To think this inheritance split is not fair?

[Big8]

Ok, firstly I know I should be grateful to be getting anything from my grandparents. And I am. But I'm just wondering what the general consensus is on this...

Grandparents have 2 offspring.

Have set aside £x for grandchildren.

There are five grandchildren.

My father has 4. His sister has 1.

Now rather than the £x being split into 5 equal portions for us all

Half of £x goes to Aunts child.
Half goes to my dad's children to be divided between 4.

So say it's £1000

Cousin gets £500.

We get £125 each.

What do you think of that?

Of course, it is all about the will of the person dispensing the money, their word is law etc. etc. etc.

But I don't think someone who gets a quarter of what another person receives can be blamed for feeling they are valued considerably less.

Personally, if I didn't want to give that impression, I'd be dividing equally. Conclusion: either your grandparents couldn't understand fractions, or they value you less than the other grandchildren.

It's fair if the children got the money first, but not fair if it skipped a generation and went straight to the grandchildren. I would suspect favouritism because there's no actual logical reason why one would get more than the others.

Mum2Bong, yes, that' s me, cynical. And?

I see what you mean and I do think it's weird if it's been left like that to grandchildren...however - if that will was done a long time ago (many people don't update their wills!) it may have been done before they knew one had 4 kids and the other had 1. Solicitors get things worded so they cover your backs. For example when we did our will, the solicitor said to put 'our children' as although we only have one we then wouldn't need to change our will in future if we had another. And I know an elderly relative wanted to put our child in but was told 'our children' and someone else's children (the person in question doesn't even have a partner!)...so I can see how possibly this may have come about.
Or maybe they felt closer to that cousin of yours?? I duno! But it's their wish.

If however it's been left to the parents and not you guys yet I fully agree with how they've done it - I'd leave it equally to my kids regardless of how many children they had.

Yikes. This is why all our money will go to a charity after we go . I think (sometimes) money inheritances bring out the absolute worse in people - I mean, someone died for you to get this free money! I think it's quite fair the way the money has been divided OP, between their kids, it just seems unfair to you because your dad had 4 kids and the other sibling had 1 so there is less to share among the four of you - that's not your grandparents fault. Be grateful you got anything at all.

My sister and I have had the same hypothetical discussion.

She has one child and I have two.

I think it's fair to give the same amount to each grandchild.

She thinks it should be an amount to each family then that should be split between grandchildren.

My thoughts are - that's not what happens with Christmas and other random monetary gifts so why change it for an inheritance?

Somerville

If someone has the benefit of a trust and the needs of their spouse can't be met (after divorce or death) from other assets then a court will order trustees to release funds for said spouse, no?

It can be done, although if the trustees are overseas (because for example the donor did not trust the beneficiary's spouse) it may be impossible.

But if a couple are divorced or one dies the children have the benefit of a trust then no, teh assets cannot be diverted as you suggest.

Inheritance is always a thorny issue, unless it can be a straight split to the immediate children. My DH's parents had mirror wills that left their estate equally to their four sons. MIL died several years ago thus the estate passed to FIL who is still alive.

When FIL was sorting out MIL's clothes and jewellery he asked the four granddaughters - one my daughter and three the daughters of another son to all choose an item of jewellery as a keepsake. There were four items, so made sense to him for each granddaughter to choose one each. The grandsons got nothing. Each item of jewellery was valued at over £10,000. Was this fair?

It sounds like you have a choice: you don't give anything to anyone, and will your entire estate to a charity or other, so everybody will be equally moaning.

Otherwise, someone will always complain, usually the one who receives less. I still believe it's fairer to divide per child, not grandchild.

You could say that if you give £200 to each of your 5 grandchildren, you value more your son and his kids (who receive a total of £800) than your daughter and her kid (who receive a total of £200).

If someone receive a completely different amount, you could argue it's unfair. When it makes sense how things have been divided, you can disagree but at least acknowledge that they meant well, and that someone will always complain anyway.

If it's being given directly to the grandchildren then no, it's not fair at all - not their fault that one child had 4 and the other child had 1.

I can't imagine a scenario where I would do this to my grandchildren - I have 3 DC so the chances are they won't all have the same number of children, but when it comes to divvying up the money they will all receive the same from us. Only fair really.

Sounds like a simple way of doing it, means they don't need to change the will if there were more children. I don't think there is anything wrong with it. I can see how you may feel it's unfair, but at the end of the day I think I would be happy to receive some money not worrying someone else got more.

Sorry for you loss. X

When FIL was sorting out MIL's clothes and jewellery he asked the four granddaughters - one my daughter and three the daughters of another son to all choose an item of jewellery as a keepsake. There were four items, so made sense to him for each granddaughter to choose one each. The grandsons got nothing. Each item of jewellery was valued at over £10,000. Was this fair?

Legally, it depends on whether he died within seven years of the gift!

Morally, it might seem prudent to allocate individual personal bequests to the grandsons - watch? signet ring? - to be the personal if not financial equivalent in due course.

In my opinion YANBU. It is not about money it is about fairness.

inheritance is so often the catalyst for all sorts of bad feelings. That being said, the split here is one I've seen many times, and in fact my own parents have said they will do. Absolutely will hurt feelings but then who said life is fair?

Grand parents know how many children they have, how can they guess how many grand children they will have? I can think of a few friends whose parents sadly died before at least one of their kids were born. It's probably more frequent for the ones who had kids in their late 30s or early 40s, but unfortunately, people pass away at any age.

This is another reason why I think it's fairer by child.

Yes, that was my understanding Andrewofgg. I have a few widowed friends who are living on benefits at the moment while their children will be quite wealthy due to trusts. One of them can at least use the trust to pay for clubs and school trips for the DC, but the other one can't.

I think the split in the OP is fair: it is treating the children of the deceased fairly, regardless of their life choices.

Another good alternative is to divide the inheritance into (say) three parts - one part each for each of the two children, and one to be split equally amongst the grandchildren. Then the only child still probably ends up with a larger share of the estate in the long run because they would be assumed to eventually get the benefit of all their parent's part, whilst the other parent's share would end up going four ways - but that is then between those parents and children, not the presently deceased relative and them.

Doesn't seem fair to me either.

YANBU OP.

Either leave the money to DC and they can gift some to their DC in turn if they wish, or leave an equal amount to DGC directly.

I actually think that's the best way.

I suspect the money was going to be left equally to your grandparents two children, but to avoid inheritance tax perhaps, your grandparents were asked to give the money to the grandchildren. If it was me I would have split in 5 ways (4:1) but guess you should be glad you are getting something at all.

One of my daughters has two children the other has none - I can give my grandsons 25% each and the daughter who is childless 50% which is probably what I will do (if I have anything left, that is!)

It is treating the children of the deceased fairly but the grandchildren most unfairly.

Wah! How do people support this? Is this how gps do Xmas presents too?

Of course it is their money to do as they want with, but that doesn't mean their wishes are morally infallible.

I think it does sound unfair, and as an only child myself I'd feel really uncomfortable if I got £500 and my two cousins £250 each.

This is assuming there arent other factors at play like certain grandchildren having a much closer relationship with the GP than others, or certain GC already being wealthy while others are struggling - those types of things I think it's fair to take into account.

Maybe cynical, or maybe you just aren't that bothered she'd died? Genuine question as you don't seem thankful or at all bothered about that!