Inheritance in 1st vs 2nd families.

[DreamingOfASilentNight]

Just something that's cropped up which seems a bit illogical to me, but I'm curious if my logic is just off.

Husband has been married before and has 2 adult children. In his will he wants to leave equal shares to his adult children and our younger 2 children , sensible to me so far.

He divorced his ex wife some time ago and she received what can only be described as a HUGE settlement which has been invested and grown. (We know this for sure as they are still friendly and he does her accounts for her).

Solicitor suggested that any money I have left after I bring up my children and spend on living at the end of my life should not be left and split between my children as we assumed, but it should be as it should be split between all four of my husbands children. I questioned this as did my husband as the older ones would inherit a large amount from their mother which although had grown from investment has essentially come from him t basically is an inheritance from their mother and my children's would be an inheritance from me.
In short they would all receive from their father and all receive from their respective mothers. We Both thought this was fair and sensible

Am I the one with the strange idea or is the solicitor?In likelihood the sums will be similar , with the caveat that me and my children are younger than his ex wife so with probability inflation could have caused them to increase by that time, although what they can buy will also cost more if you see what I mean.
I'm really confused by this and the solicitor s insistence this is what should be done. I was already puzzled by the level complexity the solicitor was going into; I appreciate the situation isn't as simple as it could be, but this doesn't seem logical. Is it just me not understanding?

There's no definitive right or wrong answer here, but I agree with you OP. Maybe the solicitor was just laying out the different possible options?

If your husband is the main earner (paying out his wife/supporting you & his new kids) then I imagine what the solicitor was suggesting is closer to a mirror will where you both leave it to "all the kids" as his is set up that way which is not necessarily wrong but obviously not what you have decided/have planned so just crack on with your original plan

Does seem a strange suggestion, that is you bequeathing to his and ex's children. I could understand it better if the children from the first marriage were younger when you got together with your DH and consequently played more of a role in their upbringing. But as they are adult - seem strange.

get a second legal opinion

Is the solicitor in a relationship with one of your DH’s older children?

Absolutely definitely not!

Hmmm. That was the only scenario which made sense of the solicitor’s insistence on what is a pretty odd suggestion.

My husband has a terminal diagnosis and a very short prognosis. I will be left alone with young children sadly. He had no ongoing financial relationship with his ex. It was a hefty clean break arrangement. Clearly he supports me and our young children. He if course wants to divide a large amount between all four children but wants to ensure enough to support me and our children going forwards. We are talking about a resident after i die, hopefully a long time from now which would be split. His ex wife is already 70 with multiple millions . There is no talk of splitting that with my children so I'm baffled.
The solicitor was very clear this was THE thing to do.
Obviously I'm biased but It doesn't seem logical.

I agree with you. Your children inherit from you and their dad and his children inherit from him and their mum.

Is the ex going to leave your DC anything? Doubtful😁.

As one is a lesbian and solicitor is a man and the other lives on the other side of the world definitely not the case!

I just can't fathom it.

Exactly my point to him. He said that's totally irrelevant... Erm I don't think so!

It might be about who passes first. If husband passes first and leaves everything to you, then you leave it all to your joint children, it could appear that his older children are left out, and likewise but to a lesser extent if you pass first and leave everything to him and he leaves it to all the children, this may benefit the older children at the expense of the younger.

However, if husband passes first and splits things between you and the older children at that point in time, then you later pass and leave everything of yours to your children then that seems logically fair.

I think it makes some sense OP. The fact that your partner will leave the house etc to you means most of the wealth he has now will only go to two of his four children. If it was solely the case that everything he had went to his four, what you had went to your two etc it would be fair. As the house etc you live in will end up solely yours then it seems fair that some of that should eventually go to his two children from the previous relationship. However to suggest all of any inheritance from you should be split four ways I agree is wrong. Perhaps ring fence half of what you consider your partner's estate (outside of any money he leaves to the four children) and agree to split that four ways if any is left when you eventually reach that point.

Under normal circumstance s that might apply but I'm 21 years younger than him and he is not expected to survive longer than 6 months hence us making urgent revisions to our arrangements so it doesn't make sense. We are having to work on that premise as the balance of iy is very strongly in that way. He is in the position very scarily where there is a very strong possibility that he will just drop down dead without warning any minute. It's absolutely terrifying to live with. The stress is beyond imaginable. Id rather sometime wasnt making complicated arrangements even more complex and stressful at the moment I've got so much on my plate. The objective is very clear. Whilst miracles can theoretically happen in rare circumstances in reality that's unlikely to happen and we have to act in that basis it's a depressing scenario to deal with

I'm sorry to hear your husband is so unwell. That must be very hard.

