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?

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.

First, I don't know any grandparents who don't know how many grandchildren they have. A GP who wants to put their DGC in a will but doesn't actually know how many DGC they have seems like a pretty rare scenario to use as an example.

Second, if you die before you have any DGC you aren't going to put them in your will, are you?

Seems very fair, nobody is entitled to an inheritance and doing it per family is much fairer than the bulk going to the one that simply had the most children.

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

YY to this - exactly!!

Someone asked it back in the thread. It was too good not to be said again!

First, I don't know any grandparents who don't know how many grandchildren they have.

Then you don't know many people. I can name more than a few people whose parents died before all their grandchildren were born. If my last child decide to have his own children late, it's not unreasonable at all to think that I won't be there. It might be less likely if we all had our children in our early 20s, but that's far from being the case.

It doesn't seem to me that the Op has been allocated a share in their own right by the GP, rather they have been allocated a share of their DP's share to receive with the GPs pass away, rather than to inherit at the point the DPs do. It's an advance rather a share in their own right.

"I can think of a few friends whose parents sadly died before at least one of their kids were born."

Yes, DD3 was born after both of DH's parents had died. DH matched our other DDs' and their cousins' from his own share (he and his two sisters inherited a quarter; the existing four grandchildren shared the remaining quarter among them).

Second, if you die before you have any DGC you aren't going to put them in your will, are you?

It's not at all uncommon to gain grandchildren between making your will and dying. That's why will writers have wording about "the issue" of a person (eg our wills talk about our currently young DC and their "issue").

It can be complicated if someone makes a Will in good faith and then loses capacity GMIL gained nearly all of her great-grandchildren after the onset of dementia and GPoA resting with her sons. She was not well enough to make a new Will but stayed alive for several years in that mental state.

She didn't have much to leave and the family are all amicable, so it didn't matter, but in wealthy families this can cause serious arguments.

OP I agree it is a hurtful and insensitive way of doing it.

OP - is the bequest to the granchildren in addition, or instead of a bequest to children?

Ie if both OPs father and aunt are also getting an amount of money, this might have a bearing on things.

If all of it is going to grandchildren only, I think it is reasonable

If the father and the aunt are also getting an inheritance I can see why it seems less fair.

Have the father and aunt been consulted in this? It may be that they find it more than acceptable. In which case the grandchildren should put up and shut up!

Also, for those saying it's not fair for the smaller family to "lose out" if more children are born in the other family (which sounds a way more "grabby" think to be worried about to me), this doesn't seem a huge issue of the direct children (the parents) have been left an equal share - when they pass away their children will receive that share split amongst their children so more children = smaller share.

If its any consolation, my children's GP left them nothing and their one counsin was left £0.75 M .

Maybe cynical, or maybe you just aren't that bothered she'd died

mum2bong Whatever are you on about? She does not exist! She is entirely hypothetical, as neither of my DSs are married and have no plans to be so.

If it helps, DS1 has a lovely DP, whom we love very much and I would be griefstricken if she died. Nevertheless if my DS died, and this DP married and had children, I would not see it as my duty to support those children.

I agree with the poster who said, that anything other than a "straight split to the immediate children" basically gets "thorny". But that's not where we are here.

IMO then if these sums form the bulk of the inheritance, with the middle generation basically being skipped [for whatever reason, e.g. that they all already own their own homes or whatever], then the split described by OP is probably, whilst not perfect, the least bad one.

If this is only a small part of the inheritance [e.g. with a portion going to the middle generation] then it's clearly less good but, honestly, if that's the situation then any split becomes less of a big deal.

In short I'd say YABU, possibly, but only barely. An element of angst over inheritance is very normal & natural. Other than in the case of a ridiculously unfair split [which this certainly isn't] it above all mustn't be allowed to poison relationships between the survivors.

TFP - Why is an (very) unequal split the least bad option? Genuinely curious.

@SirChenjin - as a couple of others have said, [great] grandchildren inheriting equal shares of the share to which their [grand]parents would have been entitled is just very well established, e.g. it's in line with intestate rules, I suppose the logic is that your closest familial link by far is with your immediate successors & that treating them equally is the most important thing.

If I were the cousin in this case who received the larger share I'd feel uncomfortable next time I met up with my cousins.

This is grandparents gifting an amount to their grandchildren. Why not make it equal?

TFP I agree - but that's not what has happened here. The grandparents have allocated money to the grandchild not on a per person basis (which to my mind is the fairest) but on the basis of the family to which they belong. As a pp said upthread, it's akin to giving Christmas presents to your grandchild on a per family basis - most odd.

bibbety, I think the problem is that there are differing opinions on what constitutes "equal" .

what constitutes "equal"

A simple maths equation answers that question -

£1000 divided equally by 5 = £200 each.

I think it's completely fair. My mum was one of 5 children but sadly two of her siblings have predeceased my grandmother. They each had two children. The remaining children have 3, 3 and 2 children each. When my grandmother dies I fully expect that my mum and her living siblings will get 1/5 of the estate each. I would expect the remaining 2/5 to be split equally between the 4 cousins whose parent has died. I fully expect to get nothing or a token amount. That's perfectly fair to me. My cousins aren't more favoured. It's just circumstances. If my Nan split the estate equally between all the grandchildren I'd feel a bit awkward about it I think as one of 3 children.

@SirChenjin - it's not altogether like Christmas presents. that's an entirely different set of customs and objectives at work. last yr I bought some baths salts for a lady in accounts whose name I drew in an office secret santa but, rest assured, she won't be named in my will.

Interesting to read through these scenarios. I have several examples of dodgy decisions in my family going back years...but my view is that you shouldn't have any expectations, and anything you get is a bonus.

It will be interesting to see what my MIL decides to do. Lovely lady. 3 DCs, all comfortable, 2 with 2x kids each, but the eldest DC has no children and financially is hugely better off than the other DCs. What should MIL do? I think there are lots of different options, but the most likely one (and fairest) is that the money will be split 3 ways between the DC. I can see that some would be unhappy with this, but frankly I think it's ok (and I'm not married to the eldest).

Well it is like Xmas presents: according to this 'fair' is one dgc gets a Nintendo Ds the other four dgc (because they are siblings) get tights and pencils.