Opinions here please.

nadatube - you are very fair…..wish all second wives were as fair .

Sorry, nadaterturbe - might have got it wrong again - sorry..

This is why I don't discuss our Wills other than with my husband as we have some joint assets and with our solicitor. It's no one else's business!!

I’ve stipulated in my will (mirrored with my husbands) that if I die first he may NOT leave my half of the estate to a new partner or her children. It goes to our children. I’ve seen this happen and I think it’s so wrong for the first family.

DaisyAnne

Why is it anyone else's business but the people concerned?

This!

Fernhillnana

I’ve stipulated in my will (mirrored with my husbands) that if I die first he may NOT leave my half of the estate to a new partner or her children. It goes to our children. I’ve seen this happen and I think it’s so wrong for the first family.

I hope you got that will prepared by a good solicitor.

Joseanne

I deemed my very wealthy father's will to be unfair and employed a top London solicitor, Mishcon, to contest it for me in the 1980s. The process became fraught with digging into issues that I really couldn't stomach, as I was young and disliked confrontation. I let it go, life's too short, but it does niggle even today that he chose to do it that way.

if he had had a Scottish will or was Scottish any child of his can claim a share of the movable estate . That is no house but money shares pictures etc. This goes for children not of a marriage as well .

dragonfly46

I have two friends whose mother died and dad married again. When Dad died my friends got nothing and would have liked something of their mother's or father's. One of my friends would have liked her dad's medals but they were given to a nephew of her stepmother.

No I don't think it is fair but then inheritance is an emotive business.

We have made sure that our wills are airtight against this as our money will go down the blood line.

That is a very good example of an unfair will.
I have also seen a case where one of three daughters stayed at home to look after a delicate mother. The other 2 sisters moved abroad and took on none of the care, indeed one barely visited. For years this daughter took on more and more care work as the mother became more immobile and eventually housebound. In the process she sacrificed promotions and worked part time and missed the opportunity to save money and buy her own house.

When the mother died her will left everything to be divided equally between all 3 daughters.

This woman found herself at 43 with no home and very meagre savings. The sisters took every bit of their share, insisting the house be sold even though it was suggested by concerned relatives that she be allowed stay there for her life time.

Please don't tell me that wasn't an unfair will.

annsixty, I do not think your relative can expect her estate to pass to her nieces and nephews if she and her children should die together in an accident.

I believe I am right in saying that the legal presumption in such a case where it cannot definitely be proved who lived longest, is that the youngest person died last.

This being so it will be the provisions of that person's will that come into play.

Your relative, being the eldest, will be presumed to have died first and her children and their spouses to die in the same chronological order they had been born in.

Unless there are conditions in the husband's will governing the money and or property his wife inherited from him, she can in England leave it to whosoever she likes. In a great many other countries, she cannot, as his children or their children automatically inherit a share of their father's estate, either upon his death, or upon that of their mother or step-mother. She has no legal obligation to remember her husband's nephews and nieces, or her own for that matter.

Whether this is fair or not, depends on what you call fair.

I think that's what I was trying to say jaylucy - whose salary created the "wealth" it is irrelevant I feel.

Think both of those situations are pretty normal ANNSIXTY....Think if my husband stipulated he wanted neices or nephews to have something I would go along with it...Otherwise everything would go to our children or any children we had from previous relationships

This is my very last word, I do wish people would read the post accurately.
In the case of my relative, there were no children.
In the second case as I said everything goes to AC.
It is only if they all die that it is distributed to nieces and nephews.
I truly wish I had never started this thread.
To be asked if I want to be seen to “be right” as if I were craving attention is too much for me

I’ve told dh that if I die first and he remarries and leaves everything to New Wife, I will come back and haunt him.?

Not that I honestly think he’d do it - not unless he develops dementia and some gold digging baggage gets her claws into him. Sadly I have known this to happen - Gold Digging Baggage got the lot. ?

I’m sure that after me my husband wouldn’t be so daft as to go through it all again!?

Witzend

I’ve told dh that if I die first and he remarries and leaves everything to New Wife, I will come back and haunt him.?

Not that I honestly think he’d do it - not unless he develops dementia and some gold digging baggage gets her claws into him. Sadly I have known this to happen - Gold Digging Baggage got the lot. ?

I've told mine the same

Completely agree

Fairness doesn't come into it. If that is how she has organised her affairs that's what will happen.
I have no knowledge of the people involved so have no opinion of whether they should have inherited or not

Witzend

I’ve told dh that if I die first and he remarries and leaves everything to New Wife, I will come back and haunt him.?

Not that I honestly think he’d do it - not unless he develops dementia and some gold digging baggage gets her claws into him. Sadly I have known this to happen - Gold Digging Baggage got the lot. ?

Totally agree.

I totally get the point you are making Annsixty, and it is a valid one.

Nannagarra

I know someone who contested a will as he deliberately hadn’t been included. (Long story.) He appointed a no win-no fee solicitor and inherited his equal share.
Courts have come to view such matters differently according to the QC consulted and the family was dissuaded to pursue the matter.
Until then I believed wills were water-tight.

Wills certainly aren't watertight if the person/s contesting them have plenty money.

Poor Princess Diana was let down yet again by her own and the Royal Family, who went to court and had her Will changed to suit them.

Also, the SSPCA in Scotland was, a few decades ago now, left a large Farm by a lady who stated that she wished it to be used as an animal shelter. The ungrateful (insert cuss word)
instead took to the Court to have the will changed so that they could use the Farm as a centre for oiled birds.

(I know oiled birds deserve as much care as anyone else, but the lady was specific in her reasons for leaving them the Farm, and I'm sure if she'd known how little her wishes would count, she'd have left her property to a smaller Charity which promised to honour them.)

A person should leave their estate to whoever they wish, and as for saying the woman had nothing when they married their wealthy husband, well the wealthy husband will be well aware of this. It is sour grapes when people are resentful about this.

Surely who you leave your estate to is your business and yours alone! Most will want to provide for their family and relatives but there's no obligation and you could leave it all to charity if you wanted to.

If the husband didn't make provision for his nephew in his will then his intention was to leave everything to his widow, for her to do exactly as she wished when she died.

Don't worry - it will disappear in care home fees! Oh. I forgot. Our wonderful PM has solved that.

Fernhillnana

I’ve stipulated in my will (mirrored with my husbands) that if I die first he may NOT leave my half of the estate to a new partner or her children. It goes to our children. I’ve seen this happen and I think it’s so wrong for the first family.

I heard of a similar situation some time ago.

A couple married, she had a large house and other assets, he had very little but the marriage was a good one.
She had two daughters and he had one - I believe all the relationships were good.
A mirror will was in place.

The woman died first and over the next few years he became quite ill, her daughters who lived closer helped care for him etc until his death.

It then came to light he'd altered his will and left the house and all assets to his only child....causing huge distress as some items had been in the woman's family for a long time and held huge sentimental value.
His daughter refused to 'share' anything.
So, so sad.