Is there a fair way to split this money or is it going to cause a fall out?

[Sourwitch]

A couple get together in 2000, let’s call them Harry & Sally and they got married (both in their early 70’s now)

Harry moved in to Sallys house

Harry has two adult daughters from a previous relationship and Sally has two adult sons.

Grandchildren on both sides.

Both worked until about 2012 and took early retirement.

In about 2012, Harry came in to some money (inheritance) that was worth more than the value of Sallys house, say £150,000 and they used that money to upgrade the house (new kitchen, bathroom and roof) buy a brand new car each, go on expensive holidays, such as the Caribbean several times, cruises, Las Vegas, Dubai and staying in expensive hotels and basically enjoining their retirement and spending the money he (they) came in to. It enabled them to take early retirement too.

There is no capital left now as it’s been spent over the years on the above.

If they were doing their wills, should the house go to Sally’s sons and nothing for Harry’s daughters, because the house was hers to begin with and only in her name and she’d paid off a lot of the mortgage before they met.

Or should it be split between both Harry and Sallys adult children, because Harry brought more money in to the relationship than Sally, but because it wasn’t in bricks and motor it was all spent on their joint pleasure. Sally absolutely benefited from the lump sum and the hosue was upgraded.

I think the house will be earmarked for Sallys children, however I think Harry’s children will have something to say about it. I can see a family feud brewing…..

(I’m none of the above)

What would you suggest is the solution?

It’s fairly basic maths and Harry didn’t have a home he moved into hers (which was likely bought with the children’s father).

It’s a tricky one as Harry would have benefitted from half of the ‘150k’.

Well how do you start assessing value of work done taking into account inflation? How do you prove costs etc if people dispute it?

Where's Harry's house?
Does he have one that he now rents out?
Was he instead renting somewhere himself and saved money by living rent-free at Sally's?
£150k minus a car for himself would not be far off the rental yield for the rent on half the home over that time period.

Ultimately the house is Sally's and I think she is within her rights to bequeath it just to her own children. Harry could have bought a rental and ensured a good income for them to enjoy the same luxuries theyve had with an asset at the end for his children - but he didn't.

Maybe third each for Sally’s DC and a sixth for Harry’s.

I presume "Harry" wasn't coerced into spending his money? He was fine with spending it, I'm assuming, rather than saving it or buying his own property for his children to inherit? He needs to take responsibility for his money. If he frittered it away, then that's on him.

So the house should go to Sally's children.

Harry should have bought half the house from sally and gone on the deeds. Then they could still have pissed the money up the wall but on equal terms. Harry has been very silly but it was his choice to do this rather than ensure some sort of inheritance for his children.

Harry and Sally may have already sorted all this out.

A first step to finding that out would be to find out the answer to the property question (will cost £7). If that has been sorted I would guess that wills have too.

https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-registry

We had a similar situation with my dad and step-mum - no will (or property either at this point despite having two mortgage free homes when they met (both widowed)). She ended up pre-deceasing him. She had two children and he had four (two different mothers). We managed to sort it all out so that every one was happy when he died 5 years later. I don't think it would've been the case if the deaths were the other way round though...I was amazed to find out that they didn't bother to to write wills when they married (I was a child at this point but all siblings adults) as my dad definitely had a will before this.

Thanks for all the replies and your reasoning. You can see how it’s not straightforward and could potentially cause problems.

I agree with the majority and think the fairest thing would be a 4 way split though I can see how Sallys kids would disagree with that and would want to contest it. If it all went to Sallys kids and Harry’s kids got nothing I can see how they would contest it too. They would be better selling the house and living their best life!

Um - did Sally work hard to get a home to leave to her children, or did she work hard to get a home for herself and her partner to live in? No doubt she wants to leave something for her children, but buying and maintaining a home is for herself and her partner to enjoy their lives in, and for her children to share if needed. It's not a saving account in her children's name.

As far as I've understood she already had the house long before she even met him, he moved in with her so the house was going to go to her children.

Well, it would have done if she had died 25 years ago and never met Harry. But she stayed alive and spent decades happily sharing her life and her house with Harry. Things change. Just because somebody would have inherited a property in one situation doesn't mean their right to do so is set in stone.

That's fair enough, obviously my opinion is neither here nor there but I just think whatever she had going into the relationship should be hers and whatever they acquired together should be split.
Same for him and whatever assets he has.

It's not always quite as simple as that. If Sally had stayed single she might have downsized to a small flat and used the money released for living expenses. She might have kept the house but spent a fortune on repairs that Harry did for her. She might have recovered less well from an operation that Harry nursed her through and needed carers. You can't really separate out people's money from their lives.

Well most people know how much they payed for, say, a kitchen, and most people can work out how much, say £16k 25 years ago, would be worth now. This is basic stuff really.

When Harry shared that inheritance and spent money on the house did he do so knowing he had no claim to it and it would still all go to Sally's children?

Even if he did it's not true there's no bricks and mortar as he paid on home improvements.

I don’t think Harry’s 25 plus years financial contribution to their marriage should be dismissed.

Assuming this is in England, none of them would have any grounds to contest it and would be wasting their money to try it.

Also it sounds like Harry supported her standard of living for years and enabled her to retire early.

I'm of this thought too. He spent the money rather than used it sensibly to secure his own future. I imagine his kids have had a lifetime of this.

He spent it supporting his wife....

Marriage doesn't mean that. The name on the deeds of a house determine who owns it.

In a divorce it is considered a "marital asset" for the purposes of totting up who owns what and how to settle the assets. But on death, the person who owns it can will it away from their spouse.

Harry's kids wouldn't be able to contest Sally leaving it to her DC unless they are financially dependent on them. Are they?
Also - can you clarify if the DC might receive an inheritance from H or S's ex wife / husband? It makes a big difference IMO. If this is the only property on Sally's side of the family but there is another on Harry's, an equal split isn't fair.

How do we know she didn't have her own decent pension etc? He may have used it to bolster his non existent pension while she spent her own. If the OP is as removed from the situation as she claims, who knows?

If Sally was a widow, half of everything she had on marrying Harry was her children’s fathers so half of the her assets then could go to them. The other half joined in marriage to Harry and could be split equally between all the children.