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DParents visited a couple of days ago and were talking about redoing their will, as some bits are out of date and they want me to be executor so were asking my opinion.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?

But this is exactly my point capelin - by your account this all shook out 'many years later'. How was it still 'their money' by then? Hadn't it become completely mixed up with all the recepients' other money? Presumably it would have been ok if the original inheritor had spent it all, so why shouldn't she give it to whoever she liked?

Trying to control anything other than the immediate destination of your inheritance is like giving someone a gift and then telling them when and how they're allowed to use it. It's not yours anymore.

It all shook out many years later for most of the beneficiaries, but the one lucky grandchild got it within a couple of years of the death of the original couple.

I agree the person leaving the money only has control over its immediate destination. My point is that’s precisely why a person may want to leave some of their money directly to (adult) grandchildren rather than just to their children.

50/50 IMO

But I would suggest that one / some items of sentimental and perhaps monetary value are written in for your DD. My grandmother gave me a ring, which I treasure. Probably worth a bit, but I'd never sell it. I also took a few books and other small items (zero monetary value) which have memories attached.

I think the only way to divide an estate fairly is to split it equally between children. And another little treasures also split equally. Otherwise you run the risk of really upsetting one of your children/grandchildren and that’s awful

Agreed Jigglytuff. Surely one can trust your "own" children to make provisions for the grandchildren.

MargaretCavendish yep I totally get what you mean. It would be very unfortunate if one of the sons died shortly after their parents and yes obviously any money inherited then would therefore become part of the son's estate. My PIL's have just tried to ensure that they have done the best they can for their family but they can't put in their will every eventuality. However all us daughter in laws know how they feel and I for one would follow their wishes should that unfortunate circumstance occur. I'm pretty certain the other two would do the same, but mainly because it has been openly discussed with all of us and won't come as a surprise.
Trust me, I'm aware of how you feel when you've been unfairly treated in a will by parents but that's a whole other story!
Hence the reason we've been very clear and have written letters to explain how to sort things out ( in non solicitor speak) to all our children so they know exactly how we've made things fair. I would never have any of our children be made to feel how I and my sister was. It was shit then and I still feel shit about it now.

only read page one and whilst 50/50 sounds fair there are also millions of people who mention their grandchildren in their will.

It seems a bit sad to me in a very very small family such as yours your DD cant be mentioned! Surely she is also close to them>? Why should she be left out?

You dont even need to give her vast sums but I think if they can afford it - leaving a GC a few thousand would be a wonderful gesture and gift to make - leaving the BULK of the estate to the DC. Different people/circumstances all require different views and ways of doing things but I have only have one GC I will certainly be mentioning them in my will and making sure a specific amount is left directly to them, without parental control and if they want to go mad with it - so be it

You would like to think you can trust people but no - you cant! I know too many stories in RL where siblings - even mothers and fathers have diddled their own dc out of GP wills - we see it all the time on here!
Thats why if I had one GC I would without a doubt name them and leave them something - ££ if I could and certainly a token item (s) Then its legal and done properly should that recourse need to be sadly drawn on.

I think 50/50 is fairest. And I say that as someone who has recently been the grandchild who got 1/3 in a similar family situation to the OP (my grandparents had two children and one grandchild). I felt pretty awkward tbh. I'm a high earner who is comfortable. My parents are comfortable too. My uncle is not particularly well off and could probably have used a larger share, but it was what my grandparents decided they wanted to do with their money., and I don't have the kind of relationship with my uncle where I could discuss it (he fell out with my mum when I was about eight and I've seen him twice since - at my grandparents' funerals). My parents knew. I didn't until after the last grandparent had died. I was astonished - I had expected it to go to the two children.

I do think its strange however to talk of the dc who have not arrived and may never.
I do believe in dealing with the hand you already have.

The grandchild who is here - is - well here - ! If I have lots of GC I may be different.

euro its every persons right to leave their money to who they want too. Some people are stupid! They leave X thinking something will happen but never put that in writing! But ultimately its their money!

It doesn't become a free for all - its their money to leave who they want too and I think you should accept that gift graciously!

Its worse when the money has been left to one person and its been accepted with disgrace!

Trying to control anything other than the immediate destination of your inheritance is like giving someone a gift and then telling them when and how they're allowed to use it. It's not yours anymore

well you would be amazed how people try and do that! control money gifts and all sorts of gifts.

Surely THE MOST cautionary tale is of Peter Sellers estate, his own DC didn't inherit a penny it went to his last wife who he was trying to divorce and his money - money that he made from his skills and life has gone to

The fortune is now in the hands of Frederick’s daughter Cassie Unger, a student in America, who was born four years after the actor's death

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/7892368/Peter-Sellers-changed-his-will-on-the-day-he-died-legal-papers-show.html

People on here saying they feel its unfair to have their own GP leave them money - imagine that scenario????

