Inheritance to grandchildren bypassing children

I can see a couple of ways in which this might trigger feelings of disappointment, but it does seem unusual that you feel so strongly even though you're aware it's unreasonable, you say you aren't interested in an inheritance, you can't do anything about it etc. The difference between splitting between the pot equally between the grandchildren and according to how many each brother had seems like small beans. Both are reasonable approaches. I have my favourite but I don't think it's particularly more ethical than the other. Is there something in particular that grates about this? Do you think PiL are more generally unfair to your BiL? Is there a golden child thing going on?

Your concern about not paying for their weddings or their house deposits seems a bit like you're making up problems. I'm sure they'll be happy to accept money for their weddings even if they have a big inheritance, why wouldn't they? And a deposit can always be bigger, cutting down the mortgage or increasing their purchasing power. Or you could, instead, provide a uni fund for their children when they have them, or some other great gift. There are lots of opportunities to be generous. Your DC aren't going to change their appreciation or love for you because you aren't the hand on the purse strings as they build their adult lives - in fact it may lessen any sense of resentment about how much they need you in adulthood and give them the space to appreciate you simply as people they love. So why does this upset you? How are you imagining your relationship with your children when they are older? Do you have fears about that?

But I also wonder, what is your own family experience with inheritance and wealth, OP? Could that have any bearing on why you feel so strongly about this?

They won't be able to afford to give them a house deposit. Wasn't that the OP's point?

Wonder how they would've felt if their parents had skipped them and left you all their assets instead. Think I can guess their reaction! They probably inherited a nice pot of savings or maybe a property, went to university for free, benefitted from low rents and housing costs in relation to salaries, and now they'll be all faux-offended that you feel entitled to THEIR money after they brought you into the world. So typical.

I'm in a similar position where my children have inherited from my parents but we are in a tough position ourselves. The inheritance could have changed our lives but my parents gave it to their GC. It stings a bit to be honest, knowing that we could be debt free and life could have been that bit easier. I’m also worried about our DC pissing their money up the wall when they get it. I didn’t inherit from either of my grandparents who didn’t have much when they passed.

Unlike the poster above, who inherited at 62, my parents were that age when they died meaning I, at 36, could have used that money to live more comfortably and given my children a better childhood, knowing they’ll inherit when I pass.

However, I also know that it wasn’t my decision to make and while I don’t understand fully why they made that decision, it isn’t for me to say so. It’s nice that my children will have an inheritance and we’ll encourage good use of it.

@filofaxdouble That's how I'd view it as well, that the GC are likely to have a higher standard of living at an earlier age than they otherwise would have, and that's great.

In this instance, I don't think the BIL needs to be compensated for having fewer children tbh. The five grandchildren are separate individuals who'll each inherit 20% of the estate, so they'll each receive the same financial "boost."

I do agree with posters saying that inheriting money very young can be tricky. If I were doing this, I'd add the stipulation that each GC will receive their share when they're 25 or older.

How do you know the GC will get an inheritance young? Their grandparents could live until they're 90 or the money could get swallowed in care home fees. My mum's parents left all their money to their GC. They're thinking was all their children had brought homes and none of them were struggling so they gave it to the next generation.
I'm pretty sure my parents have left everything to us (their children) although I suspect they will leave a certain amount for the GC.

Do you know for a fact how the inheritance wull be split between the gc? Maybe your BILs kids , will get 25% each and yours 16.6%

What lovely kind grandparents. I think both situations - splitting equally between grandchildren, or splitting equally between children and then subdivide those pots by the number of children each has - are fair.

You don’t need to be upset you won’t be the ones to give your kids a deposit for their first house. You can be the ones to give them a deposit for their second house for investment - that’s a fantastic situation for your children to be in and you should all be grateful.

Don’t waste your energy being offended on other people’s behalves over this.

YANBU

Seems to me that if BIL inherited half, along with your DH, his whole family will benefit.

I think I can see the logic of the PIL but I dont agree with it at all. Has DH tried to persuade them, even to the point of "leave 50% shared between my kids and the other 50% to BIL" so its clear he isnt after their money for himself?

What do their parents pay for? What are their jobs?

I agree that it's not good for children to inherit a large sum when they are young.

Aside from the fact that they might blow it on silly things, it makes them vulnerable to people who might seek to take advantage of them.

I would much prefer it goes to their parents who can then pass it on as and when it seems right.

I think it depends on family need.

