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 am just about to write a will and this thread has made me think I should just leave all to my DC and miss out my lovely DGC in case more come along! One thing I do know is that I do not want this sort of family fighting.

There's really no concept of "fairness" at work here. You don't have to be fair when you make your will. If your children are adults and independent in life you can do as you like. You can cut out the one who has married someone of a different trace or the same sex, and nobody can stop you. Marie Stopes, whose interest in family planning was mainly eugenic, cut off one of her sons for marrying a woman with hereditary myopia because he was "weakening the breed"!

Yes Pipsqueak I agree with you. She was badly advised.

I received an inheritance from grandparents years ago, that was similar to what the OP described - my mother got a share, as did all of my siblings, uncles, aunts and cousins. Technically my family may have done "better" then, as I had more siblings than any other of the families.

BUT, people seem to forget that the money wasn't given to my family, it was given to me as one individual, who couldn't use it until the age of 18 and was able to use it meaningfully. OTOH my parents spent all of their share within a year and not terribly wisely, whereas I held onto mine for years and what I did spend, spent in ways that helped my education. I for one am so glad that I received this money and am still grateful for it, and am so grateful that my grandparents counted the number of people they wanted to inherit as individuals, not the number of families

Imtheone, I'm glad you, as one possibly disadvantaged by the sort of arrangements we are making, nevertheless think this is fair.

Sandgrown, maybe something to be said for discussing your will with your DCs, though perhaps not if this may lead to arguments. Let them argue when you are gone instead.

*different race damn it

Hope my DC love each other enough not to fight but who knows. Unequal numbers of DGC at the moment and one DS still at school so may be years before he has DC. It won't be a fortune but may just leave to DC to pass on as they see fit. My DC got a sum from paternal GM while she was alive so she could see them enjoy it. Ex- DH inherited a lot when she died but think his new DW will.make sure he spends it so doubt DC will inherit .

It's not just disparity in the number of children in each family that can cause problems it disparity in existing wealth. If you had one very wealthy child and one skint child it must be tempting to leave more to the skint one.

I can see both sides of this.

Say GM has three sons: one of them has no children; one has two children; the other has three. Of the family with three kids, two have young children. So GM has three kids, five grandkids, and two great grandkids. Let's say the legacy is £100k.
GM can either:

1. pass money on to children only. The three siblings get £33k each. If they want to share it out and pass it on to their families, they can. One son has no family and gets the whole £33k to do something fun with. One son has three kids and gives them all £11k each keeping nothing for themselves; of the two kids with their own children, one decided to put the money in trust for uni fees, the other pays off a chunk of mortgage instead. The son with two kids decides to put £5k away for each child, and spend £23k on the house. Is it a bit unfair that the son with no kids gets a whacking great amount, whilst the son with three kids gets the same? Yes and no.
2. pass the money on to all relatives equally. So £10k to each descendent. Now the childless son gets £10k, whilst one brother gets £30k (£10k for himself and £10k each to his two kids), and the other family gets £60k (£10k to the son, £10k to one of his three kids, £20k each to the two kids that have children). The third family gets way more as a unit... The grandchild of this family that doesn't have any kids feels especially hard done by because they haven't had kids yet, but are planning to. This is what the OPs GM has done, and I can see why it might have created some hard feelings, as families with more kids are getting significantly more money as a family.
3. pass the money on to 'complete' generations, so the three kids, and the five grandkids. That's £12.5k to the son without kids, £37.5k to the son with two children, and £50k to the son with three (£12.5k for him, and £12.5k for each of his three kids). It's still weighed unequally, but there's not really anyone who's been 'missed out'. The grandkids with children can choose to pass money on if they want, but those without aren't missing out.
4. skip a generation. Only pass the money to grandkids. This works well if the children are financially stable and in danger of IHT becoming an issue. The five grandkids get £20k each. Turns out the son without kids has some debts that he hadn't wanted to tell his DM about. He's gutted to be cut out completely.

Sooo... Essentially there's lots of ways to do this! But when someone writes a will you have to assume that they have thought it through in this sort of detail and made their decision accordingly.
Contesting is in bad taste, but it's human nature to complain.
OP, you're fortunate that your family is benefiting significantly from the path your GM has chosen. If the shoe was on the other foot how would you be feeling? Perhaps don't write your family off as bloodsuckers just yet, but stick to your guns politely and firmly. Don't get dragged into debate. It's not unreasonable for those who have been disadvantaged by the arrangement to want to look into it in a little more detail. But they're unlikely to be able to change it!

"There's really no concept of "fairness" at work here. You don't have to be fair when you make your will. If your children are adults and independent in life you can do as you like. You can cut out the one who has married someone of a different trace or the same sex, and nobody can stop you."

