AIBU over Grandmother's will

[namechangenoony]

Have name changed as this is a sensitive issue, my head is all over the place on this one and I'd be grateful to hear other people's perspectives, sorry it's quite long.

My grandmother died recently, in her will she has divided up her money between all her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren equally. Her estate was relatively big and this means that each share of the money is significant, not mega bucks but enough for a deposit on a first home or to pay a good chunk of Uni fees.

This is now causing a lot of friction in our family as some family members feel this is unfair on the grandchildren who do not have children, in their eyes this means the grandchildren who do have children are getting a bigger share because their children are also getting an inheritance and some feel they will have children in the future and their children will be disadvantaged compared to those who did inherit.

I do have children and my first thoughts were that it was my Grandmother's decision, she didn't have any dementia and as far as I am aware wasn't pressured into doing this, no-one in the family is arguing to the contrary. I also feel that there is a difference between those great-grandchildren who she has met, loved and had a real relationship with and those who may or may not be born in the future, DH and I are planning another btw.

This issue is causing a lot of bad feeling in our family and there is pressure to vary the distribution in the will so that all the children and the grandchildren get the same, in effect either cutting out or greatly reducing the inheritance of the great-grandchildren. I don't even know if this is legal and I'm very much opposed to making this decision on behalf of my children which will be giving away money which could be hugely beneficial to them. It's been so hard though and I keep thinking it's not worth the conflict and whether to suggest giving up my share to keep the peace but then I think why should I, this wasn't what my grandmother wants.

Thanks for reading.

Emotionsecho - much of the conversation has moved onto wills in general. I wasn't particularly referring to the Op's situation.

Apologies Bambamini I read it in conjunction with the OP's update and thought it related to that.

That's why I'd only leave the money to complete generations.

But to me it seems more unfair that some GGC may then miss out on an inheritance because of children that may or may not be born.

Had that happened in my GM's will, I would have ended up with nothing, as my parents wasted theirs. Instead I - who is better with money than my parents - was able to use my portion of the inheritance for education and travel, which is what my GM would have wanted (and said to me in a letter not long before her death). In fact, much of the money that went to my parents was used by my father toward setting up his new house with the OW.

But then, perhaps the point of difference here is that the children in this case weren't allowed to access their money until they were 18, so couldn't be spent by the parents. If the children's money goes to the parents to use, I can see that this could be unfair.

That still leaves an imbalance wilsonq2, and plenty of opportunity for the complete generations to argue about who gets what.

I can't speak for the OP's grandmother so I'll use mine as an example.

When my Nana died she left behind four children and five grandchildren. We were the complete generations.

My mother has two children, me and my brother. She had one grandchild at that time.

My aunt has three children. She also had one grandchild at that time.

My other aunt has no children.

My uncle has no children.

In your will, my mother, her three siblings, and the five children belonging to my mother and aunt would be the complete generations and be left something. The two great-grandchildren would not represent a complete generation and would not be left anything in your will.

The OP's grandmother made that an equal share to everybody, so lets assume you will do the same to your complete generations, meaning that in my Nana's situation you would leave nine equal shares to us as the complete generations.

But is that fair?

Not in the eyes of the OP's family. They seem to think that a bequest to the OP's children is also a bequest to her, meaning she is getting more than her cousins because her children are benefitting while they have none (yet) to benefit as well.

My Nana's four children would each have an equal share, but what if the two childless ones felt that their sisters were gaining more, since they had children also getting a share? What if my mother said she should get more because my aunt with three children was getting a share more than her?

They wouldn't (and didn't) do that, but in your will, unless your children all have the same amount of children each, it could still lead to problems if one or more is inclined to say "it's not fair", complete generations or not.

It's exactly the same thing, just moving it up a level from a possibly incomplete generation of great-grandchildren to a complete but unequal generation of grandchildren.

You could choose to solve that by leaving out the grandchildren as well and sticking to just your own children, but that's still no guarantee they won't argue, especially if one is earning more than another, or one is married and one not, or one has more children than the other, or a hundred other reasons they might think of to squabble over.

