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 similar thing is going on right now in my family.

My grandmother recently died and her last will was written before any of my uncle's children were born (he became a father very late in life). At the time the will was written, I was the only grandchild and am named in the will as having x amount of money from her estate upon her death. There was no clause in the will that said anything to the effect of "any living grandchildren at the time of my death....." My uncle's children were born long before my grandmother died, there was nothing malicious about them not being included in the will, she simply hadn't got round to changing it.
In order to keep things fair, and more importantly keep the peace, I decided to split my inheritance equally amongst all the grandchildren.

Now, here's where the bone of contention is - my mother thinks that because my uncle has more children than she does, this equates to him getting more money than her in the will. I asked my mother if she considered my share of the will to be hers, to which she replied "of course not". So I then asked why she would think that the money my uncle's children are getting is his. She didn't have an answer to this but is somehow still of the opinion that my uncle is getting more money than her in the will.

Unlike the OP, we're not talking about life changing sums of money here. My grandmother's estate was in a right mess and after all debts and expenses were paid there was virtually nothing left, even for the children, and after splitting my inheritance between all the grandchildren the sum of money I've been left with is a 'drop in the ocean' amount and even if my uncle decides to spend his children's share it's still not a particularly large sum. (I think my mother is fearful that he will do this as when the last will was written, I was already an adult so there was no need for any clauses about trust funds and therefore the money I've given to my cousins will not be going into a trust fund either).

Asit's money that YOU are giving them though, rather than money that is stipulated in the Will, you can set boundaries for it, Leontine. I gave my brother my share of my little brother's legacy, and was asked by the lawyer if I wanted to impose conditions on it.

Leontine,

I think you really need to give that money to your cousins in such a way that your uncle can't access it.

If you are basically giving the money to him, I can see your mother's point.

That is clearly not what your grandmother stipulated.

You are giving a gift to your cousins, you get to set the rules by which it is spent.

Oh I didn't realise this and will look into it, if only for my mother's sake. I'm not really arsed if my uncle spends the money or not. Of course it's morally wrong on his part but it's on his conscience not mine and as we're talking about such a small sum of money (which will undoubtedly be worth even less by the time they reach adulthood).

You don't have to stipulate that they are 18 to get it, either. You could just say it's for them in trust until they're 15 or something. Just something so your Uncle doesn't get it but they do. Age doesn't have to be stipulated at all. Are they very young? If they're toddlers then yes, protect them, but if they're teens you don't have to worry so much.

You'd be better off keeping your inheritance yourself than giving it to your uncle.

The eldest is 6 years old.

I was under a lot of pressure to just "f*ck them off" and keep the entire inheritance to myself, particularly after taking into account other things regarding the circumstances of my grandmother's death but I know that would have caused a lot of resentment and I wanted to avoid any further family arguments at all costs.

As it stands, the amount of money is so small that I could possibly afford to give my cousins the money myself when they turn 18 should my uncle choose to spend it, but I agree that it is probably best I look into setting up some form of trust fund.

Leonine, you could simply start an interest-bearing savings account (or other long-term investment account) in their name with the Uncle AND you as required signatories (two signs, if you see what I mean).

Or just you as a signatory.

There is no reason at all why your uncle needs to be involved.

This is between you and your cousins.

You sound like a really great cousin to have, to look out for their interests and try to make things fair within your generation.

But the money your grandmother left you was either for YOU, or for YOUR GENERATION of grandchildren. Neither describes your uncle, so leave him out of it.

Your grandmother might have intended your cousins to be left something, but your uncle is already getting what she meant him to have.

I can see both sides really
The will is there for a reason and that's what should happen
However....

What if the children of the deceased havent year had children? Then those grandchildren miss out.