Andrew - all true but hopefully I'm not such a cunt and I love my children and would rather let them know both were loved and valued equally.

Walking I think that's a really good idea.

FWIW I don't have any contact with my siblings and I despise one of them and absolutely hate another one but I just don't care enough about any potential money, to deal with the backlash should me/my DDs do better out of my mother's will than my siblings. For me it could actually put us (my DDs mainly) at risk so I hope my mother has thought this through properly. I don't actually have any contact with my mother so I might not even benefit from the will but I have a feeling I'll be in there somewhere.

We wrote a will this year. There was so much more to think about that just leaving it equally to your children. My children are young, we have to think about guardianship if we die and who will look after them. How the money will be released to our children and when. Then who will benefit if one of them dies. Weird way to have to think about your young children. People should really think about all the possible implications and possible family upset unless they don't care about possibly causing hurt and destroying relationships.

I think, she chose a few people who she loved to leave money to.
Relationship is really irrelevant.
If she chose to leave something to a friend or a neighbour, should they have it taken off them? She has no relationship with an unconceived child.

What if a neighbour (bear with me here) died and left the 2 kids next door some inheritance, because she used to babysit them. Should the parents bitch that no provision has been made for the child they are planning to have in a couple of years?

Shame that people can't be grateful for something they have no right to expect.

I suspect that while the op's DGM simply intended to demonstrate that she loved all of her family equally - the will wasn't really thought out.

If the consequences and potential hurt for the younger/ currently childless dgc had been pointed out to her, it's quite possible she would have reconsidered.

In an ideal world, I don't think making the distribution of assets more 'equal' would be going against the gm's wishes, as presumably an even and fair distribution is exactly what she had in mind.

Legally, however, this would probably prove too complicated, which is the real problem.

"I suspect that while the op's DGM simply intended to demonstrate that she loved all of her family equally - the will wasn't really thought out.

If the consequences and potential hurt for the younger/ currently childless dgc had been pointed out to her, it's quite possible she would have reconsidered."

I think that's a pretty staggering assumption tbh. Nessalina just pointed out some of the options available to the GM. All of them could be argued as fair/unfair. Why the assumption that the GM didn't consider it all carefully, take advice about implications and decide this was what she wanted?

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. IMO, everyone of the adults should get an equal share and then the adults with children can give a portion to their dcs if they wish.

Flowery - to suggest that "it's possible" that the DGM would have reconsidered her will had she known that it would cause hurt to some of her dgc is merely an observation - not a "staggering assumption".

I wouldn't leave this kind of will, because it doesn't accord with my idea of fairness.

But this is the will that was left and I think the deceased's wishes should be respected.

I think it's telling that she left the money to named individuals, and not to people described as a type, ie she named the people she wanted to benefit rather than just specifying that she wanted an even split between all descendants.

That to me shows that she thought individually about each beneficiary and intended them to get a bequest of their own.

If you are lucky enough to die old and rich with great grandchildren to dote on, you might have good reason to prefer that those children benefit directly rather than leaving money to their grandparents and hoping it trickles down to them eventually.

"Flowery - to suggest that "it's possible" that the DGM would have reconsidered her will had she known that it would cause hurt to some of her dgc is merely an observation - not a "staggering assumption".

I gave my opinion. You said you suspect the will was not thought out. I think that's a staggering assumption, not an observation at all because there is no evidence to suggest that's the case.

Bambambini - I agree. I hope by the way that you have covered the possibility that you all go in the same accident. Nasty thought but it could happen.

There is a good reason for not leaving money to older, established DCs -to skip a generation.
If the estate is liable for inheritance tax (from the sound of it it will be) and the DCs have their own wealth - when they die (unless it is within 7(?) yrs) that money could end being subject to inheritance tax again... and there are tax implications if parents give large sums to their children - especially if they die within 7 years of doing so (and at this age the 'DCs' are grandparents - so older too).

I think the will is as fair as possible.

Perhaps the people who are inheriting should stop thinking of themselves as entitled because they are family and consider that the GM could equally have shared the money between them and also a close friend and a cats home.

The other methods of distributing the will are complex and could still be perceived as unfair.

Has the OP been back? Is it possible this is a reverse and she is the family member who feels it is unfair?

I noticed OP had not been about for a while.

I think the will as it stands is reasonably fair.
I knew of someone who DM left all her money to one child despite having 3 (2 estranged). That one child then sensing a war would break out and thinking DM wanted her to sort it out, varied the will to leave a small sum to each gc and ggc, then split the remainder between the herself and siblings.
The ones who were least entitled moaned the most. at times she thought about giving them nothing because they were so rude.

Any further gc and ggc will get nothing until they inherit from their parent/gp and that is just tough.

Anyway in Scotland under bairns law the siblings would all have got something from moveable assets and if they had died then their share goes to their kids.