Giving grandchildren different amounts of inheritance

@Moglet4 oh yes, you're correct, I forgot that part!! Absolutely shocking. It's totally vile behaviour of the son.

More! He wants 90% 😳

Agree with what others are saying, it's very obvious the son is trying to get 2/3 instead of 1/2 secured for his line. Disgusting.

If she skips a generation, it should still be split 50/50 down the family lines. So in this case, granddaughter gets 50%, grandchild1 of son gets 25%, and grandchild2 of son gets 25%. That's the only fair way.

The fact the granddaughter has money due to her mother dying when she was a child, should not hold any weight in this. Losing her mother was not a good thing after all...

If there were no will granddaughter would receive half of the estate. Suggesting skipping a generation is actually son's way of ensuring his children get more than they would have done.

This it is how probate would handle it and is fair.

The son sounds horrible. Is he normally that bad?

What a vile money grabbing shit her son is!

As PP have said 50% each to the son (who can then pass it on to his children if he wants to ) and 50% to the granddaughter.

Your poor friend having to deal with this in her final days☹️

The son sounds awful

I would give him 2 choices: split it 50/50 between him and the granddaughter or an equal split between the 3 grandkids

At a push I might split 30/35/35 if I had a good relationship with the granddaughter and could explain in person the reasons for doing it

This

There is no guarantee that this young woman will inherit anything from her father. His assets could get dispersed any number of ways e.g. care fees, or a gambling habit, or anywhere in between. The uncle is making massive assumptions on what his BIL plans to do with his estate at some hopefully long in the future point in time. What she might theoretically inherit should not be a consideration in the here and now.

Options I would see are:

1. 50:50 to each of her children. i.e. she does not change her will. This is probably in alignment with what her husband would have wished, given that this is the current status.
2. 1/3 to each grandchild.

Whatever option she goes with, a letter could be placed with the will explaining her decision, to minimise conflict after her passing. And in the present, she tells her son, she has not reached a decision but does not want to discuss it further with him.

Many years ago a childless uncle left money to my siblings and me. It was split very unfairly . Middle child a boy got £1500, I got £1000, my elder sister got £500. I always thought it was grossly unfair, especially as my sister spent holidays with uncle and aunt as we lived abroad at that time and she was at boarding school. I think she must have felt very hurt.

The poor girl is being penalised because her mother died early.

If her mother was still alive she would inherit half and get her mother's inheritance after, just like the others will with their dad.

She's being punished for losing her mother :(

50% to each of her children.
So, 50% to her daughter's child
And since her son has said to skip a generation, 25% to each of her grandkids from that side.

I would split it..
son, daughter, gson, gson, gdaughter- 1/5 each.
Effectively, gdaughter - 2/5ths.and the others 1/5th.

It could also be fair to skip and just give each grandchild a third.

The split suggested by son is unfair.

I know what you mean about equal not always being fair, especially with blended families.
This is not the situation here though is it - the only reason the granddaughter is better off is because she has inherited following the death of her mother.

I would say 50% to each of granddaughter and son then he can give it to his sons if he wants to, or 25% each to them
if she wishes to oblige.
My main thought is what a horrible time to cause such stress to an ill woman. What a stunning lack of compassion - to his mother and his niece.

Yes I can see that, good point. It’s really difficult isn’t it . I still think the base line is to treat the grandchildren equally to avoid bad feeling, but it’s so difficult.

That is then saying the DD just didn't exist. Which is another level of hurt.

If you split per person you'd have to be 20% to each DGC 20% to each DC with the DGD inheriting her mothers share.
You also have to remember the DSs children will eventually inherit his share too.

Split equally.

Absolutely this. Anything else could cause fallouts that are never recovered from.

Split between the dcs, who can then pass much or all of it on - or not - as they see fit.
Apart from relatively minor legacies to Gdcs/Ggdcs, this is what has happened within my own family - most of legacies passed to adult children whose needs are greater.

I think splitting the inheritance based on finances isn’t fair at all. But when people split inheritance based on a relative that’s distant and a relative they see often who makes the effort, and gives that individual more of the inheritance… that’s when I think it’s fair to split it unevenly.

As the son is keen for it to skip a generation, I’m presuming he’s financially comfortable. Therefore he may well be passing on his wealth to his children when he dies, just like his sister did...only he will hopefully get many more years of living and get to see his children well into adulthood before that happens. His poor sister didn’t get that opportunity.

Equal split to the adult DC who can then do as they wish with it.