It's another inheritance one...

But they are not getting less - unless the idea is that when their mother died she immediately set aside her inheritance in a trust and left it to her children and not had the benefit of it herself? But she wouldn't, would she? She’s have spent some, used it for her pension, used some for her old age care. She might have spent the lot. Her children would not have received 25% of Mary’s estate. Just what was left after Sarah had benefited from it.

And she is absolutely allowed to decide that and everyone else should shut up about it.

We had a kind of similar situation in our family. There's 3 of us in my family (DB,DS & me), 3 cousins in one part, and 4 in another. My Dad had 4 siblings, and only he, and his child-free sister outlived their father. My grandfather had long been widowed. The will stated that the estate was to be split equally between the 5 kids (dad's generation), and if any of them pre-deceased their father, then their share would go to their kids (my generation.) As my dad's other 3 siblings pre-deceased their father, 1/5 went to each set of cousins. My siblings and I didn't inherit anything. I know my mum was a bit annoyed that this felt like my siblings and I missed out. We are not really in need of the money - it's always a nice treat, but we're all in secure jobs, and on the housing ladder. My DB quite rightly said that we have the benefit of having both parents though. So, maybe your family could see it that way? I thought it was very philosophocal of my DB to say that.
This happened about 6 or 7 years ago. My cousins got their parent's share, and we still have our parents. I have no idea if my folks have spent all of that (it was about £25k, I think), or they have plans to pass it to us/their grandkids.

Mary is that you?

She is being fair to the grandchildren. The inheritance is following the normal lines of succession. At least Jane's kids have their mother.

Is the money tied up in property?

Knowing that money causes lots of family arguments and resentment, surely it would be better for Mary to give Jane the money she wants her to have now, then in her will leave what's left equally to everyone (not sure about Sarah's partner, would depend on the relationship). That way she has done what she wanted to support her only child but also been neutral and fair to all the grandchildren with nothing to argue about.

Mmmm. I have a friend whose neices saud tgey would stop contact if she didn't them money left my their grandmother (to their 2 Aunts). They would have got the lot (and much more) in the end as well as massive amounts from father. Blackmailing little sods!

That's how it usually works. My estate, if my DH doesn't get it all due to his death, gets divided equally four ways. If one of my four children isn't alive, their children get their share divided among them. That's the normal order of things.

I know that my parents' wills have the money split equally between my brother and I, apart from some small bequests. Were my brother to predecease them, I would be horrified if it all came to me: I would expect my brother's share to go to his now adult child.

You're obviously Jane in this scenario.

I think the will should be split 50:50 between Jane, and Sarah's children. This is fair in my view.

This. It's really not fair on them - they're getting less because their poor mum died. But if Mary wants to be unfair there's not much they can do tbh, it's her money

This sounds normal to me. The assets are still being split 50/50 among the two children, one didn't live to see her share, so her 50% gets split among her children/the grandchildren. This is probably better for Sarah's children anyway. If Sarah had inherited then died, her DH would have inherited it all.

It is usual for a share that 'fails' (i.e., recipient is dead) to have that share divided among their surviving children instead.

I honestly don’t understand how! Overlooking issues such as the behaviour of Sarah’s children.
Jane and Sarah. Jane has two children, Sarah had two children.

50/50 makes sense.

Personally, I think it would depend on how long ago Sarah passed away and whether she left an inheritance, given that Sarah’s children’s father seems to not be good with money and presumably won’t leave them anything. I would also consider whether Jane owns property and if her children are likely to inherit from Jane’s estate.

There should be no expectation of inheritance but I do think it can cause rifts if things are deemed to have been done fairly. Losing a parent at an early stage of life, is pretty tough and if Sarah’s children weren’t left an inheritance when Jane’s will be, I think it would be unfair to split Sarah’s between the others.

I’d also consider whether Jane is any good with money, given that she hasn’t saved for her own pension. That generation have had better opportunities than today’s generation and I think the grandchildren would actually benefit from help to save for their future. If Jane’s pension is topped up by inheritance, will this prevent her from having to downsize or similar, thus leaving her children a bigger inheritance?

Theres no right and wrong but if it were me, I’d look at the bigger picture and consider everyone’s financial position both now and for their future. I’d try to make things fair. This is usually where deceased person’s share would automatically be passed to their kids and I’d want a good reason to deviate from this.

So my dad died when I was 6. My Nan died when I was 27. Nan had two sons and a daughter. Two months after Nan dies her daughter died. So in the will my uncle got 50% and my aunts share went to her two sons my cousins. I was never even considered in the will it’s like she had forgot my Dad had ever existed. Honestly I have never gotten over as for it was a life changing amount of money 40k I no longer have any contact with my Dads side of the family. She can do what she wants with her money but it will cause real issues.

It should remain in her family line though, i.e go to her children instead.

The normal thing to do is to split the share that would have gone to the parent amongst their children.

Mary has every right to want to look after Jane as well she can.
Pity they found out.

Same here.

I'm a bit confused by how it is that Mary thinks she is prioritising Jane to make sure that she is looked after. After all, whether Mary leaves 50% to Jane, and divides the rest between Sarah's kids, or leaves 50% to Jane and divides the rest between all the grandchildren, Jane still has her 50% regardless. So it's less about what happens to Jane, and much more about how Mary is dividing Sarah's original half.

At the end of the day, it's up to Mary. IMO, it's most usual to leave 50% to each child, but with the share passing to the grandchildren on that side of the family if a child predeceases the parents. That's how it would legally be if there was no will, and most people I know have written their will this way. I know my parents did, my in-laws have, and I have. All very normal.

So while it is up to Mary, I can understand that Sarah's kids might feel a bit hard done by. But there's nothing really that they can do about it anyway.

I wonder if you are Mary or her advisor?

But in my eyes it is treating grandchildren very unequally. Sadly we have no idea whether the remaining daughter will live for 1 month, 1 year, or 10 years. By leaving more to that daughter, her children benefit disproportionately so they are favoured over the other grandchildren. Yes, you can hope it is used for the daughter’s retirement but sadly life isn’t predictable so no one knows that to be the case.

Not fair, but life's not fair and Mary can do what the f**k she likes with her money, cos er... it's her money. This should never have been discussed. Also... what's Sarah's husband getting?... that will surely be passed down to his kids? Assuming he doesn't blow it on hookers and drugs?

You seem to know an awful lot about this OP for someone who is a friend of these people…

...and if it all disappears in care home fees nobody gets much anyway.