Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Would you be upset if it happened to you?

93 replies

Earlybird · 17/02/2006 09:43

Read in the paper today that Robin Cook left an estate worth approx £565,000. His second wife Gaynor is to receive over £500,000 and his two sons (by first wife) are to receive £20,000 each. Both sons are in their early 30's.

Does that seem fair? How would you feel if you were one of his sons?

OP posts:
Blandmum · 17/02/2006 11:18

That is the ultimate irony. He has 4 sons that any man would be proud off, and never gave a flying fuck about them.

MIL is a total diamond, in comparison. I once told het that I never understood why she divorced him. I would have run the bastard over and then reversed!

Bink · 17/02/2006 11:19

Not married, with young daughter - dad died v suddenly - all assets automatically into trust for daughter = no access, no rights for mother, no discretion to use for income, etc. Can be even worse if there are other default beneficiaries, like deceased's parents, etc.

(Yes, sorry for hijack, but I do feel very strongly about this one.)

Normsnockers · 17/02/2006 11:20

Message withdrawn

RedZuleika · 17/02/2006 11:35

How old is the second wife? Given that he obviously expected to live longer, could he have been making financial provision for a second family?

I used to live in the same building as the widow of a deceased singer. She had effectively inherited the bulk of his estate because she had to provide a home for his two young sons. In order to do this over, say, 15 years at least, his older sons got virtually nothing.

Same thing happened with an orphaned girl in school with me (with regard to her step-sibs).

Hulababy · 17/02/2006 11:51

DH deals with this stuff all the time, being a solictor speciailising in this area. The amount of nastiness and bitterness in some families, especially following a death is amazing. A death can really bring the worst out on some families - on both sides of the coin too. But having a will in place is much better than having none - at least the wishes of the deceased are followed even if other family members don't agree (again on both sides!). DH has some very bizarre stories!

macwoozy · 17/02/2006 11:52

TBH I don't think I've got a hope in hell of fighting it. At the end of the day, my dad trusted her to do the right thing. When he became ill I even became joint licensee of the pub, and managed the guest house, but in the will everything got put into her name. My dad spoke to me about it before he died explaining that it would all eventually go to me and my brother, he even contemplated selling it all at that time, because he knew my brother desperately needed money but he decded it should be his wife's choice as to when she felt it right to sell, whether she felt strong enough to carry on the businesses. I could understand why he did it, he had her best interests at heart, and he trusted her, and so did I, but people change. I can't believe that she has gone against the wishes of her late husband whom she adored at the time.

Caligula · 17/02/2006 13:51

Normsknockers - if Robin Cook had inherited, then yes, that would change my opinion somewhat. People usually leave money to their children because they are leaving it vaguely to their "families" as opposed to just individuals within their families who are then free to leave it to the cat's home or the local brothel, rather than to their own children. There's a sort of unspoken agreement that that's how it works (and in very rich families the money is left directly to the grandchildren as the children have already inherited from their grandparents).

But we all know about unspoken agreements, don't we!

snowleopard · 17/02/2006 14:16

I'm always amazed when people think they should inherit their parents' money or somehow deserve to inherit it. Why? It is their money - everyone's money is theirs to do what they want with, whether they leave it to their second wife, a cats' home or whatever. I also think inheriting a lot of money at a young age can be extremely bad for people and they run the risk of not understanding the value of a day's work and not having the the self-esteem that comes from independence.

I can't stand it when people say their parents are "spending my inheritance". No, they are spending their money!

Caligula · 17/02/2006 14:22

It depends on where it came from Snowleopard. If the parents in turn inherited, then it isn't their money, it's family money. That has always been the accepted wisdom on these things. To the extent that in Victorian times when people were much more aware of these things (and society was surprisingly more mobile than we think of it as having been) people used to make the most amazingly complex wills to ensure that money stayed with their descendents and didn't pass out of the family.

CarolinaMoon · 17/02/2006 14:23

totally, snowleopard.

on the face of it, this is very different from MacWoozy's situation - her stepmother has gone against her dad's wishes (presumably? unless MacWoozy is in her will?).

I really don't get why we should think RC's sons, two men of independent means, should feel "upset" at what's been left to them.

Caligula · 17/02/2006 14:23

I agree with you that young people inheriting early is a very bad idea though. (My will says my kids don't inherit until they're 25, and even then I hummed and ha'ed about whether it should be 30!)

mszebra · 17/02/2006 14:29

This happens so often, though. Two of my uncles left almost every penny to 2nd wife, nothing to their children. My dad's wealth is mostly tied up in his condo & I assume he'll leave that to my step-mom; she loves living there; If I were my dad that would be my first priority, that the condo should be hers to live in until death, with no worries like a potentially greedy stepdaughter. I have just asked my dad for a few specific artworks that he has, and I hope that step-mom might remember me in her will. It's their money at the end of the day.

