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?

garnethair is right We have just given large sums to our children to buy property. Now have to try and last 7years or it goes back into our estate for tax. I'm glad to hear it tapers .I keep meaning to check

both ways are fair.

one is split between the dcs equally.
the other is split between the dgcs equally.

I didn't say leaving money to grandchildren is odd. I said doing it in this way is odd.

If you're leaving money specifically to grandchildren they should all get the same. They all have the same proportion of the grandparents genes after all.

Not unusual at all to give most money to children and then a percentage, say 10% direct to the grandchildren. I understand this to be the situation in the OP. In that case it is fair to split the 10% equally between the grandchildren. As a loving GP, no way would I want some to benefit more than others due to having more siblings.

I think this is fair OP. Your grandparent may have written the will before he even knew how many grandchildren he would have (and may not have updated it since), so the obvious thing to do is split by percentage between children to pass through to grandchildren - otherwise one or more grandchild who wasn't on the scene at the time would have missed out altogether! It's the most practical way to do things, and as PPs have said, it's not up to the grandparent how many grandchildren each of his children produces.

Another example you may find 'unfair' but was the correct and logical thing to happen - my grandmother died, leaving nothing to her grandchildren, but her estate was split equally between her three children. As it happens, one of these children (my aunt) died before her, so her portion went through to her children - ie they are the only grandchildren that got anything. And I didn't begrudge them one bit.

I think I agree with those who have said both ways are fair - depending on whether the testator wants to give per stirpes or per capita. There are arguments either way.

It is interesting though that some pp have very strong views in favour of one or the other - inheritance does raise very strong feelings. We are approaching a time I think when there will be a lot more, far more substantial, sums inherited than in earlier decades - due to high levels of owner occupation amongst that generation and high house prices. Will be interesting to see if inheritance dispute/family fall outs become much more common.

I don't agree that inheritance will die out as people live longer and most of it will go on care home fees, as some pp have said (either here or on another thread!) Many people in their 80s or even 90s die while still in their own homes though I can't find any statistics on proportions. So inheritance will be a significant phenomenon over the next few decades (although then become less so as proportion of owner occupiers falls).

I can see both sides but my judgement is clouded by my own circumstances. My grandparents brought me up. I have three brothers one died and I adopted his son. Another is single yes kids. The third is married to a grabby cow who I am n/c with.
Grandparents wanted to leave a quarter to each surviving sibling and my ds a quarter in trust. Sil wanted a third to each surviving sibling and my ds to get nothing. Bitch. The row rages on.

Postchildren - when the gifts of money were made in our case we calculated how much inheritance tax would be due if DM died immediately and set aside that amount in an account ( her house is worth more than the inheritance tax free sum so we know there will be tax to pay).

On the anniversary of the gift each year we have released the amount the inheritance tax has decreased by from that account and by year 7 if DM is still alive the account will be empty. It has meant that the sums given are 'safe' from inheritance tax if that makes sense.

Had it been stipulated as money set aside for grandchildren or have they just split it fairly between their two children and asked that their children use it for their grandchildren? In which case that would be a 50/50 split, it just so happens your dad has had more kids. My grandparents died and left money to their children, one of whom is my dad. Now he has chosen to split money between his 5 children rather than keep it all himself but his sisters only had 2 children and 1 child. However they decide to split the money is their business and if they give it to their children then it will mean our cousins will get more than us but it wouldn't cross my mind to think this was unfair.

I really do think my FIL split it the fairest way tbh.

How wonderful that you were loved enough to be left something .
Remember your grandparents with love and no regrets

I would think exactly like you OP. As batteriesallgone said.
From your post, the money was left directly to the grandchildren not the children so it should be an even split amongst all 5. 20% each. Maybe the will wasn't worded clearly?

Either way is fair and I don't believe any favouritism is intended.

If I were the grandparent I think my decision would depend on whether the grandchildren were financially independent adults or not. If children, then in reality the money benefits the family as a whole, eg by reducing the parents future spend on university fees or similar. So I'd probably choose that method if there were any minor grandchildren. If all were adults, I'd probably choose the equal share per person.

But neither is wrong and you should not waste time feeling aggrieved.