Will - inheritance, is this fair?

What’s the alternative leave the GC who ‘might’ have a baby extra money. What if they don’t have any then they get more money than everyone else. It’s ridiculous to even consider any future babies at this point

Effectively they will inherit from someone they never really see and haven’t cared for in any way. Whatever they get they should be bloody grateful. Any future children would have memory or knowledge of this lady, so the point that they should inherit is baseless. Otherwise the whole estate would have to be held in trust until all future grandkids are born and that is madness!

The whole nature of inheritance is that some people get one and others don't.

The OP has not said they are the executor of the will so I would assume she is not so does not need to be involved at all in the “fallout”.

People can include what they want in their will, it really is down to them.

No one else’s business.

It's perfectly fine and fair, yes. Refreshing to see inheritance skip a generation and go to those who have more need of it, in fact.

But if you know there'll be fallout and that this will be made your problem somehow, it's NBU to worry about that.

It’s possible to design a will that includes future grandchildren, with names and dates of birth unknown (not alive at the time of writing the will but alive at the time of death). It just requires a sentence in the will, which a good solicitor should suggest.

No. I think feeling any entitlement to someone else's money is wrong anyway, but feeling entitled to money belonging to somebody you had no bond with in any way because you weren't even born when they were alive is absolutely ludicrous.

Seems from reading pp’s that putting it some kind of trust to be divided by all Ggc on a certain date in say 25years time (when all ggc are likely to have been born) is a possibility. This seems the best option if possible.
I know a lot of people are saying it’s crazy to leave money to children who aren’t even in existence yet, but it’s also wildly unfair for one child to have £50k to set them up for their future and not others. That could cause a lot of resentment over the years/when they find out.

There are ways she could mitigate the risks here. Eg grandchildren get a lot more with great grandchildren getting something much smaller. If the grandchildren are young a small amount invested will likely give a big pot at 18 when it’s theirs.

The will can also be written so that babies in utero count. My youngest inherited some money on that basis. It would have been very challenging to have had one child with a significant pot and the other nothing. If not, we’d have most likely equalised even though that is obviously not legally sound or looked to save an equivalent pot for the child without inheritance and not the one with.

For me the biggest issue is more about potential unfairness within families rather than across cousins. At some point you have lots of different arrangements and inequity across cousins. I’d also add there can be a lot of flexibility depending on how the will is written to manage money for under 18s. Ours was given to us to spend as we see fit on behalf of the child. There was no stipulation re a trust. There could be quite legitimate scenarios where across cousins the parents take a different approach to the money. Some might invest and not touch until 18, some might spend on school fees, some might spend on all the school trips etc.

YABU

You say your direct family are not involved, so why is it any of your business? I can’t see why any resulting angst would end up at your door, and if it does, you simply point out it’s nothing to do with you.

No, they do not. Unless the OP is an executor of the will, there will be no need to get involved at all.
They can just say 'don't want to discuss' when the percieved potential fallout happens. Op hasn't written the will. No need to be involved. This is about someone closer to home missing out

Because she knows she'll have to deal with the fallout.

It's all there in the OPs post

I think this is fair. This relative (your parent or DH's parent?) has a relationship with their grandchildren and great grandchildren. They are all people in their own right.

I'd encourage my dc in that case to share.

Yes the people without grandchildren may see the ones with as benefitting more. (Some people don't recognise children are individuals in their family unit. )

We had the same issue in our family it's not pleasant.

Not your business OP
I presume your children are in the situation where they don't have children, so they will, according to you, 'miss out'?
If not, why are you so invested? You say that other members of the family (clearly this is your DHs side) wil get cross; so what? They are not your immediate bllod family, let your DH deal with the fallout, if any.
This post isn't about the family fallout, it's about what you feel you relative in law should be doing with their estate

Why would they even be discussing it?

Weirdly, I agree with this. She has obviously thought about it and decided this is what she wants to do. It doesn't make sense to leave for hypothetical children.

We plan to leave our DC everything even though they're better off than us. That way they can decide what to do with the cash with their own DC

Skipping a generation often causes difficulties, however well meant. Especially if it is related to a property. My mum's will has an element of this, and she has ended up leaving her property to me and my brother equally, let's say it is worth £150k (I have 2 children, he has none, but might have some in the future). She has left the rest of the assets £100k split in four ways, me brother, and my two children. She has tried to "make this right" by giving him more in her lifetime, but both of us are fully aware that my family are getting "more" on death - of course we might not, because she may need to go into care. Nobody overly cares by the way, we all have good relationships. She has also put a clause on in case we pre-decease her, that it goes to any children of me and brother who exist at the time, this is helpful in making sure it goes to who she intended it to go to. Having dealt with this recently with another family member, the more people involved in the outcome from the sale of an estate causes real practical issues, some desperate to sell (needing the money) and others that don't. Yours is a funny situation, she is giving to GGC she has never seen, she is not giving to children as they are financially secure. HTH. x

Not really. Few of us have the background and experience of working within an inflexible legal framework. What seems simple can end up being more complicated than we realise, even for those with advanced levels of education in other areas.

It's not necessarily patronising to ask a question or to point out a scenario that could cause problems. If they say that they've already thought about that and don't have a concern, well at least you know they've made an informed decision.

I'm sensitive to patronisation, but providing the tone of the question was appropriate, like I say, I'd be grateful for someone looking it for me and my family.

And maybe she is quite happy leaving it to her GC and GGC whom she knows. That’s the deal with wills, you get to say what you want to happen with your estate when you die.

thinking someone might not realise the wording is important is a bit patronising.

As you said in your opening sentence, it’s her money. She can do what she wants to.

Who on earth leaves money to children who may never exist?

You are doing what you want with your will. That’s totally fair.

Some other woman wants to leave money to the great grandchildren she’s known and loved. That’s also totally fair.

You can’t imagine tension between an older child who inherited excess of £50k from a great grandparent they never knew because they were 6m old, and a younger sibling who has nothing?