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?

This!

No it would not. The sibling with children is not getting 66%. They are getting the same as the sibling without children. The siblings are getting the same.

I’d be the ‘child with children’ in this scenario and I know my sister would absolutely hate it and be very disappointed in our parents. My parents have left £10,000 to both my children and my sister was pretty pissed off when she found out. Everything else is 50:50 and the estate won’t be impacted by the money left to my children. It was more the feeling that I / we are worth more than her on her own 🤷‍♀️.

Perfectly reasonable, my grandmother did very similar. It also means the grandchildren can be helped out by her earlier on in their lives rather than seeing if anything is left by their parents

Do you consider that your money is also your parents' money? Because that's what your post implies.

The grandchildren are standalone individuals.

That is exactly it. It's not about lines on family trees it's about number of individual people the deceased wished to help out

It's your choice to leave money to your brother's children in your will. You don't have to do that.

if you feel your parents/PIL left a gap somewhere and you missed out and you are feeling hard done by, then you can alter your wills so that your brother's children don't inherit from you.

I would prefer 50/50 between the siblings and if the parent sibling wants to pass some of theirs on, they should do so, but not at the expense of their sibling.

It's not "at the expense of their sibling" @Chewbecca, nobody is owed any particular share.

Yes, I'm sure that if the other sibling had had one or more children then the will would have been split accordingly. There were no family splits or disaccordance.

The sibling with children is getting two thirds, one third directly and one third for their children.

The grandchildren are people in their own right and are part of the family..
I totally understand people leaving money to their own dc but also leaving money to grandchildren is fine and they don't necessarily belong to the people who have dc they are part of a family money wise.

So it's not like their parents are getting that money is what I'm saying and depriving someone else they are people in their own right

What do you means it's up to the child free person to choose. ?

It's none of their choice. Only the person who is making the will and has the money! Nothing to do with the recipients

My dc have been given some £ it's soley for them dh and I won't benefit

No, the sibling isn’t getting two- thirds. The sibling is only getting one third. She isn’t getting extra money. Her children are getting money, but they are independent, separate people.

I think it’s important the 4 people are treated as individuals. It’s totally unreasonable to see the DC with GC as one tripart person, which is what you are doing if the gifts to the GC come out of one DC’s share.

I would say that the percentage approach does play into that a bit. You could do 35%, 35%, 15% and 15% which is practically the same but looks a lot less like the GC’s share coming from the other DC’s pot.

No they aren't that's bonkers maths

They are three separate people, @CallMikeBanning ! The sibling with children is not getting their money too.

I'm leaving 2 DGS's a cheap house between them that is rented out. I'm leaving each of my 3 DC more. I'd always leave my DC more than DGS's.

I actually think this is unfair and I can see that the sibling without children will feel hurt. I think the sibling with the children seems quite grabby.

No. they are not! They aren't "getting" the money for their children. The children are adults with their own bank accounts and their own lives. The sibling with children has no sight or control of that money at all. How don't you understand that ??

I think it’s lovely. The person leaving the money is demonstrating loving family
values, to me. These “children” are in their 60s, well old enough.

It great to read a scenario like this for once. Normally these issues end up dividing a family.

How is it grabby, @Lampshadeblue ? It doesn't sound like OP was persuading their parent to split it this way, and she isn't getting any more than her sibling.

I think this is fair, the children are being treated equally and provision is being made for the grandchildren.

If the grandchildren were younger and their parents were being left more ‘because raising children are expensive’ rather than it going to the GC directly that would be unfair.

I think anyone who thinks it's unfair shows their true colours. They think the grandchildren are an extension of their parent and that the parent is in control of the money. They won't be. It should either be put in trust until the grandchildren are of the age specified in the will or in an account in the grandchildren name.