How should inheritance be split?

[Havingahorridtime]

Me and DH are going to be making wills soon. The only real asset we have of any value is the house. Currently equity stands at around £300k with the house value being around £370k.
DH has 2 grown up children from a previous relationship and we also have children together. When DH split from his ex partner he gave her his share of the equity they had in their house (current value around £400k) and it only had a tiny mortgage left outstanding (around £20k at the time). The understanding was that his ex would live in the house with the children and the house would eventually be the children's inheritance. However, 15 years later, the children left home and the house was remortgaged many times and was eventually repossessed meaning that there is nothing for the children to inherit.

We have to decide how to split our house in the event that we should both die. To me, It seems fairest to split the house equally between all of the children (both his children and our joint children), however, my husband thinks that his older children are now adults and he has effectively already given them a fair share of inheritance and it wouldn't be fair in the younger children to have less. He thinks his older children should get a token inheritance of around £20k each and the remainder should be split between our younger children.
I think secretly he is concerned that any money left for his older children will get used to support their mothers unaffordable lifestyle and he doesn't want that.
Which arrangement seems fair?

I can only speak from a hypothetical viewpoint here, I have a DSD but no DC of my own.

In the event that we die having actually accrued some equity on our house, I would like it to be split equally between DSD and any other DC we have at the time.

You definitely sound like you have the fairest viewpoint. It's not his DC fault their mother pissed away their "inheritance" and I think that should be completely out of the equation.

I know some people split it so that your share goes equally to your DC and his share goes equally to all of his DC. So essentially any DC together get more. I can see why that would be a fair way as his DC are not technically your responsibility.

But ultimately you have to decide what's right for the both of you.

I think they should all get an equal share. It is not the children's fault that their mother was irresponsible.

Either that or his 50% should be split between all of the children and your 50% be split between just your children.

Imo your DH is wrong.

He is basically 'punishing' this older DC for the choices of their DM. Hardly fair is it.

I would be absolutely furious with her if I were him. It shows he should have put his share into his children's names, doesn't it?

I would split between all children - it's not his older children's fault that their mother spent their inheritance.

I think I split equally.

I’m pretty shocked that your DH doesn’t want to leave his kids anything because his ex got the lump sum in their divorce settlement, and also because he’s worried she may benefit from any money he leaves DCs. Wow.

his 50% split equally between all of his children and your 50% split between yours

Yes, I would do this.

Her DH has his children and they have DC together, so they are all his DC.

I think deep down he knows what is fair but he is still feeling bitter about the quite recent repossession and the news that his children won't have the inheritance he expected them to have. His children are currently financially supporting their mum and I think my DH is concerned that if we both die prematurely they would use any inheritance to support their mum.
He funded his older children through uni and won't be able to do the same for our children and I know that is part of his rationale.
I think it might be wise to make wills now and then make new ones in a couple of years when the bitterness of the repossession has died down. My DH is usually much more fair when dealing with al of the children so I am a bit shocked at his suggestions for splitting the house.

You know what, I think I agree with your dh. My mum passed away when I was early twenties and she left me and dbro the equity in her house. Since then that money has had to be for us every piece of worldly advice, every handhold through tough times, every time you've made a bad decision and need to borrow £50, every time a guarantor is asked for, every spare room to crash in...

Inheritance is more than just money to me, it can be the an extension of the parenting and the "looking after" your offspring that you want to carry on after your passing. If the older dc have benefited more from your dh's parenting in life, I don't think it's unreasonable that the younger dc should inherit slightly more; they will still have many of the trials and challenges to face that the eldest dc will have already been through, except they will be doing it without either living parent.

And you say he paid for the elder dc to go through uni; I definitely think the younger dc should inherit an amount greater than their siblings which is the equivalent to this expense then.

It wasn't a divorce settlement as such lottie, my DH just signed the house over to his ex as he didn't want to uproot the children. It wasn't a court decision. He is usually very fair and not at all money focused. This is the first time we have disagreed about anything financial.

Maybe so but I don’t think it’s fair to count that as their inheritance. Plenty of circumstances could arise where that would occur, even if the mother hadn’t had remortgaged it. And even though she has, that’s not the DCs fault, is it?
It seems like they are being punished because their mother is crap with money.

Some useful advice here.
Is it possible to make a will do that the split is different if our children are under 21 vs over 21?
I'm considering what ratrolypoly has written and I think it would be different if our children were adults and had been through uni.
I like the idea that some have mentioned of his 50% going between all his children and my 50% going just to my children with the view to make it a totally even split once all children have reached 21 years old.
Obviously, I hope I live well beyond my children being 21 but I still think we need a will just in case.

If he has helped the older dcs through uni and knows he won’t be able to do that with the younger ones, then I think that should be taken into account when splitting the money.

Tbf, another way to ,ok at it would be to say that you both have half the house and that it could be seen as reasonable that you split your half between your dcs (that you have with your DH) and he is splitting his share between all his dcs (the ones wth you and the ones from a previous relationhsip).
I would have expected any arrangement like this if you had had some children yourself from a previous relationship.
Also, it happens that the mother has been overspending etc... but it could have been the opposite way around. Would itbhave look fair if your dsc had received the same than your dcs AND money form their mum?

I think l the fairest way is that your half gets split between your dcs and you dh's half gets split between all of his DCs.

That is fairest all round

I agree with your DH, it would be split according to need. I take it your Dc are much younger? If your DC reach adulthood before you die then you can revisit it and readjust.

It seems the majority vote is for my dh 50% to be split between his children and my 50% to be split between my (our children). I hadn't even considered that before but it's definitely worth consideration, at least whilst our children are yet to go to uni.

Yes, herroyal our children are much younger and one has a significant disability and will never work. I think DH is most concerned about our disabled child and the possibility that our other children will be involved in caring for him in some way if we are not around. We are 100% certain that my SC will not help look after their disabled sibling in any way but I'm trying not to use that as an excuse to reduce their possible inheritance even if DH is possibly taking it into account.

I agree with Trojans that does change things. I think in that case it would be fairer for your DC to have more. Not sure what would be fair though in terms of exact split.

What Trojans said.

That’s what friends of mine have done in their will in the same situation and it seems very fair.

I hope your dh is also furious wit himself for not ringfencing the house share for his children , he has let his dc down, not just his ex wife. I would: stipulate x amount funds one child through uni per year and 3-4 times this should be made available for all children under 21 or who haven't finished uni, up to you on the definition. Then split the rest. He absolutely has an obligation to his older dc, although hopefully he can talk to them about funding their dm.

Thanks everyone. Sorry it seems like a total drip feed now but I was trying not to include things that looked like excuses just to reduce the provisions made for my SC.
I have spoken to DH and I think we can agree on splitting it like this:
His 50% is to be divided 6 ways - 1 share for each of his children and 1 share for each of our able bodied children and 2 shares for our disabled child.
My 50% will be split 4 ways - 1 share each for our able bodied children and 2 shares for our disabled child.
This works out that from the value of £370k the SC will get £30k each (at current house value), our joint children will get more but our disabled child will get the most because he needs it the most.
Hopefully we won't need the use of the will for many more decades but it will be a relief to have one and know that provisions have been made.

time DH is furious with himself but at the time he left he literally left with the only his clothing and £2000 which he had to put down for a deposit on somewhere to rent and a few basic furnishings. He couldn't afford a solicitor. I don't think he thought for one moment that his ex would spend like a maniac and keep remortgaging the house for ridiculous reasons. he was foolish but he's not a bad person.