What would you have done? (Inheritance)

[TheAmusedQuail]

My grandparents had always been quite clear what they wanted done with their estate. Contents of bank accounts shared between their children (2 brothers). Value of their house shared between their grandchildren (4 of us).

Granny died and Grandad remarried (this isn't going where you think). Step-granny had nothing. My dad and my grandfather and my uncle were estranged.

My grandad became frail and my step-granny had always been a bit pathetic. So my uncle convinced my grandad to sell the house and buy a big house together that they all (uncle & aunt, grandad and step granny) would live in.

Grandad died. Step granny's daughter arranged for her to go into a Salvation Army care home (in an attempt to get her hands on grandad's money - she failed).

Uncle and aunt, and by default, my cousins got all of the inheritance. I know this was deliberate, because the one time I saw my aunt with my mum after Grandad's death, my aunt discussed 'Our children's inheritance' (meaning myself and my brother and my cousins). My divorced parents did nothing about it and so my brother and I lost all of our inheritance.

What would you OR your parents have done? Was doing nothing the right thing, because it was too complex to disentangle? Or should they have fought it?

I was a very young adult at the time and it didn't occur to me we should have done anything. Incidentally, my uncle is still alive and has remarried a woman with nothing after my aunt's death. My cousins definitely benefitted (house deposits, cars etc).

Absolutely - sorry if i seemed to imply you were at fault. What I meant was, if anything has gone missing it is surely her share? Because she would have a reasonable understanding of being looked after in her husband's will if he had one, and up to a certain threshold she would inherit everything if he didn't.

Maybe there wasn't much after the house was bought. But with her in the picture I don't think your parents could have raised any challenge.

By you weren't screwed over. You were simply not entitled to anything and you're being grabby thinking that you were.

If your grandad wanted to leave money to you, or gift money to you, he could have. He didn't. You aren't, and never were, entitled to anything. Your Uncle isn't required to hand you over chunks of his own money. Why do you feel entitled to your Uncle's money?

Are you sure that home was free? Most are means tested when run by charities, but not free.

The most likely scenario is surely:

Uncle and grandfather bought house jointly.

House passed to uncle. Step granny had right to reside and remaining assets, as the surviving spouse.

Step granny relinquished right to reside to move into home. Some combination of charitable funds and grandfather's assets covered her time there. Uncle may have contributed.

Step granny left any remaining assets to daughter.

It would be unusual for a woman to want to stay and be cared for by a stepson's family when they only met as adults. If your grandad did make any active decision, it should have been to prioritise leaving her any assets apart from the house.

Your parents would have no grounds to challenge that and it would be the right thing for your grandfather to do, leaving assets to his vulnerable elderly wife over adult children or grandchildren who weren't his dependents.

I don't believe your parents let you down here.

Good post @Oftenaddled -

Well this will blow your mind OP, the bulk of my parents estate in terms of value, is going to my brother who is childless. So effectively you could say that my kids are being cheated out of their inheritance going by your logic. Except they aren't, my parents are just doing what is logical and correct in their minds. I accept it, in fact I'm the executor, because they're entitled to make that choice.

I agree with OP. It looks like the uncle got a large house in his own name, paid for 90% by his df house sale and in uncles name or jointly owned so it reverts to uncle. 6 months before death. That has swerved any Will giving anything to op that may have been in place. If the uncle bought most of the house maybe fair enough but he paid 10% himself according to op.

That has swerved any Will giving anything to op that may have been in place

1. there was no will, OP says
2. the spouse would get the first slug of any money from an intestate death, before children
3. op’s dad sounds like a piece of work so might well have spent anything that came from any share of the intestacy before OP saw it anyway, unlike the house deposits and cars that she resents her cousins having

I don't consider it naivety to accept some things are beyond my control and choose to think positively about a situation rather than letting it eat me up. I'd rather live a life focused on things I can change than one filled with resentment.

But that's what the grandad, whose money it was, chose to do.

He clearly wanted his son to benefit from his money.

The solicitor dealing with the buying of the house would have needed to sign off on Grandad having capacity and undertaking the transaction of his own free will.

OPs grandad wanted his one son to have his money, and didn't want to leave anything to his other son or OP and her brother. It's that simple.

OP thinking that her Uncle should share his inheritance with her is beyond grabby.

If grandad wanted to make provision for OP, he could have chosen to do so. He didn't.

If you actually read my posts, you'd see it was more a musing on throwing away family relationships over money. Because none of us actually ever acted or even discussed acting to do anything.

Why do you feel entitled to misread intention?

A musing isn't a life filled with resentment. Wondering why someone prioritises money over love. Because he was my beloved uncle 10 years before this happened.

In fairness I'm not sure what your parents, and dad in particular, could have done, as it sounds like the big house was bought in your Uncle's name, despite being funded by your grandfather.

I can see exactly why your dad left things as they were, given the circumstances. It's awful that you and your sibling missed out on what your grandad wanted.

I suspect very much that the house was held as joint tenants rather than tenants in common and basically it became uncle's on his death rather than by way of inheritance.

You have given no detail that is required for people to comment on.

Was there, or was there not a valid will at the time your grandfather passed away. If so, and your grandfather CHOSE to leave his estate in this manner at that point in his life then YABU.

