I think most dad;s in that situation wouldn’t just put it all in new spouses name, but will designate something for the children specifically to come out of their mother’s estate. But as written, yeah, it’s legal.
I’m sure it’s just me, but whenever I read comments, such as these, the very first thing that pops into my mind is, “Whatever you gotta tell yourself, is okay!” It just seems so much more like sour grapes than reason, to my ear. As I say, I’m sure it’s just me!
That’s what I’m interpreting this as, too, but I’m also not sure.
My opinion is that this is why you write a will, keep it updated, and know what the law is. And why if you enter into a second marriage when you have kids, this is doubly important.
If Jane wanted her kids to get her assets, she could have set up her will so her spouse didn’t get everything when she died. She could have given him lifetime tenancy in her half of the house, the other half going into trust and if the house was sold or he died, the kids got her half.
Dick could have written a will after Jane’s death to make sure his kids got some share of the estate after his death.
If he died without a will, and Beth does not think the default situation is in line with his wishes, she can have herself appointed personal representative for the estate (at least here in Minnesota) and distribute assets from the estate in accordance with what she believes his wishes were.
I see no moral obligation for any of this wealth to pass to the kids, and find it surprising some do.
Dick and Jane created wealth together as partners. On her death, it became entirely his. On his marriage, it became shared with his new partner.
In my mind, his moral obligation is to provide for his surviving partner, into old age. Not provide nest eggs for young people capable of creating wealth for themselves, with their partners, if that is what they want from life!)
If the kids were disabled maybe. I think his moral obligation is more to his wife than his kids.
Got my Beths and Janes confused. Let’t try that again.
There is insufficient information set out in the OP to determine how much, if anything, Beth would keep 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 his assets are Beths by surviviorship and do not form part of his estate. If (B) then Beth keeps the half of his assets that he gave her, and the other half of his assets form his estate.
-
If by (B) half of Dick’s assets formed 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 the residual should be dived up between their children? If (a) then it would be determined by statutory intestacy laws which may givehis estate to his present wife or may divide it up between his present wife and his children. If (b) then his estate would go to his kids.
-
There may be legislation in the jurisdiction that would trump the above.
Usually, but not always, when couples merge their assets, they do it by way of “joint with right of survivorship” rather than “tenants in common”, and usually when they write mutual wills, the leave the residue to each other with the proviso that if the other is already dead, then to the kids. If that took place in the OP’s matter, and if there is no provincial or state law that would trump in these circumstances, then there would be nothing in Dick’s estate to give to anyone because it was already Beth’s by gift and right of survivorship.
Jane was a grown up, too, who also could changed her will explicitly leaving some assets to the kids if that’s what she really wanted. She, if I’m reading the OP correctly, had 22 years after the birth of their second child to make that choice and didn’t. So if Jane’s ghost is unhappy with Beth getting the benefit of her labor and her kids getting none, she’s got only herself to blame. Dick also had a couple of years from the time he got married again until he keeled over to make some decisions. He didn’t (or he did by default, whichever way you want to look at these things).
And honestly, there’s nothing outrageous about this disposition of the house and money. Beth and Dick have been married for a while, it’s not unreasonable that things go to her. (If, say, Dick had a heart attack on the honeymoon, and a week later, Beth got run over by a hearse while she was in the funeral home’s parking lot, and everything ended up with Beth’s niece…I might have a different emotional reaction.)
It depends on the culture. In yours, there is little moral obligation to pass wealth to the kids (usually it only becomes an issue when a gold digger marries a senior and then isolates the senior from the adult children). If, however, you looked a country such as Italy, you would find a much stronger moral obligation and even some statutory requirements that protect spouses/children.
In your jurisdiction (On-tari-ari-ari-o) this can often be accomplished by the surviving spouse electing take under the Family Law Act as if they had separated just before he died (thereby bypassing the will), and/or the surviving spouse (and/or surviving dependant children) freezing the estate and receving dependant’s relief (think of it as spousal support from the estate).
The missing part is that Jane may have intended the share she left to her husband to be left for the kids as well. The will was made out years earlier and they probably weren’t considering what would happen after the kids were grown, and since they remained married after that, Dick probably didn’t bring up the topic of remarriage. So after Jane’s death only Dick would have known what her intentions were, and we can’t tell from the story. If Dick could have reasonably concluded that Jane wanted something to go to the kids as adults, then he should have seen to that. But without such information I guess we can’t assume there was a moral obligation on that basis.
However I disagree with your general approach. I believe the priority should be placed on the young and their futures. Parents should not need to be taken care of. They should see to that apart from, and secondarily to, making sure their children have a good life. It’s a matter of personal opinion, that’s just mine.
Jane is dead and there are no children involved just adults. That’s where we differ. Dead is dead. She doesnt care any more. It would be nice to be able to take into consideration her feelings from years ago but circumstances change. And the time to take care of the adult offspring is over. If they still need taking care of there was a huge failure. It would be nice to throw them a little something but it can’t be the priority.
