Inheritance to grandchildren bypassing children

My grandmother left at least half split between her children (legally required in our country) and then a pot to be split amongst the grandchildren but instead of splitting equally between grandchildren it was split equally between children to then split between their children (makes sense if she wrote her will before all grandchildren were born or if there was a chance of more being born) but my parents felt it was a little unfair as they have 5 children while mum's brothers and sisters had smaller families. One of my uncles later on insisted on giving some money to even things out a bit. But in my mind none of us grandchildren had any right to inherit so I was just thankful to get something (was just a couple of thousand I think)

You're all counting chickens before they've hatched. Get old age care costs country in first, then book long haul holidays.

I inherited when my parents both died over 20years ago, not a huge amount but enough to put down a 30% deposit on a family house in the south east which was great as didn’t own our own home at the time, my Mum was only in her mid 60’s and it was very sudden so quite a shock. 20 years later we are much more comfortable and no longer have a mortgage on our current home. My in-laws are in their 90’s and won’t spend a penny on anything aside from bills and food, no gifts, no treats, not as much as a 60th birthday card for my husband. My husband is not in good health, but hopefully he’ll survive both of them, but any inheritance will be gratefully accepted and passed on to our children who despite working very hard, both rent as they can’t afford to buy anywhere where they live and work, not surprising when they are paying £1800 and £2,300 in rent every month, on properties that are owned outright by their landlords mortgage free. As much as I’d like a bit more money in my bank account, especially when I think about my future and my reduction in income if my husband dies before he’s 70, they need it more than me. I just wish the grandparents had helped them years ago, they could have reduced their savings slightly and given them enough for a 10% deposit on a place, sitting on hundreds of thousands in savings in your late 80’s or 90’s seems a waste, it could all end up being spent on care.

Another thread from a DIL complaining about what their PIL do with their money.

It is nobody’s business what they do with it. Particularly not a DIL - if you and your husband split up before the parents die, you won’t get any money anyway.

They may change their minds and leave it all to charity. Quite honestly I would be tempted to do that if people were complaining about it.

I’m going to inherit, likely in the next twelve months, solely.
my brother, for various reasons, does not want any inheritance due to him.
my mum only really has her house in Spain to leave so will likely be £300k less taxes.
But she has expressed her wish that it be used to the benefit of her 3 GC (2 mine and 1 from ‘D’B.
she can’t pass it directly to DGC due to paying higher taxes if she skips a generation.
DB and I have agreed to splitting it two fifths to him (representing him and his D) and three fifths to me.
im going to give my two DDs my ‘share’ and its up to him what he does with his.
We all agree on the children getting it because it’ll have the biggest impact on our DC lives.
Of course I’d love to have a bit of mad money, but for my children who are both in their twenties, it will literally be life changing.
Nothing wrong with that.
it doesn’t equate to how much or little our mum loves us.
its the best use of that money.
no more no less.

I have pondered a bit more and I think my concerns (other than a general dislike that bil has been left out again) really focus around 1 of my dc (nd) that will spunk it up the wall. This dc is only 18, is a carer, spends most of the tiny amount she earns on tattoos and was talking about getting married recently to boyfriend of 9 months. I love her to bits, she is bright, funny, vibrant and lives life 100% but ultimately lives in the moment. I am very protective of her but cannot influence her decisions much. I worry there might be gc from this dc earlier than i'd hope. I am pleased for my other 2dc who are both sensible and tend to take advice (although one is still very young). I think this could have a negative impact on the nd dc.

Ok, this is more coherent.

The first point I'd make is that PILs probably aren't both at death's door. Odds are this DC will be a fair bit older than 18 by the time she inherits, but DH could always raise the issue of some kind of trust with them. I know you say he doesn't care but is there no possibility he'd take your concerns on board?

I understand the worry about spunking it away at any age, but it sounds like you'd be in a position to assist financially even if she does? It would obviously be extremely annoying and frustrating if she fritters whatever it is, but it's not as bad as it would be if this were going to be her only chance of a house deposit. You could still carry on with financial support for DC in the same way you were always going to.

Yes.
I knew somebody like this.
Treated her own kids like dirt.
The kids did do financially OK for themselves so didn't need her money, anyway.

