It's another inheritance one...

I agree about the greed and entitlement of some ref inheritance. But I do not agree that 'when you die your money should go to the government'. That is totally wrong. It'd go straight into the ever bulging benefits pot. No thanks.

I think there's a difference between a person choosing to spend their own earned money on things for their children while they are alive and can get joy from that, and the grasping entitlement over the assets of the dead that characterises so many of these threads.
Whining about who's getting how much of someone else's money when they die is ugly and a very poor reflection of human nature. Its greedy, reduces the importance of a loved one to a cash cow and is entirely selfish, because is seeks to control the loved ones decisions for gain. Gain that is entirely one way.
I do understand your perspective, but more often these threads are not about people orphaned young. The average life expectancy is in the 80s, so the would be beneficiaries are typically at a life stage where they've had ample time to make their own way and will often have already recieved advantage from their living parents.
I suppose if we did away with inheritance then people could have life assurance to benefit their families in the event of their untimely death.

@Meudantte and Jane is probably doing all that's needed for Mary as an elderly lady.
Honestly, the entitlement these days. It's 100% up to Mary and the grandkids should be grateful for anything she leaves them.
If I was Mary I might be tempted to leave it all to Jane with that attitude.

Mary should also be looking out for her grandchildren who lost their mum shouldn’t she? It’s a big deal losing your parents, but particularly your mother before your time. It never goes away, it influences every little thing and every big decision.
I wonder how old you were OP when your mother died? Or are you 60 something with a 85yr old mother still going strong? That’s a big difference to being a teen or young adult when you lose your mother…

Bollox! She's in her 60's not her 90's, she's not that old. I'm in my 50's and have always known that having a private pension was important.

I'm also not sure why you think the state pension is not what it was. The triple lock has been in place for 15 years for a start. Auto-enrollment has been in for a similar amount of time.

There may be a a perfectly good reason why she doesn't have a decent pension which is why I asked the question. But claiming that people in their 60's have been misled and not generally been able to build a pension is ridiculous.

Yes definitely. But if you are going to legislate against those whose parents are dead receiving anything then it seems quite unfair that those with parents who are alive and wealthy still get to benefit from that. It's something you can't really solve...the accident of birth is one of life's greatest inequalities.

I'm sorry you lost your parents early. I lost my mum young and nothing makes up for the loss of loving parents.
However, what I see is that there is a huge divide between people with affluent parents who help them when alive or afterwards, and those who can't, which means that no matter how hard they work, those less fortunate can rarely achieve what others get from an accident of birth.
I understand this is the way of the world but its a bit of a cheek when those who are getting an unearned leg up of any description start arguing about what is fair, when the whole system of inheritance is one of the least fair systems we have.

I received a fairly large inheritance whilst I was quite young as both my parents died early. One thing I've observed is how much financial help my friends get from their living parents throughout their adult life... financial help with house deposits, buying cars, home improvements, not to mention the money the save from free childcare. I see my inheritance as a kind of compensation for not having that.

Completely agree. Inheritance is a major cause of wealth inequality as it is. No one should be getting a chunk of unearned money in a 'fair' society.
The argument against assets of a dead person who has no further use for them reverting to the state, is always that would be 'unfair' to them, the deceased worked hard for it, so its theirs to do with as they wish.
Yet apparantly their wishes only extend as far as making sure those with the stickiest fingers are getting enough for free.
Never do you see such a flexible and self serving definition of the word 'fair' as on inheritance threads.

Well yes, normal people would be horrified at depriving a dead sibling's children. Not Jane. By the sounds of it she's bitching that her N&Ns think it's unfair.

I think what Mary is proposing is fair.

But her will change changes nothing for that daughter - still getting 50%

I can understand that Mary is trying to be fair to the grandchildren by giving them the same amount but it isn't actually fair. In my country she wouldn't be able to do this as the law demands fairness which means equal distribution between children, and if a child dies before their parent their share goes to their children (if no children then it gets split between surviving inheritors)

Nothing to do with this thread but every time I see your user name I sing the entire fucking advert in my head!

