This.
While this is not what I would do - I would have revised the will after my wife died to include my children. The fact that Dick didn’t, doesn’t change the outcome that the house goes to the new wife. It was Dick’s property and that’s where he willed it.
Do you have a cite for that? what jurisdiction are you speaking about? Spouses don’t automatically become owners of their spouses’ property, and if an intestacy occurs, most intestacy statutes that I’m familiar with provide that the property of the deceased is split between the surviving spouse and the deceased’s children.
Right. In my state, half to the surviving spouse, and half equally split among surviving children. The OP did not indicate there was a subsequent will for the second marriage, so we have to assume the state laws on intestate succession would be in effect. (And. . . he hasn’t responded back to dispute that point, either.) So, the wife would end up with a 3/4 share, and each child with a 1/8 share of the house. Although I would assume that owning a 3/4 share for the most part makes it her house.
I think that both Dallas Jones and the OP pkbites are from community property states, in which an asset obtained during the marriage by one spouse usually (but not gifts or inheritances) is deemed to be owned by both spouses. I don’t think that this applies to the OP’s scenario because the assets were obtained by Dick prior to his marrying Beth. The assets that he did not give to Beth would remain as his separate property. I could be wrong on this, for I don’t practice in a community property jurisdiction.
Plus, Jane could have prevented this with a mutual will, and she didn’t. (To spouse for life, then to the children - spouse can do anything he wishes with the estate during his life, even to the point of using all the estate, so long as he doesn’t do it with the intention of defeating the mutual will - essentially then the estate is on constructive trust for the kiddos during dad’s lifetime, if there’s any estate left at his death).
Jane and whatshisname chose not to do this, so yeah, pretty much the estate is his to deal with as he sees fit. Beth gets the estate and kids get bupkiss.
At least where I live that’s true.
Yes, very good points. It’s interesting to note, however, that the OP said Dick and Jane had a will (singular), not that they had wills (plural).
However, it should be noted that if Dick and Jane owned the house as joint tenants with right of survivorship, the house would pass to Dick to do with as he pleased regardless of what Jane might have put in her will.
So what it all comes down to is that without knowledge of the facts and the law – the particulars of the transfer and the will(s) and the laws of the jurisdiction – it is not possible to know what is what, let alone know who should have received what.
It depends on local laws.
For example, in Catalonia and assuming everybody dies intestate:
when Jane died, half the house belonged to Dick, and one quarter to each child. The children could allow full usage of the house to Dick, but not gift him the property (they could gift it to him if they were adults, but since they’re minors they can’t, and he can’t do it in their name): if Dick wants to own the house in full, he must buy his childrens’ parts; the house cannot be sold to someone else unless everybody agrees to do so (Dick can do it himself while his children are minors, but must give 1/4 of the proceeds to each child). Unless he purchases the house, which in the OP he doesn’t, he can only gift ownership of the part he owns (half the house); at his death, each child is left with 5/16s of the house (the 1/4 from Jane plus 1/4 of Dick’s quarter) and Beth is left with the other 6/16s.
If I’m counting correctly, at this point the youngest child is a minor and the eldest isn’t; at Dick’s second wedding, both were minors; there is no mention of Beth adopting them. Since she isn’t a relative, cession of full-usage rights is still possible but legally more complex. The oldest child can gift her his part of the house, but why would he, when it’s possible to make cession of usage without giving up ownership? The youngest child’s custodian can gift the youngest child’s part to Beth if said guardian is not Beth herself, but again why?
50 years ago, my grandmother died. My mom was in her 20s.
40 years ago, my grandfather remarried, to a widower with a grown child of her own.
25 years ago, my grandfather died, and the all of the stuff now belongs to his second wife, and other than a few items my mother has specifically asked about, everything will go to the second wife’s son, when wife 2 dies.
And I’m totally ok with that, and so is my mother.
Grandpa raised my mom to adulthood. He did his job.
Wife 2 and Grandpa planned on spending many years together. They only got some of those, but that doesn’t change what Grandpa’s plans were.
My grandma (wife 1) is dead, and has no use for the china set or the silverware.
To those of you who feel that wife 2 shouldn’t get anything, at what point do the parents lose the right to dispose of their own possessions, because that would mean the kids won’t get it when the parents die?
The first woman helped pay for the house and raise the kids. But she’s dead. She can’t inherit anything.
The kids didn’t pay off the house, nor are they entitled to an inheritance. I have not the slightest problem with the new wife getting everything when the Dick dies, unless they had stipulated differently.