I've seen situations where you have

the grandparents (90s)
the parents generation (60s) - retired, no mortgage, living a good life
the grandchildren generation (20s-30s) struggling, trying to buy houses, afford cost of living etc.

In that circumstance, I would argue skipping a generation makes perfect sense.

However, equally I've known families where the parents generation are struggling.. health issues, still have mortgage to pay, caring responsibilities etc. in which case it would wrong to bypass them to help a younger more flexible generation.

That being said, it shouldn't really matter, in a reasonable family, if the parents are well off and the children are struggling, I would expect money given by the grandparents to be passed down to the children via the parents (even if just partially) anyway. I can't imagine good parents, inheriting a lot of money and enjoying it while they watch their kids struggle.

As for the sums. I think they are right. If you are splitting at a grandchild level then divided equally by 5 is the fairest way.

OP as someone already posted, when the inheritance comes to your children, you can give your BIL the same amount. You said you wanted to be the one to help your children, you are comfortable, so if for eg they are left 40k, give you BIL 40k. Then that gives you the chance to give your children the money and you help your BIL. I don’t know your post seems a bit “pick me” like you’re digging for praises, it’s weird. Anyway it’s easily fixed, when the money lands, take that x amount from your own coffers and give to BIL

If you pass your money to your children, the family pays inheritance tax every generation. If each generation gives to two generations after, you pay inheritance tax half as often. Obviously, to pull this off you need two successive generations who make enough.

Not sure why it shouldn't skip a generation, all our kids are the inheritors because we had a family talk about it and are more than happy for it to be that way as me and dh are absolutely fine so it's split equally between the grandkids.

You are entitled to your opinion based on your own values and experience. But it is unreasonable to expect others to automatically fall in line with your worldview.

I can see your point but its not a hill to die on, and anyway hopefully it will be a long time before it actually happens and things may have changed for BIL.

Personally I think it should be an equal split between children not named GC (especially if there is any chance of more grand children being born after the will is written that could totally miss out).

But ultimately it's up to the person writing their will.

mucky123 · Today 00:31

Question: I just wondered if someone could shed some light on why I feel the way I do.

Answer: It is absolutely none of my business.

There ya go.

YABU. And I think especially unreasonable on point 4. The grandchildren are their own people and have been left money on that basis, not on the basis that they are just extensions of their parents. I genuinely don’t understand anyone who would add this up and feel hard done by that their nuclear family has got less because their children got the same amount each as their cousins.

I'd actually be delighted if my children were left money by their grandparents, it could make their lives so much easier.

If you are in a good position to not need the money; if you got it you could piss it away faster than your kids. If yoh don’t by the time you die to pass it on your kids could be retired themselves.

Your feelings are valid and you can be upset, but you've set an expectation on money that doesn't belong to you and that's where the issue is. I find it so unsettling that people have such a claim to money that someone else made. I personally told my parents to spend it while they're here, why pass money down when all we'll do is the same by trying to leave something behind? I told mine to go on holidays, buy over expensive beds and golf clubs and eat out all the time because they earned their money and should spend it.
Our parents get to choose what they want to do, and that's the right thing. They earned it.

It's not that the parents aren't trusted to pass the inheritance on to their kids, but they may not be able to if it all gets eaten up in care home fees. Personally I'd split my estate 50-50, so that my kids share one half between them, and my grandkids share the other half. That way the grandkids are getting bequests as individuals in their own right, to help them on their way into adult life, but the direct offspring still get something to make their lives more comfortable if they need it. And if they don't need it they can sort out a deed of variation to pass it in to their own kids.

I do kind of see the logic behind OP’s thinking - and they’re obviously trying to be fair rather than grabby.

I do lean towards it being more “fair” to allocate inheritance between children, as splitting between GC can be more varied. But equally, it’s obviously up to the person leaving their estate.

Just to note, if you’re a beneficiary in a will and your siblings (or others) are likeminded and open to dialogue and fairness etc, then you can come to an agreement regarding redistribution of the funds - something like a deed of variation I think. Have had it twice in my small’ish family:

When my Nan died, she’d apparently left different amounts between GC and step-GC. It was varied between, she wasn’t thinking less of step-GC, it was more along the lines of any boys got more (this was over 30 years ago, I’m not judging her). Her two sons, between them, legally arranged to forego some of their shares so that all GC received an equal amount.

Before she passed, one of her cousins died and left a small inheritance. My Nan, again through formal means, gave up her share to be split between her GC.

If there is going to be an inheritance tax bill I can really see why people do it, otherwise the tax man hits twice.