Decides to leave it all to the grandkids (who only viewed her as sweet granny) who also didn't need the money as they were high flyers too.
So the argument that it would 'set them up' was bullshit.
Some of them were wealthier than their parents!

It's sometimes done as a big f- you to the children who can't complain as they'll be seen as grabby and entitled- as evidenced by all the 'people can do what they want with their money!' responses here which, while factually are correct and right, utterly miss the point.

My grandfather left all his money to me and my brother in trust, having given my parents money towards the deposit on a house. My parents didn’t live in poverty, but had to watch every penny - holidays were in a caravan in the uk, etc. In my day, we all had student grants, and my parents’ contribution was £40 a term, because they weren’t well off, so university costs were irrelevant.

My father resented it all our lives, until when my brother and I were in our 20s, we broke the trust and split it equally three ways. My brother and I both had enough for a deposit on a flat/terrace house.

I would never leave money to DGC directly, bypassing DC, having lived with the poison, it can create!

My parents did something similar and put around £1 million in a trust for their 3 grandchildren (the vast majority of their money). I was also really concerned that they'd done this when the grandchildren were really small and no one had any idea what kind of people they'd turn out to be.

1 of my 2 is has autism and I was really worried about the implications for her. The thing that got me the most about this, wasn't the generational by passing but the total failure to discuss any of this with me in advance.

Fortunately it has worked out as well as it could have. The money was actually released in advance of my parents' death, and all 3 grandkids bought a house with their share. My DD with autism is, despite predictions when she was little, doing well and has a job and can live independently. Apart from their houses both my 2 splurged a bit on something they couldn't otherwise have afforded. One bought a car and the other did some international travel.

However it could all have gone tits up instead and been spent on, for example cocaine. My mother drove all of this as a way to control me and my sister and bang home how she could do more for my kids than I could . She expected a reaction but I refused to give her the satisfaction and wouldn't rise to the bait. She revelled in telling everyone who'd listen what she'd done, so as to portray the perfect granny image.

Ironically all 3 grandchildren deeply disliked her, although they are very grateful.

I think this is really unfair and that the inheritance should be split equally between children. In my family's case, I am unable to have children – this means, if my parents did this any inheritance would go entirely to my siblings' families and bypass me. Also, I'm not sure of ages - but what if there is another grandchild after your inlaws pass away? Obviously it's their money and they can do what they want with it, but I don't think you're being unreasonable to think this is unfair.

I would be okay with this on my side of the family as me and my brother both have two children and they are all in their 20s and my parents might be around another 10-20 years. For us the inheritance would be nice to have but not necessary as we'll already be retired, paid off mortgage and have pensions etc...

I'd much prefer they give more of their money away now to the grandchildren.

My inlaws it's a bit different as there are siblings with no children and a sibling with more children but young children and MIL might be around another 10 years at most.

In your circumstances OP I can see why you would prefer it to go to your DH and BIL evenly and then let you filter it to your dc when the time is right. But I said YABU because you said you are and ultimately it is up to your inlaws to do what they want.

A big yes to that. It's a major factor that often crops up in meetings I have with clients about inheritance tax planning. I've also been involved in several legal claims with disputed wills/inheritances where a "new" spouse has effectively taken huge sums that the deceased had intended to go to his/her children but ended up passing to the surviving "new" spouse due to either not making a new will upon the remarriage, or the new will being badly drafted leaving loopholes.

Also cases where an ageing parent had died unexpectedly uring a matrimonial breakdown of their adult child, meaning some of their estate effectively passes to the ex-spouse via divorce settlements etc. Incorporating direct bequests to grandchildren in a will avoids all that. Most elderly people "expect" their savings/house etc to go first to their children and then ultimately to their grandchildren, so to minimise risks of that not happening, it makes sense to make direct provision for grandchildren, particularly where the children are established in life and don't "need" the money.

A lot really depends on the age of the children and the age of the grandchildren. Direct bequests obviously aren't easily possible before grandchildren are born (although you can set up a trust to include "potential" grandchildren!), and probably not appropriate when grandchildren are minors (as the children themselves probably still need "help" if they've still got a mortgage, still struggling working alongside child care etc), but as the grandchildren become adults, usually around the same time their parents become more self sufficient, it does make more sense for the grandparents to "help" the grandchildren start out in adult life rather than the parents who are then middle aged and more financial secure themselves.