I'm not saying your way is wrong, but neither is the way the OP's grandmother chose. She'd done her best by the family she knew and loved, to treat them equally and give them all a considerable gift. They would all do well to respect her choice and be thankful for what they can do with it, regardless of what may happen in the future.

Right this is all getting very complicated lol.

I think by choosing to treat everyone equally at the time of her death she has made it very very likely that the situation will be unfair in the future.

I think that the people that enherited the money should be fluid and redistribute it as the family tree changes, ie more ggc.

But I would only of left it to the siblings, and trust them to pass it down. Maybe a nominal x amount to others. This is what happened for me, my DM didn't need the inheritance so gave it equally to all four gc

oh FFS.....can't believe some of the comments on here.

namechange My thoughts are with you on the death of your beloved grandma, this sort of family infighting is SO distressing please ignore it & just know that she loved you all & wanted to make life a bit easier for you all (& I presume would be horrified at all this guff)

A will should be looked on as a bonus not an expectation. It may not be fair, it may not be just but it's what was wanted by the deceased.End of.

Granny could have left it all to the EDL, the Cats Home or Edith the cleaner who may have "done" for her all her life & expected nothing so got the lot.

IT IS HER WISHES AND EVERYONE SHOULD SHUT UP & BE GRATEFUL !!!

Sorry OP but this is a sore point with me as we too have had family rows about wills & I have said to my mum & my siblings that when she goes apart from specific bequests for personal items the rest (which is not much) will be split 4 ways & no arguments.

Hugs to you if you like them. Step back & let them all get on with it & don't stress yourself about it, they are being twats.

That isn't a decision that can be made for the children who have already benefited now though.

The adults could decided to do so, and the OP has already said she plans to set her share aside for any future children of her own. But the children's bequest can't be taken from them, divided up for people who don't exist, or kept from them indefinitely when at least one of them will have need for it very shortly.

At very best, the grandchildren who are childless now, and perhaps their parents (who are the potential grandparents) could set something aside now for any future children/grandchildren they may have. But they can't expect the rest of the family to do the same on their behalf.

The situation may be unfair in the future, it may not. To be totally fair the Grandmother would have needed a crystal ball and details of everybody's finances, as they stand now and what they may be, for years to come, and some idea of what their health will be like, how long their marriages might last, any risks of loosing jobs etc.

We don't know that the childless grandchildren aren't earning vast fortunes more than the OP, or have partners from wealthy families, or if they may win the lottery this time next year.

Or god forbid that one of the beneficiaries now won't have something happen that means they need far more than the share they have been given now for some awful reason.

It's really, really not possible for people to be totally fair for future possibilities that may never come to be, and not everybody would be as generous as your mother.

Either way, the Grandmother has made her decision and been very fair to everybody as the family stands now.

I'm not saying the decision for the children needs to be made now, it can be made anytime.

The will is very very likely to become unfair. Situations like winning the lottery etc have such a low probability they should be ignored. Situations like more ggc is very likely so should of had some consideration in a fair world.

Making a will that is very likely to disadvantage people in the future can cause a lot of problems, like the op.

What MissMarples said

This thread makes me even more determined to spend all my cash before I die. Yay!

Which is why I said I'm not surprised people just leave their money to donkeys and cats.

It's impossible to say what might happen in the future.

Who might be born, who might die, who might become seriously ill, who might lose their job, who might get a promotion, who might divorce, a million possibilities.

And that's without considering what the grandchildren's spouses might inherit or earn or win etc.

If we are going for total fairness for future generations not yet in existence, then we have to consider all the other inequalities that might also be in place for the beneficiaries of this will. Such as income, health, marital status etc, and the possibilities of these things changing for the better or worse in the future. It would be almost, if not completely impossible.

The OP's grandmother has acted to best help everybody who she knew and loved, nothing else should be expected from her.

The people complaining about unfairness to future children not yet conceived have the choice to set some of their inheritance aside for those children if they wish, as the OP has already decided to do with her share, for the unborn child she hopes to conceive.