FrayedKnot · 17/02/2006 14:30

It's actually quite difficult to make wills when you have been married more than once and especially if you have children with two partners.

Without going into the ins and outs, when we made our wills a couple of years ago (after DS was born), we found it quite hard to work things out equitably, so that our money would go where we wanted it to (DH has been married before and has 2 children from that marriage).

I've no doubt this is far from the whole story as regards RC's estate.

tortoiseshell · 17/02/2006 14:33

If the estate includes the house, then I think it is utterly reasonable to leave it to his wife. And there may be an understanding on what happens when she dies. Think it would be very sad if as a second wife you lost your home when your husband died, but don't think the sons should lose out because of RCs marital arrangements.

I hate inheritance - we had such problems in our family when a family member died, sorting it all out fairly - it's rarely as simple as leaving an amount to each person!

Caligula · 17/02/2006 14:37

That's why they used to entail estates though. It was very common for the house to be left to the children, but the second (or third or fourth or whatever) wife was entitled to live in it until she died or re-married, and the children were not allowed to take possession of it until her death or re-marriage.

That way, they protected their widows but ensured their children inherited their money and it was not inherited by the widow's new husband.

SenoraPostrophe · 17/02/2006 14:43

Like the others say - it's probably a bit more complcated than 500k to her, 20k each to the sons, but I don't really see the problem whatver the ins and outs.

I know I wouldn't be angry if my father left money to my stepmother and not to us. I don't see it as my "right" or anything like that. OTOH, if he left unequal amounts to my siblings and I, then I would really be quite put out.

crunchie · 17/02/2006 15:01

SL, I think they are taking teh piss I always accuse my parents of going on 'SKI ing' holidays (Spending Kids Inheritence) but I am joking. I would never be bitter about them spending money, but I do take the mick. We also decide internally who will get what bit of jewellery if my mum gets anything new

So yes I do expect at some point to get something, but this will be more for my kids than me

Spidermama · 17/02/2006 15:06

Grrrrr. I think that's terrible.(I have a wicked step mother and may well be faced with a similar injustice to add insult to her injurious behaviour over the past 20 years.)

But that's me.

If I were the Cookettes I'd think it very unjust.

tarantula · 17/02/2006 15:14

Not all stepmums are wicked SM and not all are out to get money from the guys they marry.

If that was the case I wouldnt have looked at dp twice. Cos I'm the earner in our family. If dp were to die any time soon then I would get all he has to leave (half the house basically, he got nothing else) which to me seems totally fair as thats where dd and I live

Just another predjuice we have to live with, I guess.

katzg · 17/02/2006 15:17

its a bit like what happen to my DH when his mum died, he and his sister got a quarter of the house (but can't get it until his step-dad dies) and his step dad got everything else!

CountessDracula · 17/02/2006 15:20

My mother and stepfather had the same arrangement. When either of them died the estate went to the other for the remainder of their life and then the remainder is divided equally between the four children (two each)

I think that is entirely fair. It wouldn't occur to me to even question what either of my parents choose to do with their money!

snowleopard · 17/02/2006 15:27

Buuut Caligula, in the Victorian-esque situation you describe, if it's not the parents' money to keep, because they inherited it, then it's not the kids' money to keep either, because presumably it's their duty to pass it on, forever. So it's meaningless money and might as well be a scrap of paper.

And crunchie yes often it's a joke, but often it's not, you know!

I'm not a second wife or anything so don't have a stake here - just think if people have money, it's their money. It's like if I give a beggar a quid and a friend says "thay'll only spend it on booze". So what? I have decided to give them a quid, they are an adult human, and it is now their money to do what they want with.

But that's another argument... and I'm supposed to be working...

Caligula · 17/02/2006 16:51

Hmm - I wouldn't mind a bit of meaningless money!

I think the idea was that they were allowed to do what they wanted with it in their lifetime, but on their death it reverted to the family (if there was any left of course - and the idea was that there should be).

Hence the fact that very posh people very rarely leave money to charity in their wills. They give lots during their lifetime but on their death - nada. (See Princess Diana's will - not a penny to charity, standard aristo practice)

Bink · 17/02/2006 17:03

Reminds me of conversation with ds re Queen's wealth where he was quite disapproving of all this inheriting of money just in order to hand it on. Where does it all end, he said. How far in the future will it be before it goes to someone who needs it? (he meant a charity)

Difficult to answer.

CarolinaMoon · 17/02/2006 17:11

but entails were there to keep the family estate together and in the hands of the eldest son - Cook Minor get virtually nothing in that situation.