I think Dick should have considered that his first wife contributed to the ownership of the property and she had no reason to see his second wife live well. There’s no legal requirement there, but Dick should have accounted for that. It’s just an assumption, but I think that in leaving her property to Dick, there was a tacit intention that it be for the benefit of her children as well as her husband.
There is insufficient information set out in the OP to determine how much, if anything, Beth or Dick’s children would receive.
It would depend on:
-
Was the transfer of half of Dick’s assets to Beth done as (A) joint tenants with right of survivorship, or (B) tenants in common? If (A) then all to Jane. If (B) then half to Jane and half stays in Dick’s estate.
-
If by (B) half stayed in Dick’s estate, did Dick’s will direct that (a) his estate residual should go to Jane but stay silent as to what to do if she was already dead, or did it direct that (b) his estate residual should go to Jane but if she was already dead then everything should be dived up between their children? If (a) then to be determined by statutory intestacy laws which may give all to his present wife or may divide up between his present wife and his children. If (b) then all to Dick’s kids.
-
Legislation in the jurisdiction that would trump the above.
Because there’s no chance that she wanted Dick to do what he thought best?
Because that never happens when making wills?
Possibly Dick didn’t want them coming into any inheritance in their early years?
Because Dick recognized his new wife has less earning potential than he younger children?
This is what Dick wanted. He could have done otherwise and did not.
Dick’s new wife gets it all, as per his wishes.
She’s dead and no longer cares. It was their property so unless there was some sort of unusual prenup the house is his. She didn’t leave it to him. It’s just his. Just like now it’s the new wife’s. If you have some extra money laying around sure leave it to the other adult members of the family. But first the person you entered into a partnership needs to be taken care of. That is the moral obligation.
Dick made his new wife joint owner of everything he owned so it was already her property before he died.
If Dick wanted his kids to have the house, he would have made provisions for that. He didn’t. House belongs to the new widow.
Not only is it legally OK, but at least in North Carolina, you are not *allowed *to completely disinherit your spouse - if someone tries to leave everything to their kids, the court can step in and bestow some of the property to the surviving spouse.
We can argue about the ethics of disinheriting your children in favor of your new spouse, but legally it’s perfectly fine.
I think you have a moral obligation to look after your kids past the minimum age of adulthood. Again, not a legal obligation, but a moral one. In this case neither Dick or Jane planned for the possibility of their early demise, creating this situation. If they had, and no plans were made for the well being of the kids, I’d be blaming both of them. But once Dick was faced with the stark reality of his wifes death, he should have considered that going forward. Possibly he did not intend anything more for his kids for some reason. Maybe they were rotten ungrateful kids. I have rotten ungrateful kids myself, and I still made sure they will be beneficiaries of my estate, because rotting and ingratitude are a common characteristic in kids, and the solution is for them to have rotten ungrateful kids of their own some day, who will be my adorable grandchildren who I will praise and dote on in a manner I never did directly with my own kids. This is the cycle of life.
OP needs to read what happened to Peter Sellers’ estate.
This. Dick didn’t give Jane anything. He put her as co-owner on EVERYTHING. Which means when he’s gone, she’s sole owner. It’s up to her whether she wants to share with the kids.
Double-stuffed double-post!
Let’s say you were the “new” spouse who married Dick.
You probably assumed a long and happy life.
Now that Dick has died, what are you supposed to do?
Now, if Dick had wanted, he could have stipulated that she could stay in the house until she dies, and then the kids got it. But he didn’t do that.
Nowhere was it mentioned second wife had kids, so my guess it she might leave the house to Dick’s kids after she dies.
In any case, a new will was made and if Dick had any reason or desire to give it all to his kids, he would have done so. He didn’t. So it sounds like Dick didn’t feel his kids needed it or deserved it as much as his current wife did. His choice.
Maybe, like me, he’s leaving lots of other stuff to his kids (life insurance, etc) and just wants his house to go to his wife. My ex, however, thinks I’m Hitler for not leaving the kids “their house” and letting my wife “who hasn’t earned it,” a house to live in if I die.
