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.

Viviennemary the terms of the will should be adhered to - reasonable or not! There is no way to bring this before the court if she was in her right mind. Those who feel cheated must suck it up.

Your grandmother made an informed decision on the distribution of her assets. The terms of the will should be strictly adhered to in accordance with gm's wishes. What if the other gc don't have children?

I think no it depends. Sometimes people go ahead and make some not so well thought out decisions, meaning for the best but not always thinking through the implications or fall out. My husbands parents made a will and we challenged it (discussed it really) and asked them to reconsider as we didn't think it was fair and it would result in bad feelings between siblings - an outcome I don't think they would have wanted to leave as their legacy.

They have absolutely no chance of successfully contesting that will.

Legally, no. But sadly I suspect they have a good chance of making everyone's life a misery by contesting it at family gatherings for the next 20 years. :(

There is always that Starling!

It is a difficult one and I do think that I do think that ideally where it is obvious that a particular generation is not "complete" then life changing amounts probably shouldn't be left to that generation but to the generation above (with perhaps the instructions to use some of the money to provide a house deposit for younger generations.)

However, Op's grandmother has chosen not to do this and I don't think that legally or morally you have the right to take away some of your children's inheritance to effectively give it to their first cousin once removed. It is their money so only they can agree and until they are 18 they can't do that. They may not like their first cousin once removed.

If Op wants to give away some of her own money then she can (although by no means should!) but she can't give away her kids.

There are times where it is appropriate to vary wills eg toxic mother leaves everything to golden child and nothing to scapegoat child then golden child may think "sod that you old cow" and share the money with her sibling.

Fwiw my grandmother left a small amount to all her grandchildren and great grandchildren. (And the bulk of the estate to her children.) Her date of death means that my cousin's only child and my dd got money but ds didn't and any kids that db has won't. As it was just a small amount we are planning to replace for ds but I don't know what we'd do if it was a big amount. I guess - as we always planned two then give him our share. We'd be stuffed if we had an accidental third though!

I think the best way is to share the bulk of the money between your children and leave smaller amounts to each grandchildren if you so wish. But it's the person who writes the will that decides who should get what. Fair or not. And if you have one child much better off than the other should that one get more. It's a nightmare!!

I think I meant get less!

Stuff like this makes me want to find a way to stick a clause in my will saying anybody who attempts to challenge it gets nothing and their share goes to woman's aid

I think this is actually a common issue.

Both my parents (divorced so separate wills) leave everything 50/50 split to me and my sister. They said whatever we choose to do with our half is our choice. They know obviously we will give some money to our children but they have not specifically mentioned the grandchildren in their wills.

My DH's parents have done the same. 50/50 split between him and his brother.

Thinking about it, if you are to change the will, the only fair thing to do is that all the money is kept in trust until all the beneficiaries reach adulthood and the grandchildren say that they have definitely finished having children.

At that point each beneficiary can decide whether they wish to take their full share or an adjusted share divided between everyone.

Of course that has the slight problem that nobody receives a penny for the best part of 20 years!

OP, the only way the terms of this will could possibly be changed is if all the beneficiaries were over 18 and agreed to a variation in the distribution. Since the beneficiaries are not all over age then it just can't happen. No executor could legally do it and if they did, the minor children have an excellent cause of action for having their legacy removed from them without consent.

If I were you I would have a stock response to complaints in the family "yes it does seem a bit unfair to the unborn ones but unfortunately there is absolutely nothing we can do about it legally" keep repeating.

It's amazing how people focus on what they didn't get rather than what they did get.

My mum died in the summer and her will was a mirror of my late dad's. Their three DC get a third each, what they do with their third is up to them. There are 7 GC and five greatGC. As it happens, I have 3 DC and my siblings 2 each. Should my own family have received more? I don't think so.

Once you get into greatGC it gets even more complicated. I would have felt rather upset that my family's inheritance was reduced just because I am younger than my siblings and my DC are still school age.

