It's another will one. What do you think about this will?

[LindorDoubleChoc]

Single parent dies. They have two children in their 60s. I'm using children in the broadest term here because obviously they are not children.

One of these has two children in their early 20s (their only grand children). The other "child" has none.

The child who has no children is pretty well off. The child with two children is not so well off (possibly because apparently it costs £180,000 per child to raise them from birth to 18).

The parent divides the will one third each to her two children, and one third for the grand children to be split 50/50 between them.

What do you think of that?

Even if you're very close you don't know that the "I never wanted the horrid little brats" wasn't hiding a lot of hurt.

I know someone who was in their 70s before they admitted they were desperate for children, but for various reasons it didn't happen. Everyone was shocked because they'd kept up the "never wanted them" so well.

50/50 is fairer. There's a reasonable chance the children will inherit from aunty/uncle too, and I'd suspect even more likely if they haven't already inherited.

It’s fine. Personally I’d split 50-50 but it doesn’t follow that the slug you describe is unfair. There’s more than one reasonable way to
do it.

Most parents I know who have inherited from their own parents, have dished out much or all of it to their adult dcs anyway. Their need is usually greater - kids and childcare/housing costs - why wait until you die to pass some or all of it on?

Big “no” from me. Siblings should get 50/50

Very fair - it's perfectly reasonable to want to pass on some of their assets to grandchildren as well as their children.

Grandparents have their own relationships with their grandchildren.

Assuming no other family issues I'd expect parents to be fair to their own children with equal shares, but I wouldn't assume that means 50/50 as they may have other people they want to leave to as well - such as grandchildren.

It's up to the will maker who they leave their money to. Nothing wrong with a grandparent wanting to leave some money to their grandchildren

It is, but the money should still treat DC equally IMO, so if they want to leave something directly to DGC that should come out of their mother's 50%

I will bite. You cannot be sure your sibling didn’t want children.

Why do you have so much influence?

I think it should either be 50:50 or the portion allocated to the grandchildren should be much smaller. Either 10-20% between them or even just a fixed sum like £10k each.

@LindorDoubleChoc no! dont agree with that at all! what the parent has done is ensured that the child without children will feel like they are not as loved as the child who has children. it should always be divided equally between the children. the grandchildren should get their inheritance from their parent, no their grandparent!

Wills don’t have to be fair though!

I think it's fair tbh.

The estate is split into thirds.
One third to each direct child.
One third to be split by any existing grandchildren who are alive at the point of the death.

Both children get the same amount of inheritance.

Regardless, it's entirely down to the will maker who they chose to leave their estate to.

I had similar situation and as the childless one I was very hurt but the suggestion I was somehow worth less , my brothers children will inherit from me and my husband so a 50/50 split is fair and then it’s up to the parent to decide if they want gift some to their children

I think it's bizarre to think that children should get 50/50 to be fair, they're not 5! The grandchildren exist as people that the grandparent had a relationship with and are individual people independent from their parents, why wouldn't the GP want to leave something directly to all their descendants?

It's not saying one child is worth less than the other though, both children are getting an equal amount.

It's just also treating the presumably adult grandchildren as people in their own rights.

It’s not about fair it is whether the will has failed to make reasonable financial provision for a spouse/child and here not only is there I think reasonable financial provision but the childless sibling has money so it is unfairly leaving them in a difficult position

the will would definitely hold up

I am sorry that you felt hurt, but by the same logic, the grandchildren are not worth anything except as extensions of their parents. That sounds pretty hurtful too.

I think it should be 50 50, not 66 33 which is what that scenario would be.

It's up to the person writing the will who they give their money to, so pointless either of the "children" ruminating over whether it's "fair" or not. In this case the deceased obviously wanted their grandchildren to have a share at the outset, so they divided it as they deemed fit. That's their prerogative.

We have a similar set up in that I have two children and my sibling has none, definitely by choice. My remaining parent has in their will that the two grandchildren get a set amount (£40k each) and the remainder of the estate goes 50:50 to me and my sibling.

Sounds totally fair to me. Great idea. I wouldn’t be remotely bothered if one of my siblings ended up with slightly more just because they have more children than me. How petty if I was!

No, this scenario is 33%, 33%, 16.5%, 16.5%. Nobody is getting 66%

I can.

Nothing wrong with that distribution of wealth, and something I would consider.

She’s not favouring the parent, but bequeathing all her descendants money.