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.

I have been thinking about this thread ...
If someone is childless eventually they will have money to pass on to someone - probably their nieces and nephews....so the money will stay in the family...
Reading this thread makes me think I have a different take on it to others ...it isn't 'way hey I have X amount - I'm off on holiday' etc.
I view inheritance as 'family money' - it isn't really 'mine' - it is to make sure that future generations are secure - enable us to get a smaller or no mortgage / invest in ourselves - so that we can save/earn enough do the same for our children and they can do the same for theirs...they will always be ok...
Don't know if this makes sense but I feel my family - from way before I was born - are still looking after me and my DCs... their genes.
(Seems silly written down)

"do you always stick to an unfair decision just because the it was the will makers wishes?"

You have to ask yourself if when she was alive she gave £100 to one person would you go round their house and demand half or go down her purse and take £100 for yourself.

Some of the attitudes on this thread make me wonder why people actually bother leaving wills at all.

"You have to ask yourself if when she was alive she gave £100 to one person would you go round their house and demand half or go down her purse and take £100 for yourself."

Not sure why you phrased it like that. Why not more, she gave me a 100 before she could give my sister a 100 the following day. So I went and gave my sister 50. Why are you assuming those thinking some decisions are unfair are doing it because they feel hard done by or are the injured party?

Not leaving money to a grandson because you don't like boys is weird and mean (sorry to say that about PP's mother).

However, I think ultimately people have the right to distribute their money as they see fit, for whatever reason they see fit. Now, if I was in that PP's sister's position, I would do what I could to make it fair, but I would not take steps to contest the will because I thought it was unfair.

My mum once said that she was leaving her money to her grandchildren instead of her 5 children. I advised her not to because of the differing number of grandchildren in each family, with me and my brother having the most children. I don't care what she does but doing it her way will cause WW3 in my family. I'd rather me/my DDs have less money than deal with the fall out

M6J23a "My mum once said that she was leaving her money to her grandchildren instead of her 5 children. I advised her not to because of the differing number of grandchildren in each family, with me and my brother having the most children. I don't care what she does but doing it her way will cause WW3 in my family. I'd rather me/my DDs have less money than deal with the fall out "

That's where we were. Pils drew up a will. They split it 3 ways. 3rd goes to SIL (who was single with no children), remaining 2 thirds go to their only Gc (our children). We sat them down and told them it wasn't fair and could cause their only two children to fall out (SIL would not have been happy and fair enough). We could have said nothing, got more money for our kids and my husband and his sister's relationship would probably have been destroyed. Not a great legacy to leave behind.

OP well I can see how some family would be upset by that arrangement, but as other posters have said, it's not right to try and change the plans your GM put in place. I also have the same mindset as unlucky: if I receive an inheritance I should hope to pass that along to my children in good time. Not that's it's going to sit in a bank for x years: I would use it wisely (pay off mortgage etc) to increase our net wealth.

I think it also depends on the family: I would never have expected anything from my GPs will (and received nothing). I would have felt uncomfortable if I had received anything - like I was taking money that should have been for my parents. Can't really explain it well here. My GM split her wealth very unequally effectively leaving my DM nothing...but it's only recently that I've thought about how my cousins are now set up for life whereas we are just pootling along working and paying the bills. If the split was equal, perhaps we could have had a helping hand from my parents (who do all they can for us anyway).

My grandfather's will left an equal 3-way split between my mum and her two sisters. The youngest sister has spent the last 5 years insisting that there is "another will", which leaves EVERYTHING to her! She has cut contact with the entire family over it. My poor mum is devastated and heartbroken (aunt has 3 DC whom my mum adored and regularly babysat for/had overnight). 5 years of legal battles have probably reduced my grandfather's estate to pennies. This is not what he wanted, and it's all down to the selfish grasping behaviour of his own daughter. So very, very sad.

Families and wills are a bloody bad combination.

My mother died last year, her mother died this year. My maternal aunt doesn't think that it is fair my siblings and I will share half my geandmother's estate as her children get nothing under the terms of the will.

She has totally issued the point that we only inherit something because our mother has died, it has caused masses of angst and I don't think relationships will ever be repaired.

She particularly disliked the suggestion that if she wanted to even it up she should split her share of the estate with her children.

She seems to think that as the only surviving child she should inherit everything and then the grandchildren will be equal! Totally ignoring the fact that when she dies I'm sure we aren't down to benefit at all for her estate as she doesn't seem to regard us as part of her family at all....

Wills are complicated because it's the last communication from the dead and in your grief an 'unfair' will can be perceived as the dead person giving person X a final reminder that they are less loved than person Y. Not that that is the case here though, sounds like the OP's grandmother wanted to be fair.

I think in a will like the OP's grandmothers the real difficulties will come when some of the GGC have a large sum of money to spend and their younger siblings don't. I think there is something to be said for not giving out large sums to the youngest generation so that the parents are able to even things out between their own children.

I'm also surprised at some of the wills listed above where e.g. children who were alive when the person died haven't inherited because the will was out of date, surely a will should be written with some provision for events changing between the will writing and the person's death - e.g. our wills cover what happens if various people die, our wills from before the kids being born included a provision for hypothetical children to inherit so we didn't have to rush and sort out a new will as soon as a child was born. All suggested by our solicitor.