I'd get a second opinion from another solicitor. This one has got some very odd thinking if we take what you are saying at face value. He/She may feel you are taking advantage of a dying spouse and a second opinion will either make your husband reconsider or be secure in his convictions that he's being fair.

Unless there is HUGE capital left to you as the spouse in assets/artwork/property etc then what is being proposed seems fair to all the children concerned.
So if you had a lifetime right to stay in a property for example, and sufficient income to life on through to retirement and death, I think the proposal the solicitor is making is not unusual. What is unusual is that in this case, the older children will receive assets from their mother which by extension have come from their father. And you have young children who will need to be supported for quite some time.

But would your step children see it the same way that you do?

DH had one child from a previous marriage and two from ours. We had mirror wills but in the event of both deaths my half was split between our two and his half between all three.

When he died I gave DSS one third of what he left rather than waiting for my own death.

@bigvig but it won't. He's leaving each child a million pounds straight away. I get the house I live in and a basic allowance. It won't amount to the same scoring to calculations that have been professionally done. His ex wife has 5 million in the bank. Did that make it faster if dies the same still supply under e circumstances@ I really genuinely understand. The solicitor is said to be one if the best that exists but it's going getting very sidetracked. I suggested a trust for his children's children from anything I inherit and was accused of being untrustworthy. At that point I was at the brink of walking out. I have no idea what was going on.

Is the house the sticking point ? Could it be held in trust for you and then split between the children when you go? Or is there some complicated carry on with the house ownership which makes that difficult ? Or is there a massive disparity in your/all the children's ages which would mean that his adult children won't actually benefit from the split of the house as they would likely be well into retirement by the time it came to divvying it up?

I think I am starting to understand a bit now.
It is a way where your husband can feel "relieved", probably not the right word, that he can pass having treated his children equally, and also provided enough to help the raising of his younger two after his time.

The fact that you might consider leaving anything you personally had left to all 4 of his children is a way of saying that although he left more to his second family, it was to bring them up, rather than favouring them, and that it would be equalled out in the end.

I have never really heard of this sort of thing before, but I can only guess it's more of a sentiment thing, rather than suggesting actually working out who's been given what over a lifetime.

Can all 4 children be given 1 million each at his passing via the will and the rest left to you?

@saphirestones he felt happy with the decisions. He's already bought the older two houses, cars, paid for education etc and they all get the money. The other two haven't had any of that yet. He had worked out it will be fair. The house is worth 1.2 There probably won't be that much left in the end. There's a massive age discrepancy between the children hence the leveling up concept you suggest.
@crinkletits yes that was the plan. Seemed logical. (although obviously 7 year olds aren't having that for a hamleys expedition🤣 can you imagine!!)

The house is actually mine to start with. Is the cash to pay for things. Enough to pay for me to live with the kids. Not in an excessive way either. Calculations have been done by an expert. I honestly think my step children would be happy to receive anything. They would be grateful to their dad full stop. They will just be upset at what's happened

How old are your children?

This is more complicated than what is fair now. How much are we talking about? Step children’s inheritance could be delayed til yours are 18 or out of full time education. It is more about ensuring any minors can reach their potential just as the step children have.

Maybe a Trust is the best option.

And your children are going to lose their Dad. This is so very sad.

The solicitor sounds bonkers - why would you leave anything to kids who aren’t yours? It sounds like there will be significant IHT implications of leaving things to anyone other than his spouse so you need proper tax planning advice.

I don't really understand the issue. If you and your husband are in agreement, can't you just proceed with whatever you had agreed?

Or is your DH having second thoughts after questions raised by the solicitor?

I'm sorry your husband has likely only a short time left.

You and your children are still relatively young, and I think this is a completely different situation from couples who can reasonably expect to pass within a few years of each other. The priority needs to be the children who will need extra support because they won't have a father. The older children grew up with two parents (albeit divorced) so there's already a big difference in what they need. Additionally, there's the issue that if you live for a while yet, what's left when you pass will be down to how well you've managed it at least as much if not more as how much of it originally came from your DH.

I don't think there's anything at all wrong with your original proposal.