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.

A will is a person's chance to say how they would like their estate disposed of. The executors have to follow the instructions to the letter. If they don't want to and would prefer to stand down as executors then they are free to do so and new executors can be appointed.

Once the will have been correctly divided and everyone included in the will has their allocation then those over 18 can, if they wish, put their 'share' back in the pot and divide any way they wish. Any inheritor under 18 has to have their share left alone. None of you have the legal right to disinherit anyone in the will.

Jennifer agreed, all these 'what ifs' from those feeling hard done by, do they really think estates should be divided on such a premise.

I can't see what is wrong with it. It was her wishes. She left it to the people she knew about - I can't see why you would leave it to hypothetical people. It might be another 20 yrs before you could divide it!
You would think they would thrilled with what they had rather than thinking one of their children might miss out in 10 yrs time. I wouldn't have expected my grandmother to leave me anything when she died 6 yrs before my birth- before my parents had met! Madness!
The best way would have been to have left it to children and grandchildren and not gone any further down.

I'm with you.

Your grandmother made her will about what to do with her money and you rightly see this. Those who have not yet had children, or who may never have children do not have (IMHO) a right to a share of money on behalf of children not yet born!

I would be gobsmacked if the law allowed people to change wills in favour of people not yet born! And you can rightly point out you are planning another! But that makes no difference to what is a will about now.

For many years my mum has given pocket money to mine and my sister's kids, plus money for birthdays and Christmas gifts (and sometimes brought gifts for her Easter) for the three grandchildren, my dd, dn - now a teenager and dn - now a tweenager (or whatever the term is).

Our new son has just joined us by adoption and has therefore missed out on 3 plus years of birthdays, Christmases, Easters and pocket money. I wonder how my mum would feel if I asked for that money! Ludicrous right? I think that is the situation with those family members wanting to get money for people not yet born!

Stand your ground, do not lose your inheritance, but do all you can to make the family smooth and perhaps to encourage family to see it is your grandmother's kindly parting gift to those of you now alive, not some kind of blanket benevolence into the future. It is not their money to distribute or to decide on.

And if this causes major ripples in the family it is very sad, as family is far more valuable then money!

If it were my will and I knew that my gc had not finished expanding their families then I would have just left it to the gc and they would choose what to do with it ie share it with my ggc. If my dc had not finished expanding their families then I would leave it all to my dc and let them decide if they wish to share it with my gc. I wouldn't want any arguments after my death.

However, this is not my will. It is your gm's and this is what SHE wanted. This is what wills are for, surely.

I agree with you Jennifer. There is a lot to be said for having a clause that says 'anyone complaining forfeits their share to charity'!!
The grandmother did as she wished with her money- that is what matters. Those alive on her death should count themselves lucky they were remembered.

"But it's not about fairness, it's about the wishes of the person leaving the money. An inheritance isn't a right, it's a gift."

Some people's wishes aren't always nice, fair, thought out though. If we hadn't had a word with my pil's about their will it could have left their two children not talking to each other. Not what they would have wanted at all.some horrible people also use wills to settle scores and leave a lot of hurt behind. It isn't always about money but hurt. People should really think of every angle when they make a will, unless they don't care about those they leave behind.

She isn't being horrible or settling scores, she is dividing her money equally among her family. I can't see what is wrong with that. How many years do you wait to check all families are complete ? Some people could be dead by the time it is paid out! What if they think they have finished and they have a surprise pregnancy 10 yrs after the pay out.
If you just do grandchildren is someone then going to say 'it isn't fair I only had one child and my sister had 6 children'!

My mum has left her dosh to her children equally, with their share reverting to their 'issue' (her grandchildren) should they die before her, to get round just this problem. So it is up to her children what their children get, and each family pod gets the same amount.

The beneficiaries of a will can agree to vary it, but I think it would need to be all of them.

They are being greedy, pure and simple.

Absolutely disgusting behavior.

I say let them waste their portion of the inheritance on lawyers.

It's a tricky one. How would you vary the will. It's all very well saying some people might have more children. How many? And by when? What if, god forbid, someone else dies? Or adopts? It sounds to me like everyone needs to be happy with what they've got.

I'm interested on how you are going to deal with your future child who will not have a large inheritance to fall back on unlike their sibling.

