AIBU to have said this? (will/inheritance related)

[Toblernone]

(Have not been kept up by this, up anyway thanks to stomach bug!)

DParents visited a couple of days ago and were talking about redoing their will, as some bits are out of date and they want me to be executor so were asking my opinion. Size of estate will potentially (unless they need care) be decent but not huge (eg, definitely under IHT level) but would be a fairly life changing sum to me and DB. DB has chosen not to have kids and I have one teenage DD. No extended family apart from spouses.

DP's in passing asked my opinion on how to split the inheritance, suggesting either 2 ways between me and DB or 3 ways including my DD. I stressed it was up to them but that I felt it would be penalising DB for not having kids and would be best as 50-50. Since been told that was wrong by a close family friend as DD should have had input into what I suggested and I'd somehow 'done her over' by perhaps depriving her of money one day. I politely said it was my choice what opinion to give but was she at all right, especially as DD was in the room for this discussion and got no say in it or did I say the right thing?

50/50 seems the obviously fairest decision. But I agree that professional advice makes sense. If (God forbid) You died before your parents, then your DB would inherit everything. Your DC would be entitled to nothing.

Neither way is unreasonable. There are pros and cons for both. This is a tricky decision which comes up a lot in wills but there is no right or wrong situation.

Just to add , as we've been discussing this with our PIL's. ( absolutely their decision to discuss it, btw).
My PIL's have 3 sons, each with 2 children. Estate is divided between 3 boys, if they pre decease the parents their share is passed to their respective children NOT to their next of kin i.e. none of the wives will get any money as my PIL's rightly say they want their family money to go to their sons or grandchildren. We all know about this, and we're fine about it
Your parents might want to consider what would happen to your brother's share if he pre deceased them.

I don't really understand why anyone would think it's better to go directly to the grandchildren. Either their parents don't need it, in which case they can pass it directly onto their children (the GC) themselves - which is exactly what my dad did, his inheritance immediately became house deposits for me and my brother - or they do, in which case why would you take it away to give to children? If you don't trust your children not to screw over your grandchildren then you've got a bigger problem, and one that you're not going to fix by trying to meddle and control everyone from beyond the grave.

Ultimately it’s the person who’s will it is to decide, but I feel that it should be split equally 50/50 as not only is it fair but it otherwise leaves arguments and resentment to the person who got more.

I would say that unless one of the recipients of the will had loan a sum of money or had left there employment to look after the person then some allowances should be made to compensate for loss of earnings.

I don't think you should feel bad that you didn't ask your daughters opinion. I'm not sure how old she is but I think it's best not to encourage that kind of thinking.. what they are 'entitled' to etc. It would never have occurred to me to expect something from my grandparents or for my parents to care about my opinion on it!
I was touched when i found my Grandma had left me one of her rings.

OP your suggestion was absolutely the right one.

A friend of mine is in a similar position to neverhadanymarbelstolose's sister in law. She is childless (not be choice* and has one sister with two children. parents announced they have changed their will leaving one quarter each to friend, her sister and the two children. My friend is so upset. She feels she is being penalised for not being able to have children, something that already upsets her. She also feels her sister and BiL will have two children helping out with their care needs when they are old and that those children will also inherit from her.

If you parents want to leave something to your DD the fairest way would be something like 50% to your DB and 50% split 80/20 between you and DD.

Estate is divided between 3 boys, if they pre decease the parents their share is passed to their respective children NOT to their next of kin i.e. none of the wives will get any money as my PIL's rightly say they want their family money to go to their sons or grandchildren.

But this is still exactly what will happen if their sons die after their parents but before their wives. This is what I mean about trying to control beyond the grave - it stops being 'your' money once it's passed on, and I think trying to pin down exactly where it may go is both pointless and petty.

Beyond, we’ve talked about it a bit more since I posted and have now decided that, rather than increase the split if one dies their share will go to their children. It will be the same for my godchildren should they have children. No idea what happens if they don’t!

One problem we do have is DH’s children are the same age as me so may never inherit anything. The money we have is tied up in the house and I’m not prepared to sell if something happened to DH (downsizing isn’t an option). It’s all so complicated and can lead to so much bad feeling!

Pebbles - but surely the scenario that you describe is down to Op to sort in her own will, rather than her parents? She can write her will such that half of the home is her DDs when she dies, with DH living in it until he dies or remarries? She can also give some of her inheritance to her DD in her will, or even outright at the point of inheritance if she so wished. Yes the latter would have IHT implications, but not if she survived 7yrs.

My parents have done 50/50 to my db and I, grandchildren not in the will as it’s presumed they’ll be the sole inheritors for their parents.

You behaved absolutely appropriately. grandchildren are not entitled to money from their grandparents.

Gazelda - not sure if that is true, but most solicitors worth their salt will word a will such that if a DC predeceases a parent, then their share goes to any children they have. My parents wills were written like that and so are ours, even though our DC are still teenagers.

My parents will was 50:50, so DB and I got the same amount when mum died 2 years ago (despite him trying to persuade her that he deserved everything!).

