Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this inheritance split is not fair?

438 replies

Big8 · 24/01/2017 12:25

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?

OP posts:
birdybirdywoofwoof · 24/01/2017 20:48

Jiggly, you are deliberately misinterpreting what people have been saying, surely.

birdybirdywoofwoof · 24/01/2017 20:49

Jiggly, you are deliberately misinterpreting what people have been saying, surely.

SirChenjin · 24/01/2017 21:19

Me too bibbity

Jiggly - this isn't about what the parents have or haven't done because the money is not going to them. It is - or should be - about treating the grandchildren i.e. the people you're leaving the money to, the same. This is not difficult.

I repeat my previous example.

£1000 divided equally amongst the 5 grandchildren to whom you're leaving the money (not the family unit/children/pet rabbits) = £200 each. Easy easy.

SirChenjin · 24/01/2017 21:20

Easy peasy

MrsHathaway · 24/01/2017 21:35

I have 3 DC, my sister has none. I don't think my family should get more than her's because I chose to have more children.

The two sides to this argument are whether you think you should leave money to families or to individuals. Tbh I think leaving to families is outdated and impersonal.

DH asked me what I'm reading so intently. He remarks that once the amounts involved are enough to still exist once the middle generation dies (eg grandparents leave enough to pay off mortgages, or greater) then the grandchildren will also benefit from their parents' share as well as their own. If they leave the kind of sum that is quickly spent on groceries/holiday/new car then the grandchildren only benefit from their own share.

Tbh he's confused me but I do agree that the order of magnitude of the bequests is important. Pp's example of leaving one person £750k and the others SFA is an extreme example, but if the total available to grandchildren were £500k then the difference between £250k/£60k and £100k is really significant in terms of what it can be used for.

JigglyTuff · 24/01/2017 21:50

I have a friend who can't have children. Her dad has split his (substantial) fortune 5 ways - a share each between her, her brother and her brother's 3 children.

It has caused a huge rift in the family and I am terribly sympathetic to her. She feels like she's been punished for her infertility.
That's what's informing my perspective

SirChenjin · 24/01/2017 21:53

In which case her parents might have been better off leaving it directly to their children, who in turn can then decide how they divvy it up in their wills. That's very different to the OP though - the money is question is currently being divided up unfairly amongst the grandchildren.

fiverabbits · 24/01/2017 21:56

One thing I would say is take financial advise before you update/make a will. When we told our financial advisor what we planned to do, he said that is all wrong as we had made no provision for care home fees (we are 65 ).

GatoradeMeBitch · 24/01/2017 21:58

It isn't fair on the face of it, but perhaps their relationships with their dgc's aren't the same? It's possible they are closer to their dd's child and want them to have more for that reason.

birdybirdywoofwoof · 24/01/2017 21:59

Well yes, Jiggly, that certainly isn't fair.

But it's very different from what we're talking about here.

JigglyTuff · 24/01/2017 22:08

"In which case her parents might have been better off leaving it directly to their children, who in turn can then decide how they divvy it up in their wills. That's very different to the OP though - the money is question is currently being divided up unfairly amongst the grandchildren."

Yes, exactly! But if you leave your money equally to your children, you are by definition (assuming your children have an unequal number of children) not splitting it equally between your grandchildren.

It sounds like the OP's grandparents have split the money equally between their children but by missing out a generation, it's coming across as very unfair and I can see why the OP feels like she's being shafted for being one of many siblings.

I have far too many friends/family who don't have the family they wanted because of fertility issues to ever consider leaving anything other than a token to my grandchildren. They can squabble over it much later down the line

liz70 · 24/01/2017 22:14

"What if his sister has no children? That means her father's family inherits everything."

Well, the fairest way surely would be what my FIL did. The childless sister would get a third, the OP's DH another third, and their four children share the remaining third. Or, as the OP's SIL actually has a child, that third would be split five ways, equally, between all the grandchildren.

SirChenjin · 24/01/2017 22:16

It sounds like the OP's grandparents have split the money equally between their children but by missing out a generation

No it doesn't Confused It sounds like the grandparents are dividing the money up unfairly amongst their grandchildren by apportioning it by family unit as opposed to treating them as equal individuals.

bibbitybobbityyhat · 24/01/2017 22:17

I can't see how your personal perspective has anything to do with the op, Jiggly.

If the grandparents want to leave some money to their grandchildren then what business is it of the generation in between? In the op's example I feel certain that the dc are going to get the bulk of the inheritance and that an amount has been ringfenced for the gc.

Or are you saying that it's not fair to the dc without their own children because the overall inheritance will be depleted if the grandchildren are also beneficiaries? I think that would be a grabby perspective, tbh.