DH's grandma had two sons - FIL and his brother. Each had 2 children. Brother died almost 30 years ago . His wife moved to the other end of the country with the two children- who were very small- and Grandma rarely saw them (every couple of years for an afternoon) and never saw them for the last 9 or 10 years and never heard from them apart from Christmas card.
Grandma was widowed and lived very close to PIL, looked after DH and SIL every day when they were little and remained very close for rest of life. Was looked after by PIL as she became infirm. She loved DS too, who was her only great grandchild when she died.
When she died her will left her estate to DH and SIL, (apart from personal items to PIL) and not to the two cousins.
No one knew - FIL knew she had left it to her grandchildren but did not realise it was only DH and SIL. He thought she would have divided it equally. She explained in the will why she had done it- closeness of relationship throughout life and said she had discussed it with her husband before he died and it was also his wish.
It has caused bad feeling- not that DH and SIL see these cousins but there was a quite threatening solicitor's letter from them saying they felt the 50% that should have been their father's should have gone to them- and it has been very stressful for DH and SIL.
However, when we met our solicitor (or grandma's) he said it was her estate to do with as she wished. She was in sound mind and clear about what she wanted, why and what the implications were. He was clear there were no grounds for a challenge.
They have backed off completely now but there will be no relationship going forward. Money is very divisive. People feel entitled and aggrieved when what they expect does not happen.

I inherited something from my grandparents but only a token amount, and would absolutely not have expected anything more than that. If your DD doesn't appear in the will at all, I might suggest that they consider leaving her something specific (cash or possessions), but not more than, say, 1% of the total amount. The rest to split between you and your brother.

Sorry, meant to say that the reason it was nice to have a small amount from my grandparents was that I could buy something specific with it and remember them with it.

newyearnewyew I think one thing we have learned from all of this is that everyone with anything at all to leave - even just personal possessions- should have a properly made will. If you have property and/or investments and money, and your will is more complex in terms of how you are leaving things, you need really good advice from a specialist solicitor. DH and I have an appointment to re-do ours, especially as DS and DD are very young.

50/50 is fairest, but if they want to include DD, they could say she gets £20k (for example) and then it's 50/50 on everything remaining.

That's how my grandparents worked it.

Does noone else think the actual appropriate answer was "its your money, you should do as you choose"?

Yes totally agree.

It's really all very dependent on individual circumstances... I mean an estate worth a few million and two dc? Is one dc left a slightly less share of millions really going to feel aggrieved if the gc get something?!

It depends how much there is to go round. But yes, don't rely on anyone doing anything after your gone, if you want a piece of jewellery or cash to go to someone, for goodness sake write it down legally!!

The only fair way is 50:50. If they want to leave anything to grandchildren maybe suggest a watch, bowl, desk. My gran left me something i loved growing up which in a charity shop might get £2-3 but to me it was priceless as id known it all my life. Everytime i see it i remember it on my grans window ledge and the fact i was allowed to play with it occasionally. My cousin got my grandads watch as it meant something to him. Maybe your parents have something similar.

People don't react well after a death and there is always the potential for falling out.

One of my grandparents left specific bequests to named grandchildren. Problematic because a 5th grandchild was born after the will was written and thus excluded. I would expect a competent solicitor to put in "and any further children of..." clause.

My uncle by marriage is one of three - both he and his brother have step children, his sister has children. His mother caused ructions by leaving only small bequests him and his siblings (all over 65, so we think the rationale was that they didn't "need" money) m and dividing the bulk of her estate between her grandchildren. The only issue was that she only specified the blood grandchildren. My uncle was and is furious. He has been in my cousins lives since they were small children and has always regarded them as "his" children. The fact his mother made the distinction was deeply deeply hurtful.

My mother died a few years ago. When her mother died 2yrs later her sister told me how upsetting she found it that my siblings and I were inheriting because "her Mummy had died" (direct quote) and her own children were inheriting nothing. My relationship with my aunt is poor anyway and deteriorated dramatically after I pointed out that if she fucked off and died too her children would inherit and we might all be happier and moreso as I am one of three and she only has two children they would inherit more (50:50 will between two siblings, their share passing on death to children)

She didn't understand/feel it fair that my mother's 50% share of the estate came to us her children because she was dead. Apparently by dying before her mother she has no inheritance rights and everything should have gone to my aunt as my grandmother's sole remaining child.

My grandfather got a lot of help in his last 5yrs of life from his grandchildren. He rewrote his willl late on so that each of his children received a quarter share and the grandchildren split a quarter share. This was the only uncontroversial will!!! Although there were no "step" grandchildren to cloud the matter!

Again, this is why I say (assuming your children aren't idiots), leave the money to the children only and then they will make the appropriate provisions/gifts for the grandchildren at the appropriate life stages.

In principle, 50:50 is the straightforward fairest.

But in v wealthy families it is common for money to be left to GC so that they have the money when they most need it, and perhaps because the GPS have already helped their own Dc buy buying them a house, I.e effectively given them an early inheritance.

50/50