Yeah, just leave them a message saying "I decided to spend it all to save you the distress that a pile of money would have caused"

Wow, what a can of worms! I always thought and told my parents that i think it is best to skip a generation, because (tragic untimely death aside) the children are usually financially stable when their parents die, whereas the grandchildren might be just starting out and more in need. But some comments on here have highlighted this as unfair too. Good job my brother and i have the same numbers of children!

wilsonq2 You are talking about future possibilities - some grandchildren might have children, they might not, some grandchildren might have more children, they might not, all these 'what if' possibilities are just a nonsense.

OP's grandmother distributed her estate equally among her surviving relatives at the time of her death, that is perfectly fair and reasonable. What those in receipt of the inheritance do with it is entirely up to them, they could always invest their portion for future children if they so desire, equally the parents of grandchildren could use their portion to redress any future imbalance if it arises, or those with children who may have more could raise the kind of children who would share their inheritance with a future sibling.

Whatever OP's grandmother did would have elicited shouts of "that's not fair" from someone who is inclined to read any situation in terms of "they've got more than me, I have x,y or z mitigating circumstances/future scenarios to be taken into account" . Those surviving relatives of OP's Grandmother have received a substantial cash gift, and should be grateful for it, stop moaning, comparing whose got what and dreaming up possible future events that may happen.

Op's Grandmother has acted in good faith and not favoured one relation over another, pity that those relatives cannot act in similar good faith and with grace and dignity.

It's virtually impossible to tell exactly when a generation is 'complete'. When my gm died, she had 6 children and 20+ gcs and 5 ggcs. My generation took nearly 40 years to 'complete', and quite a lot of the ggcs are older than the the gcs. It is utter nonsense to think that generations work conveniently and logically.

Furthermore, I think it's a bit much to assume that just because someone's children are over 50 that they are settled and OK and don't need any inheritance. They could be starving on a crap state pension and need the money far more than the generation below them, let alone the generation after that. At least the more youthful generations have the chance of earning, saving, finding better paid work etc, which once you're past 50 you'd be bloody lucky to get.

I think the gm in this case has been as fair as she possibly could have been. She probably wrote her Will the way she did because she knew there would be people who would be unhappy whatever she did.

A will is a will. Your Gran could not have predicted how many more GGC she would of had, they are being unreasonable. Sorry for your loss.

Could this be the means by which Granny ensured grand and great grandchildren actually received a share ?

If any of Granny's children or grandchildren died and their spouse remarried, he or she could well leave the money to the new partner and the descendants of Granny would get nothing.

Has OP been seen in last few days?

Yes, she's posted 4 times on this thread. The middle two times were with a slightly different name, so I assume there were log in issues. The final time was at 16.58 yesterday.

I know its impossible to tell when a generation is complete, but it is pretty easy to know when its 99% complete. Ops family it is blatantly obvious that dggc is not. Complete.

Where's the op? Down buying a jag ;)

Op, I never called you a liar! I just said you all sound as bad as each other and I stand by that. The comments about uni fees and house deposits did make it sound as if you had mentally spent the money. Whether you like or not, both sides of the family are squabbling over inheritance. I understand you are upset but you asked for opinions on a public forum and that is what you got. Please don't make things up because you don't like the answers. That really is spiteful.

Marmiteandjamislush This is what you posted You all sound as bad as each other. You are doing exactly what they are, but the will is in your family's favour so you are on the moral high horse. Your comment about being sure that your dgm was not pressured is very fishy to me. Why justify something that didn't happen on here, as it would not occur to most to think it might have happened. Also the fact you've already 'spent' the money suggests to me you've known exactly what you and your DCs are due for some time. You are saying I'm a liar because you're saying you think I've known for some time what was in my grandmother's will when I have stated categorically that I didn't. Yes I asked for opinions on a public forum and I'm grateful for the responses I've had whether people have said that they think my grandmother's wishes were fair or not, I didn't expect snide abuse when it's clear that I've just been bereaved and thankfully nobody else levelled it, most normal people would realise that public forum or not that's inappropriate.

That's how I read Marmite's post, namechange. It certainly seemed unnecessarily aggressive and nasty to me.