However, a bachelor cousin of mine had died a year earlier, leaving his substantial estate to cousins' DC - but leaving out one for some inexplicable reason. The man involved wasn't bothered, he is a well paid professional, but his mum (my cousin) was - and still is - extremely upset as she was closer to the deceased than a lot of other cousins. She thinks she offended him in some way, but there is no way of knowing now.

Apart from that odd decision, most thought 'what a lovely gesture', esp as the cousins generation were aged 50 upwards. The money helped some get on housing ladder in 30s, whilst my teenagers will have a substantial house deposit when the time comes.

I say 'most' because my DB, with one child, thought it was awful that his 'family' only got one portion, whereas my family and another, got 2!

But there again, DB has never worked, thinks everyone owes him a living and was the only cousin who thought it should have come to our generation!!!! Even the cousin with no children was happy that his nieces got some money when needed.

Wills can definitely bring out the worst in people.

You behaved absolutely appropriately. grandchildren are not entitled to money from their grandparents.

I don't think anybody is entitled to any money from parents or grandparents. I think OP's suggestion of a 50/50 spilt is a good one.

50-50 is fair. When my dgf died his money was split between his 4 DC. My ddad had died already so his 1/4 was split between me and my siblings.

My parents gave each of their 9 grandchildren a significant gift of money on their 18th birthdays. Then In their wills everything was divided equally between their 3 children. This seems to me a good way of giving something to grandchildren at a point in their lives when they need it (eg university) and of course the gifts are staggered as each reaches the age of 18 which can help with financial planning.

I think 50-50 is fair, but if your parents wanted to they could give a smaller, specified sum to your DD and split the rest 50-50. That's what my DM has done and my brother (who has no children) is fine with that. And she has written her will so that if my DB does have children before she dies, or if he marries someone who already has children, those children will also inherit the same fixed amount as my DC.

50/50 in our wills between our children. We have made a small provision per grandchild of £1,000 which could perhaps be seen as unfair but not enough to worry anyone involved.

MargaretCavendish - no, that's not correct. A spouse inherits automatically, not a child.

"trying to pin down exactly where it may go is both pointless and petty."
I think this is a bit naive - unless the sums being talked about are quite low (e.g. £50k or less).
Good inheritance planning is one of the remaining few areas where there are significant savings still to be made, but sadly most people don't bother to find out or do anything about it until it is too late!

Pebbles I think you've misunderstood what I was saying - it's exactly because a spouse inherits that these people can't actually stop their nightmare scenario of their DILs getting the money. If their sons die after them but before their wives that's exactly what will happen. The money will have already been passed over to their sons, and their wives will get it.

I also happen to think it's pretty grim to not consider your DILs to be part of the family, but that's by the by.

The posters saying that your DB may leave some to your DD are making a massive assumption IMO. Surely the most likely contents of his will are to leave it all to his wife? So if she out lives both him and your parents (which is reasonably likely as women tend to live longer than men), she may well leave it to her own blood relatives rather than your DD who is only a niece by marriage.

Your parents may be concerned about the money they’ve saved ending up in a completely different family rather than with their grandchild.

Sorry, just RTFT and seen that my point has already been made.

Clause in my will

1. Gift of Residue

IF MY Wife survives me I GIVE all of my estate to her but if this gift fails then the following provisions of this Will shall apply instead of this clause:

1. Further Gift of Residue

I GIVE my Residuary Estate to be divided between such of my children as shall survive me and if more than one in equal shares upon their each attaining the age of twenty five but if any child of mine dies before me or before attaining a vested interest leaving a child or children then such child or children shall take by substitution such failed share and if there shall be more than one of such children they shall take in equal shares per stirpes but so that no grandchild of mine shall take whose parent is alive and so capable of taking

I think the split you have suggested is the fairest in the circumstances. My DP's left their estate to be split equally between their 3 DC's with nothing left to their 5 GC. The GC split was 3, 2, 0
so may have proved complicated or deemed unfair if they had left anything to next generation.

My PIL's have left a % of their estate to be divided between their GC with the rest to be split equally between their 3 DC's. When they made their will, each DC had 2 children(all now adults) so would be equal anyway, but since that time one GC has died so I assume the sum will now be split 5 ways between the surviving GC.

I know a couple who lived to a ripe old age and left a large estate. They had nine children but their will left it all to their youngest DD, who had nursed them in their old age - which I think is fair enough actually, but unfortunately she didn’t get to enjoy it as she didn’t survive for very long after her parents.

She was childless, so when she died she left it split between her two surviving sisters, one of whom was also childless and passed it all immediately to her favourite nephew. The other sister kept her share until she died many years later and it was shared out among her children (can’t remember how many).

So, of the original couple’s many grandchildren, just one of them ended up with 50% of the estate, while the others ended up with zero (if they were a child whose parents did not benefit because they died before their youngest sister) or had a much smaller proportion and received it much later (if they were a child of the other sister). Not necessarily what the couple would have intended!

Not sure if that makes any difference to your situation OP! Just a cautionary tale really