I think it really depends on the age of the various parties.
If parents in their 90s, with children in their 60s and grandchildren in their 30s, it makes sense to pass directly on to grandchildren, and bypass the children.
However, how it is done is another matter.
One could specify that the 'estate' (ie inheritence) is divided into 2 halves, and each half divided equally to the respected grandchildren.
The OPs children would then get less individually than the DBs children.
If the grandchildren are still at school, then it makes more sense to leave to children.
A will should be updated periodically, which could reflect this.

I disagree. It should go to wherever the deceaseds' want it to go. Whether that's their children, their grandchildren or the local cat's home.

I think it's fair enough to go equally to children when they are younger, before they have children of their own, but when the children are older adults and established themselves and there are grandchildren, it's a good opportunity to review wills. Even moreso when the children are older, established in their own careers, own homes, etc and don't "need" the money in the same way that someone in their late teens or early 20's would "need" the money more, especially these days when housing is more expensive than ever compared with wages, there's more young unemployment, risks of the job market due to AI etc.

Yes, it sounds unfair for, say, 3 grandchildren to inherit a third each rather than 2 children inheriting half each, but it's fairer to the grandchildren. Otherwise the grandchildren don't get equal inheritances when the monies are eventually passed down to them. Why should a child with a sibling get effectively half the inheritance of the single child, when there are 3 grandchildren to the 2 children of the deceased.

I suppose you could spread it over 5, i.e. leave equal amounts to each child and each grandchild which would reduce the unfairness a bit.

My step grandmother left everything to me and my cousins. It was great but I definitely spunked up more of it than I should have and I probably would have spunked up more if it wasn’t for now DH mentioning it and saying maybe I should be more sensible. I would say just make sure your kids are financially literally and have a talk with them about their plan for the money when the time comes. They will almost definitely spend some of it, so talk about setting an amount to spend.

I told her that I felt unloved & uncared for & the kids would ultimately get what we leave, everyone should have their turn.

It's like a different planet.

This is correct. I got some inheirtance in my mid 60's. I gave it to my child as a house deposit. I have no need of it really. Still working after 45 years in a job I enjoy but only part time. My DH and myself are over the Inheirtance tax thresehold so dont want to be caught out with our estates paying huge amounts of tax.

The thing is that one of them might need care. My late Father's estate was 50% less because he was in a care home for a number of years.

It should be divided amongst their own children. If they don't want/need it they can then pass on to their children. Alternatively, if they do need it, they can use it. Not everyone is loaded, living in a mortgage free house, with a massive pension due.

Now this seems a nice compromise.

I'm with you OP as in the same situation despite the fact that both parents inherited directly from their parents (and this enabled them to pay off mortgage and enjoy retirement) . I know it shouldn't irk but it does and I'm obviously delighted for my kids but would be nice to not be totally bypassed.

My Mother started on this track.
So I reminded her that when my paternal Grandfather died, they were able to buy their house outright, never had a mortgage, & we as the DC massively profited from that, (private school etc)& when her own mother died she wasnt cockooed out of the nice pot of money granny, an astute business woman, had accumulated, which allowed her to live at home with carers for over 15 years instead of having to sell her house & go in to an establishment for handicapped pensioners 😞😞😞
I told her that I felt unloved & uncared for & the kids would ultimately get what we leave, everyone should have their turn.
i was really not in need, she could leave it to the cleaner ( who incidentally got an extremely nice envelope). but it would be a big help.
She changed her mind & split most if it in 3 shares fir her own children

My parents left 1/3 to me, 1/3 to my brother and 1/3 divided between their grandchildren.

Sounds to me like you’re annoyed that it’s skipping your husband which you now realise you won’t benefit from and it’s going to your children.
Sounds like sour grapes and your BIL is just a red herring. I guess all you can do is try and be happy for your children instead of resenting their gain.

Yep. I will never not be shocked by it. It disgusts me.

In our family inheritance skips a generation. By the time my parents and in laws pass on hopefully we will be retired and having planned our lives sensibly we will not need a massive windfall. Our children however will be just starting out and it will be a massive benefit to them. If you are skipping a generation on both sides then it is fair whatever the spread of GC as each GC is treated the same.