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?

You sound overly invested in this OP. I think you want some of this money for yourself at some point.

He should be grateful that his ex's daughter has handed anything over let alone the 50%. She is clearly trying to right by nephew and niece but actually should have paid it to them in trust rather than her ex step dad

It's not trying to do right though & grateful of what? They are legally entitled to 50% of the money as if would have been their fathers. But I don't understand why it didn't go into a trust.

@Bellalalala

It's because he never wanted to give his ex wife anything in the first place and as op says he feels she didn't work, she didn't do this didn't do that and it's his money that should come back to him ( however for what can be argued is a Nobel reason) but I think it's so ops DH can get inheritance

The terminally ill aunt? Why should she contribute any money to their upbringing.

FIL got more than half in the divorce. Because he kept everything he had pre marriage. He had substantial investments for many years. If he decided to keep all his money in the house, that’s the choice he made.

Op and FIL clearly view the ex wife’s estate as his. Despite that being half of what was accrued during the marriage so not legally or morally his. It was his ex wife’s.

Deciding to raise someone else’s children doesn’t mean you have a right to all the assets of the children’s grandmother. Or a right to insist that others pay towards it.

Given the fil is also trying to emotionally black mail a woman with terminal cancer into giving up her own half of her mothers estate, I am going to guess he is not a good man.

He is a man who expected to inherit his exe wife’s estate. Just because he wants it.

@renonovice I think he's entitled to access it to help raise them though.

He doesn’t want access though - he wants ‘his’ money back… two very different things.

Would be very interesting to know who is actually pushing this. The FIL, who must have some decency to have stepped in for the children (though hopefully in a proper way for all their sakes) or the OP - whose DH would be likely to inherit from the FIL as his biological child…

Times have changed. Back in the day, your FIL would have been expected to help with financial expenses even though they weren't his children because that was the traditional role of men and belnded families were seen as the man taking on the care and keeping of women and children.

Now - there was just a recent thread and the advice to the woman married to a man who already had children was to keep 100% of her money separate and that she should never spend any of her money on them. That 100% of all expenses related to his children needed to rest solely on him and their mother. That a step parent joining a family is being taken advantage of if the biological parent expects any family finances to pay for those children.

Your FIL didn't get that advice. It sounds like not only did he contribute but if his wife didn't work - he took over the family finances for children that weren't his. Now he would be told and given advice to not spend a penny on them. That 100% of any expenses they have needs to come from their mother and any money he would make should be only his share of household expenses and the rest is his to put away. Finding ways to ensure the children don't benefit in any way from the step parent's income post death of the biological parent is likely to lead to creative ways to protect that money that they have set aside.

what a sad situation.

giving 50% back is fair.

you are wrong that it was "his". They were married 25 years, they were a partnership who decided to split responsibilities across admitted sexist lines but that was their choice, and within that choice although he did the external money-earning work and she did the in-home family management work, the assets accumulated during those 25 years are rightly considered joint assets. it wasn't his money it was their corporately shared money and the divorce settlement was fair, and reasonable. He got to keep all the assets he had accumulated before his second marriage so nothing has been unfairly diverted from its true owner

it is right and just that the 50% of the deceased wife#2 should go to the person raising the kids, because if it hadn't been for that tragic death the estate of wife#2 would have split it between the childless daughter and the father of the kids equally. if some other relative had taken the kids in then that person would have been the appropriate recipient. the other 50% rightfully belongs to its current owner. as she has no children she will presumably leave it all to her deceased sibling's children in her own will so that's fine.

Exactly. He still sees it as his money.

it is right and just that the 50% of the deceased wife#2 should go to the person raising the kids

That 50% should go to the kids. Properly and in trust legally.

which could be accessed by those caring for them for appropriate amounts.

Just handing it over entirely with no checks is not the appropriate way to handle it.

Though given that they likely should have had that done on the death of their grandmother, (as there’s been no mention of a will specifically leaving everything to her DD) it doesn’t seem like any of them much care about proper processes.

I hope I've misunderstood this but it does read that your fil has texted a terminally ill person who is presumably grieving the fairly recent death of both her brother and mum to explain why the money her deceased mum left her should be given to him?

Anyway it's not his money it was his ex wife's money. Once you start a family, one person (usually the man let's be honest) is generally only able to go off and make investments and dedicate time to increasing income if you either outsource childcare and housework or if the other partner sacrifices their career a bit to do all the other boring and unpaid shit that needs doing. This is why many divorces have a 50/50 split to protect that partner that sacrificed their future earning potential for the good of the family.

Disclaimer- obviously this is a massive generalisation and there's lots of couples where both partners work equally hard/some men sacrifice their careers etc BUT I've seen time and time again couples where the man doesn't want to be the one up seeing to the kids at night, taking time off for doctors appointments/when the kid is sick/school plays etc and doesn't want to spunk money on a cleaner, can't do the school run because of work etc so is more than happy for the wife to drop some hours and take a step back from work but then once they split genuinely can't understand why they might be obligated to give some of their hard earned money to their ex. It's like they truly can't see the role that the ex's support played in helping them earn the money. I'm literally seeing it play out with a good friend now and I share a desk with a bloke who does nothing but whinge about the amount of child support he pays he's ex (I mean why can't I just put it in a trust/it's not like she needs the money etc etc) .