The fairest way would have been to leave everything between her children then the grandchildren in time will inherit their share via inheritance from their parents. But that's not what she did so the will should be executed exactly as she requested

marmiteandjamislush I found your post unnecessarily spiteful, I'm open to different perspectives on this issue and am grateful to everyone who has responded to give me constructive advice but I have just lost someone who I cared very much for, I spent a large part of my childhood living with my grandmother and she was like a second mum to me. It's really offensive that you are essentially calling me a liar and FYI I haven't mentally 'spent' any of the money. The whole point of this thread is because I'm considering giving up my share. In response to a previous poster who asked whether I would try and financially equalise things for a future child should I have one I said that once I found out about the money she had left me in her will my immediate though would be that I'd put in in savings for that child. So whatever I decide I am not planning to spend a penny of the money that she's left me.

tiggytape I was interested in what you said about part of the rationale for people including grandchildren and great grandchildren in their wills rather than just leaving it to their children with some expectation that they will share it out between their children. I think if you want to leave money to your grandchildren of great-grandchildren making specify bequests to them is surely a better way of ensuring this. Even when this happens though often parents can access and use the money as they see fit. When I was little my DB and I were left money by my paternal grandparents, I was too young to know much about this at the time but when my DB reached 18 and asked for his money he was told by our mum that it was "long gone on school fees", there had never been any discussion of this, I was too young to have been meaningfully consulted but my DB was in his teens and feels that he would have rather gone to a state school and kept that inheritance intact. Thinking about the bad feeling that followed all this is probably influencing why part of me feels like just avoiding the aggro and relinquishing my inheritance.

wanttosqueezeyou I've popped back and posted a couple of times on this thread, it's not a reverse, I'm just wanting some impartial views.

I would leave it as it is.
Who knows what is round the corner, imagine one of the GCs dies then their share is passed on to their DCs so that means they are extra well off financially. Or should they, the GC, then write a will so that if they die all their money goes back in the pot - I mean it is just too complicated.

The only issue would be if a DGGC had a large pot to look forward to and a future born sibling had nothing but maybe the parents can save so the future born sibling gets money too.

Your DGGM must have thought sod this, too hard I'll just share it equally. Can't really complain at that,

I'd feel terribly guilty that some ggc have a house deposit while the others have to work for 10+ years to save up a similar deposit.

Wills don't have to be fair. I cannot understand why some posters seem to think that.

A will is simply an expression of the dead persons wishes on how they want their assets distributed.

I would not dream of disputing someones will in a situation like this - it makes OPs family look very grabby and vulgar.

I can understand that unfair wills can lead to very bad feeling.

It's the last thing you hear from a loved one, and nobody wants to be an indication that they were less loved.

But in this case an old lady with a lot of money and a big family has been scrupulous in making sure nobody can feel they were overlooked or undervalued.

Every single living member of her family is getting the same amount.

There is no room here for personal hurt, the only way you can object is to to be grabby and start totting up the money per family.

But that's not how it was distributed, and that is clearly the intention.

This will says - all of you in my family are equally important, I want to share my money between you equally.

I really think it takes a very grabby person to start arguing with that and insisting they deserve more.

Leave it as it is, those are your GM wishes. Who knows what is around the corner. God forbid your child should become ill, you may need that money for private health care to get quick treatment, or college fees etc.

Do not give in.

It always boggles my mind when people speak of the 'fairness' in a Will. If the money or assets didn't belong to anybody but the person who has died, how can anyone moan about not getting their share. It was never theirs to begin with

I think it's tragic when families fall out over this sort of thing. A person has died and pitchforks are at the ready over something as stupid as money. OP, your family need a reality check. If all they can do is bitch and squabble in the aftermath of a beloved family member dying, then something's very wrong.

Your Grandmother decided what she wanted done with the money and that should be respected. If I were you, I would be absolutely disgusted by the vulgar sense of entitlement shown by some of your family. If it were me, I'd give it all back in a heartbeat just to have another few hours with my own Gran. I miss her everyday and her passing has affected my poor mum in ways I never imagined.

I'm truly very sorry for your loss

I haven't read the whole thread yet but I feel I must point out that when families take to the law to contest wills the only people who really benefit are the lawyers. So much better to sort it out within the family if possible. I expect that the OP is expecting to be pressured to agree to an informal reallocation of assets. Hold firm, OP! Legally I don't think they can insist [disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer]. Morally, well, it's tough, I can see, but this is what your GM wanted. So as far as I am concerned, end of story.

As I understand it, your decision is that if (hypothetical figures) you currently have 2 children,and the will says that you get £20k and each of your two children gets £20k, you are going to put your £20k to one side for the moment so that if you have a third child you can give him/her that £20k. This seems very fair to me.