Wills that are so patently unfair are just asking for trouble. Not a good way for a loved one to be remembered, as causing family upset and arguments.

Sorry for your loss OP and the subsequent heartache that's ensuing

IMO the GM left a gift who all those she loved and respected. Therefore those people should afford the same respect and graciously accept the gift.
How do you leave money to someone you don't yet know or have met under the same 'rule'.

Mumoftwo that is wholly unfair, the estate has been left to the Grandmother's children as well as grandchildren and great grandchildren, are you really suggesting that the OP's mother or father wait a minimum of 20 years to receive an inheritance from their mother purely on the off-chance that one or more of the grandchildren might have one or more children? What happens if one of the Grandmother's children dies beforehand?

You are so right youare it always seems to be the way that the focus is on what people don't get than what they do,and they suddenly feel hard done by, it's hideous.

She had a will. He expressed what she wanted clearly.
Whether people in the family agree with it it not, they should follow her will to the letter.
Even if they think this is rxtremely unfair.
What would they have done if she had left everything to one if he children and none to the others???

The op isn't getting more though, I think the problem is the relatives without grandchildren are adding the grandchildren inheritance onto onto the OPs and then saying it's unfair when it not, everyone is getting the same it just happens that there are more members in one family. It's not like the gran said one family gets £100 and the other get £1000' it's just that adding up individual member's inheritance adds that way.

What would happen if you agreed to their new way, taking money from children to give to adults, and then for whatever reason they would be unable to have anymore dc?

I don't think you are being morally unreasonable, it's doesn't matter if it's 10 pence or ten million, if it's meant to go to the great grand children then that is who should get it. If you want to give some of your share ( I wouldn't) then that's up to you as it's yours but I don't think money should be taken or reduced from the ggc.

Money, esp other peoples money, brings out the worse in some people.

We had something similar with my uncle's will, however it related to my cousin's son who had been born between the will being made and my uncle dying.

All four nieces and nephews got £5000 each (2x our cousins, me and my brother). Then my daughter was included at £5000. One of my cousins had a newborn son and my other cousin, and my brother both don't have children. No-one complained, however my mum and her brother agreed to give my cousin's son £5000 out of their share as he was born, just not included as the will hadn't been updated. I'm pregnant now and DH and I will have to think about what happens as DD has £5000 in a bank account and our new baby won't. But that's for us to deal with.

However it wasn't for my uncle to look into the future. We'd rather he was here. But it was his money to allocate as he wished.

Stand up for your GM's will. It was written how she wished it and as there are no children just been born, she can't look into the future and allocate money based on children who aren't even here.

Yes, it is people's will and you can say it should be followed to the letter but I hope that those making the will really think about all the implications - would you really like a legacy of having your children all feel hurt and not talking to each other. Some wills seem to blatantly favour some recipients (often with the person making the will not intending this or properly thinking about the repercussions). This was the case with my inlaws and luckily we were able to talk to them and ask them to change their original will to one that felt fairer and would cause less resentment.

It's clear to me that this will could be perceived as unfair. I'm surprised this wasn't pointed out to the DGM when she was making it - I'm sure she wouldn't have wanted any ill feeling to result.

My gran didn't leave anything to the grandchildren... However, she had given my brother and me £2500 each when we reached 21. It was agreed that the two younger grandchildren would also each get £2500 (taken out of my mum and uncle's halves) given to them when they reached 21. Everyone thought this was fair.

I'm going to add a clause to my will that says if the first words out of someone's mouth are "yes, but..." then they get nothing at all.

Those wanting to change it should be ashamed.

I am not sure how this is being perceived as the Grandmother being unfair, she left her estate to be equally divided among all her living descendants who she knew and loved, she prioritised no relation above another. It is the recipients of this largesse who are putting an unfair spin on it by bleating "what about..." and totting up the amounts on a family basis rather than viewing it as individual legacies.