Say what now? If taking care of themselves, is secondary to ensuring a good life for the kids, seems like it would lead to them needing to be taken care of.
You lost me here, sorry. I can’t really parse what you were trying to say there.
It doesn’t have to be providing everything for them. These kids could still be in school, or need help with a downpayment on a house or something. I have to admit my parents weren’t much help in that regard, but I’d like to be able to help my kids out if I can.
That’s **Muffin **I think. “electing to take” maybe?
It’s the “putting half in her name” that’s making me question - without that, I would assume that the current wife inherits everything, barring a will that specifies differently. Putting half of the assets including the house in her name makes it sound like he meant for half to go to his wife, and half to be his estate left for his kids. I dunno - the OP is not clear.
What is comes down to is that except for when a statute law steps in, folks in Canada and the USA can pretty much do what they want when when it comes to intergenerational transfer of assets, including but not limited to making their wills. Provided they have mental capacity to make a will, it is presumed that they know what they want and that they drafted their wills accordingly. That’s why for the most part, the Courts try not to second guess the testator.
Sometimes statutes make it difficult or impossible to truly cut someone out of a will or protect against claims against the estate, but even then, there is a lot that can be done with respect to intergenerational transfer of assets outside of the estate or prior to death. Typical examples include transferring assets prior to death jointly with right of survivorship so that the survivor keeps those assets rather than the assets becoming part of the estate; or keeping investments and chequing accounts in life insurance products with designated beneficiaries who will get those assets upon the investor’s death rather than the assets going into the estate; or just plain giving it all away prior to death with notes kept proving that the transfers were gifts rather than loans that would be repayable to the estate or trust holdings that would be part of the estate.
Bottom line: folks should not complain if they did not properly plan for the forseeable issues, and revisit their plan every time there is a significant life event.
I can certainly agree with this sentiment, of course. I’m just not seeing that as the ‘moral’ choice. More a personal choice. And I would agree the concept is different in other cultures, of course.
That’s how it is often done, for wills usually leave the assets to someone else (e.g. the kids) if the primary beneficiary dies first. The OP does not say if the will was drafted this way or not.
For example, if a will has already been drafted this way (all to spouse but if spouse dead then all to kids), often when a widow or widower marries, the house and some funds will be transferred jointly with right of survivorship, so that the new spouse will not be left out in the cold if the testator dies first, while at the same time the assets not so transferred will be part of the testator’s estate and go to the kids under the will since the first spouse had already died. If the second spouse also dies before the testator, then everything lands back in the testators lap by right of survivorship and goes to the kids under the will.
Something that is really odd about the situation as described by the OP is that if the will left everything to the first spouse but everything went to the second spouse, that means that the will did not say what should be done if the first spouse died before the testator. That’s a bit like building a car without brakes – by making it that way you are flipping a coin on whether or not there will be a crash someday. Competent lawyers don’t draft wills that have no fall-back plan for when the beneficiary kicks off before the testator, particularly if the testator and the beneficiary are spouses of somewhat similar ages.
My guess concerning the will described by the OP? Either the new spouse did not get everything, or the will was a home-made will not drafted by a competent estate lawyer.
My grandfather predeceased my granny by about 15 years. About 3 years after his death, my granny met a “handy man,” who I’ll call G, at the shopping mall, who ended up moving in with her. We were never sure what the exact nature of their relationship was, because they never married, slept in separate rooms and maintained separate finances, with the exception of one modest joint checking account. But it was clear that they were affectionate, if not necessarily romantic.
In any event, the way Granny handled her affairs was that she had a will that left everything to her two daughters. However, beginning in the mid-80’s, she began taking out 1 to 3 year $20k CDs, and making them POD (payable upon death) to various people not specifically named in her will, such as grandchildren. (FYI, POD accounts supersede wills.) After her friend, “G” moved in, she began opening up POD CDs in G’s name – totaling ~$150k at her death. Her will also stipulated that he could remain in her house for as long as he lived.
Since the CDs came up for renewal every 1 to 3 years, this method was an easy, fluid way for her to maneuver her money as she pleased. When she died, quite unexpectedly, G ended up with a nice chunk of change, which IMO seemed a very fair amount of money for someone whom she’d only known for 10 years. Each of her grandchildren got a nice gift…and her children inherited the bulk of her estate.
Re the OP. I’m a firm believer in people’s right to do with their money as they please. However, there’s no way I’d PERSONALLY ever leave my children entirely out of my will, in favor of a new husband. Their father worked his whole life to take care of ALL of us. And giving what he earned to a third person (and ultimately, HIS heirs) seems wrong. Which is why I’d make provisions either in the will or via POD accounts to make sure that our kids ended up with a fair portion of the estate.