Inheritance one

It's nothing to do with what DC2 believes. What matters is what the will says, which you will need to get a copy of.

If a beneficiary of a will dies, then that person's share will be distributed to the others in the will, so in this case DC2 and DC3 will get 45% each, then the other 10% will be split between the grandchildren (so 1/60 th). In which case DC2 is absolutely correct.

If the will has a clause that states about the DC dying before the deceased, and the inheritance passing on to their children, then the two children of DC1 will get 15% each, plus their share of the 10%. DC2 and DC3 get 30% each.

Lots of people don't add this clause as they don't see themselves outliving their children. If they didn't change their will once DC1 had died then the money needs to be distributed as per the will.

It might not seem fair, but that's life, and this is why lots of families fall out over money and wills.

Fair enough @Genevieva . And I agree.
You'll see up thread I have advised calmly sitting down and talking. The first step is to see the will which may solve the issue.

You misunderstand me. I know deeds of variation can be done by each beneficiary on their bit. Where I mean is a family consensus would be helpful here. And it might be achievable. Communication is always worth a try.

@Oculusopen Does your last but one para in the OP mean that both Grandparents died in quick succession?

Or is there some other sequence of events.

Good point. So DC3 could give 15% to them, and get the original allocation of 30%. They can’t force DC2 to relinquish any though. At least not rue your expensive legal proceedings with an uncertain outcome. It might be worth nudging them though.

Actually, a DOV can be done by each beneficiary, to take from their own individual payout, so agreement across the board is not needed. Those who wish to donate some if theur share to GC 1 & 2 can do so, and others can choose not to.

Bearing in mind though, any DOV can later be used against a beneficery who did one, to say it was a deliberate deprevation of assets, should that situation arisen

A deed of variation can't be made by consensus. You can only legally make changes to your own part of the inheritance. In this instance we don't know whether or not dc1's inheritance is dealt with in the will.
But if it goes back into the pot, dc3 can only make a deed of variation relating to their own inheritance, so could pass the additional 15% they received to dgc1 and 2. Dc2 couldn't be forced to do anything

If what DC2 says is correct about the will, I think most fair minded people would want a deed of variation ( not sure if this is the exact wording) so that DC1's children were not disadvantaged and received DC1's original share.
These children have lost their parents earlier than they should have and are losing out because of it, seems so unfair.

In the UK, inheritance will not lapse (legally fail due the death of a beneficiary) when that beneficiary is a direct child and has living descendants. So the default situation in this case should be that the grandchildren inherit the deceased child's share. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4and1Vict/7/26/section/33)

Of course there are ways for the will to be worded that would specify this should not happen.

And if you're not in the UK that doesn't help!

Nobody knows what was actually written in the will, because the executor is refusing to share it.

Until everyone affected has seen a copy of the will, anything else is speculation.

These things are best sorted out by consensus and in the interests of family harmony. In the event if a lack of clarity, if all beneficiaries agree, a deed of variation can be fine to ensure that GC1 and 2 are not disadvantaged. Apart from DC2, would everyone rise agree to that?

It depends on the wording in the will.

Of course she had a right to do it. But it's still a public statement about the grandchildren which unless there were extraordinary circumstances would be deeply hurtful.

*45% not 30%

If DC2, as both a beneficiary of the will and the executor, makes a unilateral decision to change the will or interpret it for their own benefit (eg receiving 45% of the value of the estate not 45% as indicated by the will) then they are committing an offence and can get into a lot of trouble.

Or it’s in her interests to interpret the will in this way.

No they won't. Unless stated otherwise, DC1's inheritance has legally failed and goes back into the 90% pot.

Only if it says that in the will. What is morally right is completely different to the legal right which is the will must be executed exactly in line with the instructions written it in. Really important that people get proper legal advice when drawing up a will to make sure the instructions included are what they intend, not what they think they intend

Grandparents had ten years to update the will to reflect this. For all we know they may have wanted it to be the way it's turned out.

Unless the gift clause dealing with the 90% split equally between the children includes wording specifying that, in the event they pre-decease their parents, their share is to be passed to their children (ie grand children of the legator) then the gift fails and the 90% is split 50/50 between the surviving siblings.

However, if the beneficiaries all agree, they have two years from d.o.d. to vary the Will. Morally, I think that most families would feel that this is the right thing to do, but most people throw morals out of the window when it comes to inheritances and just want to take as much as they can. (I work in a related area and how vile and greedy some family members can be is shocking.

The justification of the other siblings doing more of the day to day care is immaterial really, but I’m sure they will use it to justify not varying the will in favour of their deceased sibling’s children. They will see it as somehow unfair to their children as they won’t be receiving as much from the grandparent’s estate, ignoring the fact that their children may well inherit more eventually when they pass away.

Unless it says otherwise, the offspring of DC1 (who predecessors the grandparents) will inherit their share plus the 1/6 each of the 10% left to grandchildren. The others inherit exactly what they would have inherited if their sibling / uncle or aunt had not died.

This works out as:
DC2: 30%
DC3: 30%
GC1: 15% plus 1.67% c = 16.67%
GC2: 16.67%
GC3: 1.67%
GC4: 1.67%
GC5: 1.67%
GC6: 1.67%

Her will, her money, her choice. Being objective, it was her wishes, to the point of actually stating it rather than relying on the law of the land. No one can know her reasons why.

Fair thing to do is child 1's share now goes to his offspring. If he was still here, that's would have happened down the line. It's the decent way to share things out.

You won't be able to do that until probate is granted .
Have you sat down calmly with 'dc2' and just asked to see the will?
It would be better to have clarity before it goes to probate and assets are distributed
If dc2 refuses, seek legal advice