That would be the normal way. Is it possible Sarah had life insurance that is now in trust for her children? That might influence things.

Fair enough!

Jane and her lack of pension seem to be a red herring - Jane is getting 50% regardless. The question is therefore the GCs - it would seem fair that Sarah’s children get ‘her’ share as is standard’ and respects her memory. Whether Jane’s children ever see any of this is anyone’s guess - Jane could die a week after inheriting or 30 years after but that was the case in the original Will anyway. Seeing as this does not change Jane’s position or her children’s previous position it seems like a deliberate attempt to be punitive to Sarah’s children who have lost their mother and I think would be rightfully upset in the circumstances. I do not see how practical or pragmatic comes into it - it seems impractical and cruel. Jane’s children could end up with the vast majority if she dies close to inheriting.

Well given that, in this case, the people complaining have given little to no support, I am not sure that this stacks up.

OP has said that her N&N barely keep in touch, so they can't claim that Granny was using them as carers and then leaving them nothing.

I would rather know way before they died if they didn’t value me (think it’s okay to treat me unfairly) rather than have no idea and they benefit from all my love and support until their dying day. That’s kinda selfish of them to take what they need and stick two fingers up at me on their way out. Where do you direct that hurt and anger?

I’d rather know beforehand if it’s an option.

But nothing needs "calling out" when it's someone elses estate. They can do what they like and to hell with the consequences because they will be dead, thats kind of the whole point. I would say that the mistake is giving anyone to have a opportunity to voice anything at all before that person has died.

I disagree. At least you get the opportunity to say it’s unfair if it needs saying rather than the deceased leaving a great deal of hurt behind them without ever have their actions be called-out.

Inheritance is way more than just receiving money. It should be given fairly. Unfairness to a particular party speaks volumes of how the deceased truly valued them.

Fairness is a must when dividing your assets, unless you deliberately want to hurt/punish that person.

Bear in mind Jane's age.

She was at the tail end of the Boomer Gen. They were all safe in the knowledge that a state pension was theirs by right. Except that now it isnt.

I am GenX and we were also sold the same dream, but for those of us that are at the older end, we were already well into our lives when getting a private pension wasnt a nice thing to do, but started to become apparent as a necessity. A lot of us were already paying mortgages at higher interest rates that are being paid now, and had had kids etc. So finding the money for private pensions (which were not legally required to be offered by employers at that time) was often a struggle, and we trusted the system!

Its easy to slag off Youngest Boomers/Gen X for not being prepared but the fact is that we didnt know we had to be! We were brought up on "jobs for life" except they weren't and "state pensions for all" except that they werent, or at least not to the level we were sold.

Mary should 50% to her living daughter, just as she would have if her other daughter was still alive. The contentious part is the other 50%. I think that it should only to Sarah’s children. It’s the normal way to do things. Do you think Jane has tried to influence her mother to get her to leave some money directly to her own children? If my Mum had suggested that to me I’d have told her not to.

I think Sarah's kids should get her 50%. They lost their Mum and now they are being penalised by their Gran because Jane didnt save for her pension and they are seemingly doing alright for themselves?! Sarah's kids have their Mother for x number of extra years which is better than a large inheritance. Surely Jane and Sarah always expected to get 50/50 and it would be reasonable that when Sarah was dying she would be assuming that her estate+her 50% would all be left to her kids?

I have 2 siblings. My parents will leaves everything 3 ways. In the event of one of us predeceasing our parents, the unclaimed share will go directly to the kids of the sibling that died - it wouldnt redistribute amongst the living siblings.

If i was one of Sarah's kids, i would be deeply hurt by my gran doing this and id consider Jane and her kids to be effectively stealing from my dead mother. I think this is appalling.

Sarah's husband would probably have got it indirectly first anyway. If my DH dies before me and has inherited, it's all marital property and becomes mine. The children get whatever I have on my death then. Of course I use it to benefit them meanwhile.

If he died before he inherited, then his share would go directly to the children instead of the marital pot.