My mum has left her dosh to her children equally, with their share reverting to their 'issue' (her grandchildren) should they die before her, to get round just this problem.
Depends how it's worded. MIL recently inherited money. It was left equally to 4 people, 2 related to the deceased and 2 to her late husband. Fair, yes?
One of the 4 people had died a year earlier, so his 3 DDs got his share. So, 3 people got 25% each, and a further 25% was split between 3 people. Fair?

The 2 related to the deceased's late husband were elderly and already well-off. Neither they nor their own children or grandchildren 'need' the money.
The deceased's brother was disappointed that his (widowed) SIL got nothing. The 3 daughters could all have made good use of a bit more money.

There is some ill feeling from that side, there is no doubt.

I'm guessing that your grandmother will have had legal advice before drawing up the will.

The reason I think this is because the will does not appear to be framed in the usual way, which would divide the estate equally between each of her children ( not grandchildren).It would then be for her children to distribute their share as they see fit amongst their descendants.

Grandma must have had her reasons for dividing up her estate in the way in which she has done,which she will have discussed with her legal advisors, and I would tend to go along with her wishes.

You can do a deed of family arrangement effectively altering the will, with the consent of all concerned ( or their parents).
However if some GGC were effectively disinherited,would they have a potential claim in the future against their parents on the basis of not acting in their best interests?

I wouldn't even think about doing this without the benefit of clear, written legal advice. There may well be tax implications, apart from anything else, as well as the wish to avoid creating trusts for the benefit of those not yet born ( which would be costly and time consuming to administer).

It's far more tax efficient to give money directly to the people you want to benefit from it but I must admit that in my family the offspring of the deceased get the money equally between them, although there might be specific personal bequests along the lines of a bracelet, a teapot, etc.

What might be unfair in the abstract or in the view of others becomes fair by being what the maker of the will wants.

Jennifer if that's in response to me, I am basically agreeing with you.

It's about the deceased's wishes. I do know that a relative of the deceased did try to persuade her to change her will to make it 'fairer' in his eyes. She refused on the grounds that this was what she and her late DH had decided. He died almost 20 years earlier and a lot had changed in the family since then.

My brother is dead. My dad's will leaves half his assets to me, and half in trust to my brother's underage daughter, with me as the trustee. My son (due this month) won't get anything directly, unless I predecease my dad. I can't really think of a better way to do it than this, but I doubt my brother's widow will be amused when she finds out.

Because if people want to be pedantic then it could be pointed out that it should only be divided between the children to ensure each family line gets the exact equal amount.

My grandmother died recently, and this is what she did. She and my grandfather had three children, her estate is divided into thirds. My uncle is still living, but my aunt and my father predeceased her, so their shares go to their children. My aunt only had the one daughter, she gets that share. My father had my brother and me, we split his share. My grandmother wanted each family to be represented equally, and that's what will happen. I think that's fair.

In the OP's situation, I think following the will is both morally and legally right.

We had the same situation - and it did feel a little unfair to me. As the share, £x, for each grandchild and great grandchild alive at the time was quite big, the the differences in each family's total are quite big.

SIL and BIL had 2 children already - they got £3x (£x each for SIL, DN and DN).

We have one child - we got £2x.

Youngest SIL has no children - she got £x.

We weren't made to put the great grandchildren's money in a trust. We could feasibly spend it all now - though we haven't spent any! In fact elder SIL has spent her share I think on home improvements and a holiday and is thinking of using the children's share on a buy to let.

We are expecting another child. And youngest SIL might well have children.

It doesn't feel quite fair to me.

But as this is my DH's family so I feel it's not at all my business to argue. And if we spilt equally between DH, SIL and other SIL then DH's share would be the same.

It is the youngest SIL who I feel had the bad deal.

The thing is how to you say what's fair? In the case of the OP, she might decide to go with the family wishes and have the will changed despite what the dgm decided to do. Depending on thenbet if children she has and the other family members, she might overall get more OR less money as a family from this will (ie what she is getting plus what each if her dcs will get). But if she has more dcs, she will have the ability to ensure that they all get the same amount to start up in life, if indeed she wishes to do so.
Or she'd can say she keeps things like they are and if she has more dcs, these children won't get a lump sum to pay for Uni it a deposit on a house.
But IMO the bottom line is that by changing the will, the family would be going against the wish of the dgm. I'm
Pretty sure that if she was still sliced, no one would have date telling her how to spend her money. She choose to do it by giving some to specific members if the family but somehow now it's ok to go against her wishes . I have to say, I'm missing the point there.