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?

Also, do people genuinely care this much about their parents' wills? My Dad recently died and my DM is on her last legs and I don't care if I don't get anything at all. If everything goes to her care or if my sister steals it all or if my brothers steal most of it and keep the crystal. I don't care! I care about my Mum and allowing her to make decisions for herself, even if I don't agree with them.

If the Child without children pre-decessed the parent, who gets their share?

Probably the DGC so really it doesn't matter.
When the childless Child passes it who'll get their assets?

Why does that matter? Presumably the other one actively made the decision to have children, just as their sibling actively made the decision not to. They both made a decision regarding children, neither should benefit or be penalised either way.

To be fair, the inheritance should be 50:50, but ultimately it is up to the testator as to how they distribute their assets.

So for example just say the estate was £100 split 3 ways

sibling with no kids £33
sibling with kids £33
then the final share split between the two grandkids £16 each.

@LindorDoubleChoc you’ve said twice you could be grumpy for not getting 50% and then giving your kids money. So that’s why posters think your grabby. It’s coming across that you’re not happy with sharing the inheritance with your kids, and you may have given them less, if given the chance. Maybe your parent knew this and that’s why they set it up this way?

Parents could spend it all / need it for care / leave it to charity, though. Inheritance isn’t always a given,

People are saying the children will
inherit from their parents so getting double whammy. Not necessarily. Money could go to care fees or donkey sanctuary.

They could get triple whammy if childless aunt bequeaths them some as well.

I'm the childless sibling in this scenario. I would find 40% to each sibling, 10% to each grandchild fair.

My DPs have already floated with me that the grandchildren's 'share' also comes out of my percentage, not just my sibling's (we didn't discuss exact amounts). I said I wasn't particularly happy at the idea.

I've always been financially careful, and am single. There will be no additional DH pension to prop me up. Sibling has had a lot of financial help already from DPs as bad with money, so DPs are seeing grandchildren as needing a lot of financial help down the line.

I would feel pretty aggrieved at the split given in the OP.

No. I said once that the parent of the young adult grand-children could in some unlikely scenario I'm struggling to imagine, prefer a 50/50 split with their sibling. Maybe if they were desperate for money or estranged from their children or something like that? But it's not the case here.

I don't know what's in my siblings will. They are 6 years older than me. I imagine they will leave the majority of it to their partner with perhaps some gifts throughout the family. It's up to them of course.

One scenario we have in our family that gran set up small savings accounts all grandchildren (a few hundred pounds on her death, so no significant money). , youngest grandchild was born after she died, so missed out. Should all other grandchild donate some money to him, or money take out if the will to make it fair. Nope, just accepted that his things panned out

I always think wills like this are fundamentally unfair.

If neither of you had children, it would be split 50:50 and your sibling would get more. As it is, they get less because of a choice you made, and while nobody has a right to expect anything in a will, once you know the inheritance is there and arrangements are being made, I think it is fair to split it between direct children only. It’s your choice if you then pass any of your share onto your children. They will get their own inheritance when you go.

People’s individual circumstances don’t come into it, as far as I’m concerned. And for what it’s worth, I earn a lot less than my sibling but I still don’t think I should get more money when my parents pass than he will get.

Your sibling isn’t “grabby” but also is probably being polite and not wanting to cause a family rift so not being honest either. Even if they say they don’t want it, they should still get it. If they then choose to make a gift to your children, that’s their choice. But that way they do have a choice.

I'm potentially the OP's sibling in this case. My firm belief is that no one is entitled to an inheritance. I would much rather my parents lived a full life and we're able to afford the things that made that a comfortable one.

However, as a childless woman I would be hurt by this split. If the OP's sibling is male then there's maybe a difference. The reasons why people don't have children are complex. I've made my peace with it now. I discovered a few years ago my sibling thought I wasn't bothered about having children simply because I hadn't discussed it with them. I hadn't discussed it with them because I am not the sort of person who discusses this sort of thing with anyone. I didn't want it discussed with my parents. My sibling said some very hurtful things to me around having children. If I think back it started when she was first pregnant. Thoughtless. I love my nieces and it's great being an aunty.

I would try not to be upset by this, but it would inevitably hurt. It's quite hard to explain tbh. It's very easy for the OP to justify her parents' bequest split, precisely because she isn't the other sibling.

@Tygertiger - you've hit the nail on the head: the OP's choices have affected what the sibling gets.

50/50 for me

You sound quite grabby tbh so it's a good job it went your way.

It’s nobody else’s business.

they wanted to leave their assets to their family, so they divide them in three. The fact the grandchildren are the children of one party is completely irrelevant, they’re the grandchildren and beneficiaries in their own right.

hell they can leave a 3rd to charity if they want.

I think 50/50 between the adult children is best. Then the parents of grandchildren can give money to them from their share if they wish to. The adult child with no children is penalised for not having children, as they ultimately end up with less.
Thats how I would do it anyway but as is always said on here, its up to the will writer.

I totally agree.

I think while usually done with good intentions, wills set up in this way are always going to cause upset.

I don't think number of children, wealth of the beneficiary or any other factor should come into it. It tells one child they are "less than" because of the choices their sibling made. That will be how it lands, whether it is meant to or not.

I also think it should be 50/50. The adult children will inherit from their parent. Unless that parent decides that if one of her kids doesn't produce her grandchildren then they won't get as much.. but that's on that parent thinking their children unequal.

It also sounds like you're having a lot of influence over how your parent writes their will and making it beneficial to you and your children.

Not as grabby as the people who think they should get more than a sibling because they didn't have children themselves.

The person writing the will wants to leave money to 4 adults. It doesn't matter whether those are 4 children, 3 children and a grandchild, 2 children, 1 grandchild and a nephew...

Both siblings have made choices, one to have children, and the other not to have children.

How do you get to that conclusion when the OP says I had no idea whatsoever what was in the will until very recently, even though it was written more than 10 years ago.

Unless that parent decides that if one of her kids doesn't produce her grandchildren then they won't get as much

They are getting exactly the same.

I think this is a really good way to do it. Neither sibling gets more than the other and this way, the will writer can ensure that the portion for his or her grandchildren is protected. Giving it all to their parent and then just “hoping” it’s still there when the parent dies is a spectacularly bad idea.

I know someone who did this - left it all to their feckless son instead of the grandchild. In just THREE years, the son wasted high six figures that the grandparents had saved all their lives and even managed to die in debt (remortgaged a home they’d left him free and clear), so there was nothing for the grandchild. IF you want to ensure your grandchild has something, you leave it in your will now. Anything could happen to the grandchild’s parents - they might need care home fees, or they might just be feckless arseholes. But the way this will is done, the will writer won’t have to worry about that.

I'm in the 50/50 camp. It seems fairest to leave an estate equally to a persons children.