sister has the sister’s money and that FIL is spending the children’s money.

If FIL left the marriage with more than his ex-wife then why did she have so much left (given he works a good job and she doesn’t, and she had two children to raise) when FIL now has nothing but his pensions?

I cannot believe his argument that he can’t afford to keep Y and Z because he only has his pensions. This is because you’re talking about investments etc as if he was relatively wealthy so must still have money left over after his second divorce. He has the former marital home, the cost of living there won’t be any more whether he lives alone or with 2 children.

Why is unbelievable that he only has his pensions? He gave the ex wife 50% of the house value which she was entitled too. He used some or all of his investment to fund that 50%. That doesn't automatically mean he's wealthy now.

Of course the cost of living will be higher when there is 2 dc in a home. Why wouldn't it be?

Forgot to say, I agree with those saying FIL needs to document expenses, he can use their money to raise them, but he must rigorously account got it. Putting it in a trust with a fixed amount withdrawn for maintenance would be easiest to justify, a solicitor can help him with it.

I would concede that he is maybe being kindly in acting as guardian to the children. But this still does not mean he has any right to take money that belongs to other people. He has no more right to take money off these orphaned children than he does off me or you or to rob a bank. The money should be in a trust, with an independent trustee who can decide whether any money should be used now or whether it ought to remain where it is until they reach adulthood.

This is so true. It sounds like the aunt has done the right thing in keeping 50% but it's such a shame she's handed it over to FIL and not put it in trust. It is not his money morally or legally, it is theirs and he's taken their rightful inheritance. To then be hassling the aunt to hand over the other half is absolutely outrageous and shame on you and your DH for going along with him.

This greedy, downright nasty behaviour perhaps demonstrates why FIL has been divorced twice..... I hope the children sue him when they're of age for stealing their inheritance. Let's just hope the aunt is now sensible enough to leave her money in trust for the children now she knows what a greedy, grasping lot the rest of the family are.

It's a conundrum that the fil has nothing but seemingly the ex has so much even 50% is so much. ..

If FIL isn't aware, there is financial support available in the UK for people caring for children under an SGO. Plus universal credit if his pension is small although having savings may mean he's not eligible. Hopefully he's already claiming child benefit.

Op says he has ‘pensions’. Either his pensions are low and he will be able to get assistance. Or they are quite high, in which case he doesn’t need assistance.

Op also says he got half the assets in the divorce. It appears to be a substantial amount. Which he also has. This is a man who had substantial investments for most of his life.

Now, he will struggle to get assistance, like you did, because he has a load more money in his name. And as the kids are not his kids would be a kinship carer, which entitles him to more help than you would have got.

This highlights why it’s so important to have a will in place. Especially with blended families and step children involved.

Three ring would you think the children are better off in the care system and ful is old.
What happen to them when he goes?

FIL didn't have to commit either.
Legally he can't ask for all the money. And as already pointed out, there's rules around the dcs money that he is trying to override and may fall foul of.
And what if there was no pot of money - he would have to get on with it, as would anyone taking on these poor DC.