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.

YANBU ! When my grandma died she made her will out exactly like this too. My brother had had my nephew by this point and I didn't have any children but it never even crossed my mind to think it was unfair!

Monathevampire1 has clearly stated the legal position, the OP may just have to quote that to the rest of the family. I doubt it will satisfy them though as they appear to have pound signs in their eyes and are totally dismissing the wishes of the person who wrote the will.

WhereamI your autocorrect/predictive text has thrown up some interesting phrases!

Agree with those who say just stick to dgm's wishes and move on.

I agree that the wishes of the deceased should be followed, however there is the mechanism to vary a will for exactly this situation (maybe she just didn't think about future greats) IF everyone agrees. It's good in situations where you could say (for tax planning maybe) that you would rather the legacy had been given directly to your kids rather than to you - I know someone who had their mother's will varied for that exact reason.

In this case it's possible that the children (your parents generation) should do that if they don't need the money themselves as that will save tax when they die (sorry) and leave it to you/your kids. But it's one thing to say "please vary this so I can give the money that I have been left to someone I choose for a reason that will benefit both of us" and another to be told "you must vary it because it's (whiny voice) NOT FAIR that your family gets more"..

You could turn it around though - rather than saying she should have divided equally between her children (which is effectively what they want but very obviously not what she wrote), she clearly wanted to divide it between generations:

£100K (or whatever it is) times number of children between her children (all now born!)
£100K times number of grandchildren between her grandchildren (all now born I presume?)
£100k times current number of greats between her great grandchildren (not all born yet).

Maybe you could offer to agree a variation where the total money left to all great grandkids is kept in trust until all (current and future great grandkids) are 21+ and then split equally between all of them. At least that would remove the issue that older siblings will have more than younger.

This would make sure that every generation got the amount that she had allocated to that generation, and just smooth out the inconsistencies in the great grandkids.

I'm afraid this one is going to run and run at every family event for the rest of eternity - and that's assuming that the ones who feel hard done by don't go non-contact!

Good luck!!!

Wow. My mouth is hanging open at this thread. OP YANBU. Your relatives are shocking money grabbers. How jealous, rude and petty can you be?

Stick to what your dgm wanted, PLEASE, and don't give into these people!

you as in general you, referring to OP's relatives, not OP herself, just to clarify

steff13 Old-fashioned lawyers who use Latin call that distribution per stirpes and it is the most usual way - and if you leave a big family and no will that is what the law of intestacy does - but it's not compulsory to write your will that way.

I am sorry for your loss and I think you have to go along with your GMs wishes. However, I would never write a will in the way your GM did as I don't think its the fairest way.

I would divide things equally between my DC (or their issue if they pre-deceased me) and then, if I wanted to leave somedirectly to grandchildren I would take their share out of their parents.

It's the simplest way to do it and the most obviously 'fair'. The way your GM did it is likely to cause resentments. Younger siblings may end up with nothing whilst their elder siblings have enough for a house deposit. It's just asking for problems.

If someone left my children money I would feel just as 'happy' as if they left me the money to me directly.

Wills often cause problems and I think keeping things simple is the best policy.

I bet the GM would have hated the thought that her will is causing problems as I suspect she felt she wrote it in the fairest way possible.

To those saying she had legal advice - the solicitors are there to write down your wishes and maybe make sure you have executors and provision (guardianship) of DCs.
IME they don't talk about whether something is fair or not...or got through the implications - unless you ask.
I know from making my own will. DP & I aren't married, we have 2 DCs. The biggest thing I was 'worried' about is that an amount of money (£40k) I inherited from my GM eventually went to my DCs - no matter what.
Standard was all my money goes to DP (and vice-versa)- if we both die it goes to our DCs. Reason for doing it like that is that if it goes straight to DCs it is held in trust till they are 18 - potentially the living partner would have to sell the house to DCs etc and struggle for money when we (in theory - we both have money in the bank) should be fine...(although you can take money out of the trust to support DCs - but not you!)
I queried would that guarantee the DCs got the £40k and was told well it should...I said what if DP married? Well then if he didn't update - and then he died - potentially everything he had would go to his new wife-...would they get it after then - well no - if she had offspring and didn't change her will all his money would then go to her DC - including my GMs money ...my DCs would get nothing!
(We now have a clause where we both have to give DCs their share of £40k - we have 2 now so half - on their 21st(? maybe 25th) birthday)

Was surprising her solicitor did not point this out to her. Maybe he did?