JigglyTuff · 24/01/2017 22:32

Sorry that's what I meant SirC!

If you're going to miss a generation, they split it equally. This is a bugger's muddle

SirChenjin · 24/01/2017 22:34

So we're agreeing that the money should be split equally between the grandchildren if they are inheriting directly (and everything is generally equal in terms of closeness etc) Confused

EddieStobbart · 24/01/2017 23:01

Would you really leave the bulk of your estate to the children of the fertile child and give the one that hasn't been able to conceive nothing?

The OP deals with a seperate share left to the GCs to that their direct DCs inherit so no one is receiving nothing - the scenario above would of course be ridiculously unfair due, as is the case with the OP, to the disparity in treatment between people with the same relationship.

If the GP's want to leave it to grandchildren then it's not about punishment, it's about people. My DB has more DCs than me and if my DM were to do this, I just can't get my head around why I should think it unfair. Can you explain to me why, if my DM were to leave her estate to her GCs, my DCs should get 25% each of her estate while my DB's children would get about 17% each? What sensible reason would there be for her to do that if she regarded them (as she should) as people in their own right?

User543212345 · 25/01/2017 05:05

I have 3 DC, my sister has none. I don't think my family should get more than her's because I chose to have more children

I am on the other side of this. Why would I begrudge my nieces/nephews getting an inheritance because I chose not to have a family? I don't see it as my sister's family getting more than me (as that would be oddly bitter), I see it as my sister's children being left something directly from my parents. Expecting that I get an equal share as my sister's family unit when there's one of me and four of them seems grabbier and more entitled than expecting the grandchildren to be treated as separate individuals from their parents.

Blondeshavemorefun · 25/01/2017 05:58

Did op ever come back ......

Dh nan did something similar but she had her reasons

She has 2dc - dh dad and uncle

Nan split her will 50% to uncle and 50% to dh dad and his 3 kids so all for 12.5% each

Dh dad was furious

Nan was crafty. She knew uncle would share with his kids and he did

Nan also knew dh dad was a selfish prick and would keep the whole 50%

Dh dad asked his 3 kids so my dh bil and sil for the money back. Dh said no(they didn't get on) sil also said no as really needed the money. Bil stupidly gave his dad (my fil) a chunk back

ThoraGruntwhistle · 25/01/2017 07:46

It's not an equal split between the two children! If the two children don't ever get the money, and it goes directly to the grandchildren then it's being split unfairly between the grandchildren! Surely that's been established by now Confused

EmeraldScorn · 25/01/2017 08:11

OP, is the one grandchild less financially stable than the other grandchildren? That is a factor that would motivate me if I was deciding on who got what in my will.

If I had two grandchildren, one was a doctor who owned their own home, married to a barrister, savings in the bank and my other grandchild was in a low paying job and living in a rental property, then the grandchild with the least would get the most.

My maternal grandparents never left my siblings and I anything but they did leave all of our cousins a substantial amount of money each and left their house to them also (which was then sold and the money split between my cousins).

My family never received a penny even though it would have been us at that time who could have actually done with a helping hand; My cousins are all "well heeled", we aren't.

I hate the whole concept of wills and inheritance to be honest because I think it brings out the ugliness in people but if push came to shove I would provide more for who needed more.

Everyone would be given something of course but being honest those who were "comfortable" already would be getting a smaller amount and I wouldn't think twice or feel bad about it.

I think anyone being left anything should be thankful and not lower themselves to compete or fight over why someone else got more than them.

Lflossy88 · 25/01/2017 08:22

It's your grandparents it is kind of them to plan anything at all for thier grandchildren. I am one of 6 grandchildren on my father's side and when my grandmother passes it gets split between my dad and his brother (fair enough). But if anything happens to my dad or uncle before my grandma passes it ALL goes to my younger brother, who is the only male grandchild, when she dies. I guess that's just thier ideals? Hmm

bibbitybobbityyhat · 25/01/2017 08:23

Thora
I don't understand your post. Can you clarify?

bibbitybobbityyhat · 25/01/2017 08:24

Stupid ideals though, eh Flossy? Like something from the dark ages. I would be fuming if I were you.

Ciutadella · 25/01/2017 08:25

Not really a comment on fairness or otherwise of this, but an observation/question on the general issue of leaving money to dgc. Is there any way of ensuring dgc born after you die will get an equivalent amount - for instance can you set up a trust for "any dgc who may come along after my death"? I have no idea!

If not, that may create another fairness issue if new dgc arrive after the death. That may be a reason for leaving money only to dc rather than directly to dgc I suppose.