What he did was perfectly legal, and common.
But most of the people I know who have discussed this very sort of situation in advance with their spouses, agree that they would prefer it if the surviving spouse who remarries would make arrangements to ensure that the children receive at least a significant part of the marital assets the parents amassed together–especially the part the deceased spouse contributed–rather than leaving them all to a subsequent spouse.
I’ve seen it arranged different ways. Sometimes, there’s a life insurance policy made payable to the second spouse, and the kids inherit. Or vice versa. Or the second spouse inherits a life interest in the family home, and upon his/her death, the home is bequeathed in its entirety to the kids from the first marriage. The easiest is when the second spouse also has their own kids and assets; often, an agreement is made to keep finances separate and each spouse lets their kids inherit.
Where I have seen this all discussed and planned in advance, everyone was always pretty satisfied with the outcome.
Problem arises when people don’t plan for their own mortality, or fall prey to a greedy second spouse who sees the situation as a zero sum game. Unfortunately, in situations where the second spouse inherited everything outright, provision is rarely made for children from the first marriage, and bitterness ensues. I have seen many second spouses, both male and female, work to ensure their spouse’s kids don’t get a dime, in order to enrich themselves and their own children. That’s always ugly.
In this day and age, most of my female friends and I make more money than our spouses/significant others. And every single one of us agrees–we would prefer that if we die, our husbands/SOs use “our half” of the joint assets to support any children in their education, or medical care for our spouse, etc.–not to bankroll his next lover or her progeny. But you have to actually talk these things out and put them in writing if you expect your wishes to be carried out.
Yes, there could be much more to the story. If it’s just the question of the house and the kids receive other benefits then there is no controversy. Leaving half the house to the kids could have just caused problems anyway. Either new wife or the kids would have to buy out the other, and in the end the house might be sold and go to no one.
I think you meant Beth, the second wife. Jane was the first wife. Anyway…
Dick didn’t even have to put Beth as co-owner of everything. She already is through marrage. All property goes to the surviving spouse whether they are listed as part owner or not. He doesn’t need to make her co-owner, he doesn’t even need a will, it all belongs to the surviving spouse.
That is how it works legally, and I realize that the OP was asking for opinions. But the kids and other disgruntled parties do not have a leg to stand on. Even if Dick had made a will specifying that the property goes to the kids it won’t hold up in court unless Beth has agreed too.
He cannot will property that he jointly owned, with Beth, prior to his death, that is now 100% Beth’s. He cannot give away her half of the property without her consent while he is alive, and now that he is dead it all belongs to Beth.
After Jane died, for awhile Dick was 100% owner of all the properties and assets. That all ended when he remarried.
My husband has been living this situation for five years now. He was left his father’s share of the house since only half was quit claimed over to his partner/girlfriend whatever. Now there’s a house that she won’t sell half to my husband, she won’t buy him out and neither is living in this house or maintaining it.
For all I know, no taxes have been paid and the house could be contemned or burned to the ground by now due to the bitterness between my husband and his father’s old girlfriend. I made her a written offer years ago to buy her out for my daughter but she never responded.
The legal costs of a forced sale would eat up most if not all of what the property is actually worth. I hope my husband doesn’t die and leave this as my mess. I want nothing to do with it either.
You’d all seriously give up a lifetime of marriage to someone you love rather than spend 30 minutes writing a will specifying what you want? It’s your choice, of course, but it seems extreme to me.
I think people DO think about this stuff and Dick made his decision by putting the house in Beth’s name. Had he wanted his kids to have the house, he would have put it in their names and gotten a prenup to protect it. My kids get everything when I kick because that is the decision I made. Dick made another one. Hopefully the kids were given Dick and Jane’s sentimental items but Beth gets the house.
I agree. That is what wills and lawyers are for. Protect yourself and your interests and then “live happily ever after”.