Inheritance is so often an awful thing, causing much bickering and misery. My own grandmother left a large (for the time) sum of money to my brother and nothing to either me or my little brother. I was 10 at the time and frankly, didn't care. We all knew that for her, our brother was the golden child and it seemed entirely reasonable that he should benefit. Looking back, I know she was a bitch of the first order but not because of that.

In your case, op, I think you are morally obligated to do the best you can for your children, and therefore stick with the Will as is.

Wow lurker that's really sickening.

Did she actually contest the will? Or just make noises about it? I'm hoping you say it's all resolved and she didn't actually contest.

It is hard trying to be fair over inheritance. We have two sons, one with three children, the other none. Some time ago I sought the wisdom of Mumsnetters over whether we should take the number of their children into account when dividing our estate. I was told quite firmly on here that their differing family planning decisions were irrelevant and therefore we should simply divide everything equally between the two if them, and I am inclined to think that is right.

From a pp.

I really don't know how I feel about that tbh. One the one hand, I can see how it would be 'fair' to just split between the dc, regardless of how many children they have.

On the other, I have two sons too. And if I was in that situation, with 3 grandkids, I'd probably want to leave something to the grandkids too. Even if they were all one of my dc's kids. But then what if my other dc had kids in the future - that would be unfair on my future grandkids.

Is it possible to put 'just in case' amounts aside in this sort of situation. So for example (a very simplified one albeit):

A parents estate is worth £250k. They have two dc, one of whom has 2 children, the other is childless.

So at the time of death, the estate is split: £10k each to the two existing grandkids, in trust for them. £80k each to the two dc. £70k in a mutual trust, and £10k to be put in trust for each additional grandchild if/when they arrive.

If there are no further grandkids after x years (reasonable expected childbearing age for the dc I suppose) the remaining amount in the pot is split between the dc. So each dc has had ample opportunity for a provision for their own dc, should they choose to have them.

whether it is right or wrong to leavethe money this way is irrelevant.It was her money and her decision.End of.

I'm no lawyer (though some of my family are) but if the grasping relatives are thinking of a Deed of Variation, to alter the terms of the Will, then so far as I know, ALL the current beneficiaries have to agree. And you and others don't, so the greedy lot can't do it. As I said, I am not legally qualified so I suggest you check this with a solicitor. Then, hopefully, you can tell the grasping relatives to off!

Stick to her wishes, OP, then IMO you will garner less criticism in the long run than if you start fiddling about with the will, and it could actually more likely cause protracted legal dispute than just doing what it says in the will.

I think its very unfair, although she might of not realised this when she made it. My parents were thinking about doing the same, when I explained how unfair it was they were very embarrassed and thanked me for my common sense.

In my family my mum and her brother where not left anything my grandmother as she didn't like men, as their dad was her son. So left everything to her daughters side. The one family member said how awful she felt about it, my mum said she could share the money. She said oh no I couldn't do that as its against her wishes.

Lots of older people are racist and homophobic, I've seen wills ignored where gay people were left out or people that married non whites. I can't argue with that.

Walking, it was my post you picked up on. Your "on the one hand" and "on the other", just show how difficult achieving fairness can be. My nickname derives from my posting about this situation.

Regardless, though, of what you and I will do, the OP's granny's wishes should be respected.

Just flicked through the posts on this and suspect I a m in minority here but I think will is v unfair indeed . I used to work as a probate solicitor and know people leave unequal shares for various reasons but this just seems very unthought through . Very unfair on children without children of their own yet - very much more usual to leave cash in equal shares to each generation of sibs / cousins etc and much fairer too

thing is, the grandmother didn't leave unequal shares, it's just those grandchildren without children of their own are counting their siblings/cousin's DCs share as the cousins/siblings. The actual grandchildren are all getting the same, it's just that some have children who are also getting money. Those great grandchildren's shares isn't money left to their parents, but to them.

The grandmother split her money between her family members at the time she died, yes, there probably will be more desendents after her death, the line is unlikely to end with those already born, but she never met them.

If you don't have DCs, you might think it's unfair if you think of the great grandchildren's money as property of their parents, but it's not.

I'd probably go along with the will. I can see it from both points of view though as the unborn great grandchildren are still grandchildren.

Govt website on deeds of variation clearly states that all beneficiaries who are negatively impacted have to agree.

"The variation must be in writing and signed by all the beneficiaries who would lose out because of it.

Usually a solicitor will draw up a formal deed, but this is not essential. If the variation affects the interests of children (or even of children not yet born) you should speak to a solicitor, as you may need the approval of a Court. A parent's signature on behalf of a child is not sufficient."

So this isn't something people can railroad through against your wishes.

Like others I agree that it's your GM's wishes and the rationale is perfectly clear: certainly justifiable even if one could argue the toss about it. In my own family all the GM's wealth passed out of the family due to remarriages; we got nowt. Your relatives should suck it up. So YANBU.

It's unfair to the unborn gt grand children

If the inheritance was a'only' a few thousand each then I dont think it would feel as unfair but the fact that it's for 'thousands' (uni fees or a house deposit) feels worse.

I think the GMs will is unfair.

My siblings and I have unequal amount of kids and even though I have the most Im glad my parents are leaving their estate equally between their 3 children. I've asked that my share is left between my 4 children and not given to me. They will each end up with 1/12 of the estate whilst my siblings will get 1/3 each.

I have a sibling who can't have kids and it would seem really mean for him to only end up with 1/10 which would be what would happen in the OPs GMs will. .