She gave her living descendants an equal share- if that is what she wanted, I can't see what is wrong with it. Why you have to take into account hypothetical descendants beats me! I shall leave mine equally among my children and they can do what they like with it.

My estate is split very unequally as my wishes are that those with needs I can be aware of in my life time are accommodated. I would be shocked and surprised if one of my children without the need was grabby enough to think that was unfair in any way.

If none had the need for it the whole lot would be distributed to charity

I worked in Probate for a number of years and the senior partner always said a Will was to prevent those you did not want to get your money from doing so. I think your GM has done the opposite and made her Will out of love for her family. I think your relatives are being greedy and disrespectful to her memory.

Do stick to your guns. This is a windfall they are lucky to receive and they have done so with bad grace and disrespect to your GM.

Wow, thanks for all the responses and advice everyone. It's a very fraught situation in my family at the moment, it's such as shame because our family are generally quite decent people, it's funny what arguments over money do to people. One grandchild who doesn't presently have any children has fertility problems so for them at least issues of fairness and children have an added significance and I do have sympathy.

To clarify no family members are trying to legally challenge the will, there is just a lot of emotional pressure from some to get the money through and then redistribute in a way they consider fairer.

As far as we know no family members knew the contents of her will, which doesn't surprise me as she was very independent. She drew it up with a solicitor just after the birth of her last great-grandchild and all beneficiaries are explicitly named so there's no ambiguity about her wishes. I'm sure she would be sad to know that these arguments are going on but I also wonder whether she actually had a shrewder understanding of our family dynamics than I did and whether she didn't want to discuss it as she knew she'd be subjected to 'lobbying'.

ZenNudist to answer your question, before the trouble kicked off I thought I'd put my equal share into long-term savings, as I'll do with my other DC's money, so that if we do have another child then they can have the same nest egg that my other DC have.

The solution suggested by a different poster about putting the great-grandchildren's collective share into trust would be impractical I think as there is quite a variation in ages. One is at sixth form college (not my DC by the way) and that money will make a huge difference to her life now, it'd seem very unfair to make her wait for years and years until we could say conclusively that no other great-grandchildren will arrive before she can have access to her inheritance. If I'm lucky enough to have another DC this solution would probably prompt more bad feeling anyway as me and my DC could then potentially end up with a bigger share.

The replies have consolidated my view that I shouldn't agree to reduce my DC inheritance, I don't think morally or legally I have the right to do that, still wavering on whether to redistribute some or all of my share. Phew sorry for the long update!

One thing if you do put your share into savings for your future child...try to transfer it to them in a chunk every year (I can't remember how much you can give a child tax free every year but there is an amount), otherwise when you either give it to them or leave it to them it will be taxable. I know it has to go into an account in their name...but no-one says they have to know about it until they are older!

Although (as an aside) - if a parent pays a childs university fees/accommodation costs etc does the child have to declare it as income?

I can see how that must be difficult for the family member who has fertility issues. Especially if. She could have done with the money to help pay for treatment.

My youngest sibling has no dc yet, whereas my older sibling and I do. If my parents were to leave a will along the same lines as your DGM, my younger sibling would end up with just 10% of my parents' estate, whereas my other sibling and I would share the other 90% with our children. This would strike me as very unfair & I wouldn't feel comfortable going along with such an arrangement - especially given that my younger sibling is likely to have dc in the future.

I'm surprised that so many people on this thread have no issue with this, TBH

To clarify no family members are trying to legally challenge the will, there is just a lot of emotional pressure from some to get the money through and then redistribute in a way they consider fairer.

I can understand their feelings but it just isn't as simple as that. they can't redistribute by taking money legally due to a minor and giving it to someone else - and that is what they will be doing. The minor children would be quite entitled to sue for the sum due to them under the will when they reach 18 and a parent/aunts etc saying "well we thought it would be fairer for everyone" is no defence.

Namechange I truly feel your pain but even though no one is legally challenging the will your problems start if any of you decide to deny the under 18s of one penny of their inheritance. It just isn't legal and the executors will get in big trouble.

I know my mum's will leaves her estate to me, my sister and both our daughters. Not a penny for my son as my mum dislikes boys. It's not the other three's fault and I will make it right for him but that's my choice.

Anew - that was the similar issue we faced with my pils when they made their will. They thought they were being fair but it meant one of their children was effectively being penalised for not having children (which was already a sore point) This would probably have caused a huge rift between their children - which would never have been their intention. They just hadn't thought things through.