It's often not about the money, can people not see how hurtful it could be to be overlooked or not treated equally as perhaps your other siblings? People who might not have been very nice to you in life, can still have the power to make you feel like crap in death. I would hate to inadvertently hurt my children and grandchildren after my death by not leaving a fair and thought out will. I'd also hate to think my will would leave tensions and possibly damage their relationships. Obviously that's if everything was amicable in the family.

We have had our own will angst in the family when my mum left me and my siblings some money in her will. My father thought he could hide the clause she had added providing for us and had the money transferred back to his account. It was so predictable, we should have put money on it.

The thing is, you can't treat hypothetical people equally to real people, they don't exist and may never do so.

I worked in probate for a while. Lots of people are upset by wills. For lots of different reasons. Being merely upset does not give you grounds to contest it though and you must be able to fit critieria which entitles you to contest it.

The advice I would give anyone having a will drafted is - use very clear language. Don't leave room for ambiguity or interpretation. Also, have a letter of wishes which further explains what is stated in the will.

I can see how it could be hurtful to feel treated unfairly in a will.

But not in this case.

The people quibbling are her GRANDCHILDREN!

And they are complaining that their cousins' children got a bequest.

But if she had done a standard will leaving everything to her children they would have got nothing.

Bambini how can anyone in the situation the OP describes feel overlooked or not treated fairly? The OP's grandmother has left an equal amount to every single one of her living relatives individually, no-one has been singled out to benefit more or less than anyone else. How on earth could any further children born possibly long after this relative has died feel they have been treated unfairly by someone they never saw or knew? It's ridiculous.

Op your Grandmother has been scrupulously fair in her allocation of her estate to everyone alive at her death, please don't give up your portion of the inheritance or feel pressured to do so, your Grandmother was explicit that this is what she wanted please for your sake and the sake of your children insist that the terms of the Will stand and don't enter into any further discussion on the subject.

"I'd feel terribly guilty that some ggc have a house deposit while the others have to work for 10+ years to save up a similar deposit."

But that's not the case. All of the great-grandchildren are getting the same amount of money.

There may or may not be any more future great-grandchildren.

The OP's grandmother can't be expected to plan or provide for great-grandchildren who don't exist and may never exist, in some weird idea of fairness to them. She has been more than fair to each family member who is born already.

There was talk up thread of these 'unborn' great-grandchildren but it's more realistic to say they are not even conceived yet, and may never be conceived.

People have different ideas of what they would do in her place. Whether it be to leave her estate solely to her own children and let them divide that share as they wish between their own children and grandchildren. Which still leaves the issue of some of those potential grandchildren still not actually being conceived yet.

Or to do as she did and leave every single family member whom she knew and loved an equal share and let them worry about their own potential future children when and if they ever come along.

I'm not saying that to be heartless against the cousin facing fertility problems either. But nobody can predict their future where fertility and pregnancy are concerned, I've learned that a very hard way.

The trouble is, if you are the sort of person to shout "it's not fair" then neither way would make you happy and you would always thing that someone else was getting a better deal than you.

The example someone gave above, of her sister expecting a gift worth £100 for her one child because they have two children who get a gift worth £50 each is a good one.

For her, it's not about three children getting a gift of equal value, it's about her and her sister being treated 'unfairly' (in her eyes) because she has one child and is only getting £50 but her sister has two children and therefore gets £100, even though neither sister is actually receiving any of the gifts.

It's not surprising that some people leave all their money to donkeys or cats rather than family when this is the way people argue about it.

This has been a really interesting thread. Not because I have ever inherited, my parents are still hale and hearty, and none if my grandparents left anything other than the bill for the funerals. But I am reasonably well off, and have no children, nor any nieces and nephews, and need to make a will.

MrRinky inherited some money from his grandfather. i believe that split the estate three ways, a third to each of his two children and the remaining third split between all his grandchildren. That seems very equal to me, but reading this now, might have seemed less so if there hadn't happened to have been two from each of his children...

The OP's grandmother can't be expected to plan or provide for great-grandchildren who don't exist and may never exist, in some weird idea of fairness to them. She has been more than fair to each family member who is born already.

That's why I'd only leave the money to complete generations.