If there was no valid will at the time your grandfather passed then things may seem very fishy in the way they have ended up.

When the house was purchased, how so - joint tenants, or in common? If tenancy was joint, is this what your grandfather wanted? If so, your male is not being greedy. If it’s not what your grandfather wanted, was he coerced? I recall every time DH and I have purchased a property our solicitor/conveyancer has gone through the joint/common tenants issue and ramifications of both and asked both of us what we want to ensure we were on the same page.

You have no idea what conversations were had with your uncle though. All the chat about leaving things to the children and grandchildren happened before your grandad remarried and before your father was estranged.

You have said very harsh things about the intent of your uncle and step-gran’s DD, and you have called your step-Gran pathetic, but you don’t like people “feeling entitled to misread intention”?

Check the mirror, hon.

I've no idea why you are throwing away family relationships by feeling unjustifiably resentful over money you're not and never were entitled to. Surely only you know that?

Assming everything was tied up legally, then your Uncle and your Grandfather have done nothing wrong, and have not wronged you in any way. It's completely normal and reasonable for people to leave/gift money to their children rather than grandchildren, and quite normal and reasonable to choose to disinherit estranged children.

It's odd to me that you feel an entitlement to money that was gifted or left to your uncle by his father who he was close to and who he lived with and cared tor.

I'd suggest you drop your erroneous sense of moral entitlement to other people's money and make efforts to build a better relationship with your Uncle if the break down of that relationship bothers you.

I also thought that might be it.

There's just so much missing information here. OP thinks but isn't sure there was no will, if there was one she doesn't know the contents, and nor has she considered assets passing outside the estate. It's very incoherent resentment.

Did this happen when you were ten? If so, you have a lot of fixed ideas and judgements about what went on in the generations above you, for someone who was a child at the time.

Your GD must have decided to buy a house with U rather than leaving his house to the next generation as he once said he would . If you think are saying that U coerced him to do this when he no longer had capacity, that’s a serious charge. GD should have made a will and it’s not U’s fault that he didn’t.

Not only would coercion be a serious charge, it's also not possible as given the circumstances the solicitor handling the house purchase would have had to do due diligence to ensure that Grandpa had capacity and was operating under his own free will. Given the situation with Grandpa's wife being left without a house, it was reasonably likely that this would be challenged and everything would have needed to have been signed off to be watertight.

OP's Grandad made an active, informed choice to pass his money down, either by will or by being joint tenants, to his one son who had a good relationship with him, lived with him and cared for him at the end of his life. He actively chose not to pass money to his wife or to his estranged son or to any of his grandchildren. His choice, and not an unreasonable one (well perhaps with the exception of the wife IMO, but there may have been reasons for that - e.g. she already had dementia etc). But it doesn't really matter what his motivations are, it was his choice of his own free will and that's that. OP had no entitlement to any of her Grandad's money. Her Uncle was entitled, legally and morally to the money his father wanted to gift/will to him for him to use for his own benefit however he saw fit.

The problem is that OP seems to feel an entitlement, that she doesn't have legally or morally, to the money that was given/left to her Uncle. She's resentful that her Uncle hasn't passed a chunk of his own money on to her, she feels he's deprived her of something that was rightfully hers. But this sense of entitlement is entirely misplaced. The only way she would have been entitled to something is if Grandad had left it to her. He chose not to.

OP seems to think that her Uncle not handing to her a chunk of his own money that she had no moral or legal entitlement to is "throwing away family relationships".

I think that OP feeling wrongly entitled to a chunk of her Uncle's money is hugely grabby and is probably what has soured family relationships. The only way the relationship will be mended is if OP accepts that she didn't have any entitlement to her Grandad's money and that her Uncle was fully entitled to it, and to do with it whatever he wanted. Her Uncle hasn't wronged her, but OP doesn't seem to be able to accept that.

I am guessing it was less than 7 years between grandad selling his house and gifting the money so your uncle and wife could buy the big house? I'd be letting HMRC know.

Where did the 'money' go that was left?

I would have applied for a copy of the grant of probate, it costs £3. This would have shown me the will and the estate value.
If he died intestate then I'd want to know where the money went.

I think the OP is getting a bit of a hard time here.

It seems to me grandad has told the grandchildren they would get the house. Which may well have been the plan when it was said but it was a foolish thing to say and this is why. So I’m not sure it’s a sense of entitlement she has as much as that’s what she was told, so the expectation isn’t unreasonable.

Maybe he forgot he had said that maybe circumstances changed but either way it’s a good example of why people need to plan their will carefully and communicate it to avoid this kind of thing happening.

It sounds like the OP was also very young when this happened so maybe getting this information from others who are putting their spin on it.

The uncle lived with grandad and was presumably his carer - where were the other family members while this was happening?

If there was no will this situation is 100% grandad’s doing, if there was a will unless you are suggesting coercion then what happened was his intention so his call.

It’s foolish to anticipate any inheritance, particularly going forward as longer life expectancy is likely to mean more people needing care and houses etc needing to be sold to pay for it.

It’s a shame when people raise false expectations by making statements about inheritance that have not been put in a will. Best to say nothing even if they have, because wills can be changed. OP’s granddad has unintentionally sown the seeds of family strife.

As a PP mentioned, if two people buy a house as joint tenants, then it automatically passes to the other tenant on death of one.