Yes, but the fact remains that he is not legally responsible for these kids.

Good will can only work both ways.

The ex-wife #2's daughter, who doesn't have children, has therefore inherited all of ex-wife #2's money, which in reality is pretty much all of my FIL's money.

In no reality is it FIL’s money, it was his ex wife’s, as per the divorce settlement. Divorce settlements aren’t loans while the parties involved are living.

I have a relative like this, her ex is seriously unwell and she’s telling anyone who’ll listen that his house will be hers when he dies because she ‘gave’ the money for it to him when they divorced. Complete nonsense of course but she’s convinced. (His will makes it clear that won’t happen)

They weren't his kids though. She was raising her own kids on an unrelated man's dime.

Maybe he can go to social services and get an arrangent for fostering the children so he receives some form of allowance. If he didn’t take care of them presumably they’d be in care?

It's not your FIL's money so the first thing you all need to do is disabuse yourselves of that idea. It was awarded to his ex-wife in the divorce as it was an asset of their marriage. As such, she passed it on to her children.

I'm not sure what you mean by "claiming inheritance" in regards to the ex wife's estate. If she died first, her estate should have been distributed per her will. Her son's estate, which would have included whatever he inherited from his mother, should then have been distributed per his will. It doesn't matter whether the inheritance was actually received into the son's bank account when he died. It belongs to his estate. There was a case years ago where a married couple with separate children (so different wills) had been found dead and the courts had to decide who had likely died first and whose will should therefore be followed first. Whether the money has been paid yet shouldn't matter.

The children's aunt has made a mistake in giving her brother's share of their mother's estate to your FIL because it's not his. It belongs to whoever he left his estate to in his will. Hopefully his children.

Who is the executor of the ex wife's will? Who is the executor of the son's will? FIL should stop trying to get "his" money back and actually make sure the money is distributed in line with the wills.

She was his wife. And that was his choice. He married her and allowed her children to call him Dad.

The grandmothers estate (and that’s what it was - not his money) should have been split between her DD and her sons children.

unless she specifically made a will leaving everything to her DD.

Hopefully he has actually done something properly and has got himself parental responsibility for the children.

@musingsinmidlife

" He married her didn't he? And pressumably took the dx on as his own? Two small.dc called him dad?

For 25 years?

I expect she did more than her fair share of housework unless they had cleaners, chefs etx

And that has no impact on this situation.

he made a choice to raise these kids. He got over half of the assets in the divorce 5 years ago. He has plenty of ‘means’ to raise the kids.

Non of that entitles him the grandkids money or the other half of the estate.

The fa t that he assumed he would get all ‘his’ money back from the estate, says a lot about the type of man he is. As do the texts saying he can’t afford to raise the kids without all ‘his’ money. To a terminally woman. Or another way of looking at it is ‘if you don’t give me YOUR money I will put them in care’

What do you mean good will can only work both ways? There’s every chance he could die soon and leave all the money to his own son, Ops dh. And the kids end up in care.

A man who thinks all marital assets are his and his alone, isn’t a great man.

The 50% legally belongs to the grandchildren. Yes, it has to be in trust for them but the trustee can authorise use of it for their costs before they turn 18. But given your suggestion that the wife was basically rich from 50% of your FIL’s money, he must be rich from the other 50% of it. He has no right to his stepdaughter’s inheritance. But since she’s terminally ill anyway, why would he be bothering her about it?

They weren't his kids though. She was raising her own kids on an unrelated man's dime.

Exactly. And he was providing her keep all that time, too. And now is stuck with her grandchildren because the people who should have made care and financial arrangements for them (in case of death) all failed to do so.

He's been royally taken advantage of for 25 years with no end in sight, apparently.

Which country is this? There are rules on how estates are handled when someone dies without a will. Ex-wife's money has nothing to do with your FIL. He has zero legal claim on it. The money, very likely, was supposed to be divided between the ex-wife's children. If any of those children are deceased, then their share is given to their children. This means, ex-wife's daughter should have received 50%, and the son's 50% should have been given to his children. They can't just decide to not give the children what they are due because the money is needed now. People are going to get into trouble.

It always surprises me how different the views are on the general board from the step parent board where parents in these situations see it entirely differently.

They would eat you alive on there for suggesting he had any responsiblity for anything related to the children and that marrying an adult who already has children does not mean you have any responsiblity of any kind ever to those children. Most feel it is even wrong to expect a step parent to ever provide any childcare for step children and the expectation the step parent would spend money on step children is seen as being taken advanage of and financial abuse.

I assume with your inside knowledge you are the OP with a name change fail @ZeldaWillTellYourFortune

The terminally ill aunt? Why should she contribute any money to their upbringing.

why shouldn't she? she's not legally entitled to of course but they are her nephews who have lost both parents. The FIL can't insist of course.