AIBU to my sister over inheritance?

[LadyDracula]

6 years ago my father died leaving a generous amount to my sister and I (around 35k each) and left a substantial amount (135k) to my two children who are now 14 and 15. It was my fathers wishes for the money to be used towards educating my children as education was something he truly valued, yet at the time my sister and I growing up, he was unable to fulfil.

Fast forward to now, my sister has had 2 children (aged 1 and 3.5). I met up with her for lunch over the weekend for a general catch up and mentioned I have just been buying additional uniform for my Dd14. She said to me that she was looking around local private schools for her son who is due to start school next year and that she wanted to know how much the ‘budget’ was per term or per year. When I asked her what she meant she explained she wanted to know how much money was left for her two children’s education from the inheritance Dad left. When I explained none and that it had been spent (or will be spent over the next few years) on my two dc she went mental and ranted on about how selfish I had been and she had never thought for one second I would spend all of ‘our’ money on my own kids. I was totally blown away and hadn’t for one minute assumed he expected any of the money. My children both attended state primary schools and I only enrolled them at the local private schools for their secondary education. At the time I enrolled my youngest she was only just pregnant with her first child and when Dad left the money in his will he said for X and Y (my kids). My sister was an older first time mother (39) and I suspect my father thought she had chosen a career over a family. I suppose I had that thought too.

My sister left and after ignoring my calls for 2 days has said today that she needs to know my next steps. She went on to explain my best option is to move my children from their current school - including my eldest who is now studying for GCSEs - to a cheaper one and she can have the difference. I told her that won’t be happening and that my children are settled and happy. She then went on that yet again it’s all about my children etc etc.

I have no idea how to make this situation any better and don’t want to lose my relationship with my only sister over this. I am a single mum so there’s no way I could ever afford to subsidise the costs either to appease my sister and give her some money. Equally I do feel awful because I know there’s no way her and her DH could afford to pay for a private education for their children either, and now she feels like her kids have been treated unfairly.

This thread is a bit nuts. A lot of people are confusing what can legally be done with what might have been morally more acceptable. I have a few questions.

1- Regarding the wording. Presumably there are, broadly speaking, two options here. Either the will says “£35k each left to X and Y, £135k left to A and B for their education” or it says something in the region of “£35k each left to X and Y, a further £135k left to X for the education of A and B”. Since we already know from OPs replies that they were named specifically, we can eliminate the possibility that the wording simply said “£135k left to the grandchildren”. This obviously begs the question as to why the sister would ever think it was going to be available to her. Regardless of the wording and how the trust (or not) was consequently set up, the sister was not named as a beneficiary of the £135k at all on account of her presumed continued childless status.
2- those saying that it should morally split between all the children, I have a couple of issues with this suggestion. If we ignore for a second the legal implications of spending the money in a manner other than how it was intended, how could this ever work? If the £135k was placed for the grandchildren’s education then how long does it get held before being assumed one sister won’t have children? And say the obvious answer is that half is spent on OPs children and the rest is available to the sister for her potential children, what would happen to the other half if she never had those children? Does the sister then get it to herself? Not only is this legally a problem, it’s also morally as questionable as the original using the money for the two children which already existed.
3- why does the sister expect that her DC should benefit from the start of their education when she knows her DNs have only benefitted from secondary school age. If she’s expecting it to be all fair and equal then presumably she will have the same money available to her. This would be more years at primary (as the fees are often lower for the younger children) but certainly she shouldn’t expect to be entitled to her children’s education being paid for right the way through.

It might be morally all a bit of a minefield (and legally it is too unless we know the wording of the will which I imagine OP will get when she rings the solicitor. I’d imagine she’s forgotten the exact wording in the last 6 years as you’d expect of most people!) but the problem seems to be that the sister is trying to claim money which has never been named as hers. I refuse to believe that when their father sat down to make his will with the solicitor that the solicitor didn’t say “but what if the other one has children?”. I imagine it was assumed that based on her continued assurances that there would never be any, plus her age, that it was a fairly safe assumption (at the time) that what she had always said would indeed end up being the case. If we all had crystal balls that showed us what happens in 2/3/4 years time we’d all be much richer I’d imagine. Regardless of all that, the sister had her two years to contest the will and she didn’t. Clearly as recently as 4 years ago she herself thought there would be no children so had no reason to contest it. She had no idea herself that a year on from those two years being up that the situation would be different. How could she therefore, reasonably expect a man who had been dead two years at that point to have had foresight over her life for the next 4 years when she herself didn’t have that?

Whilst it might be a nice thing to do to offer her money, I don’t think the OP should have to put herself at a financial disadvantage (ie remortgage) to do so. Especially not for someone who has suggested she move the children into a different school in the middle of GCSEs

Also: if I was your sister, I’d never speak to you again. You knew exactly what you were doing

@SavageBeauty73 How "morally sneaky" do you think stealing from her children's trust find would be?

Legally she isn't owed anything. But morally she is. Have you really not thought at any points in the last 4 years (ie since she first announced she was pregnant), "hang on, surely dsis deserves some of the education fund too?". If I was her I'd end my relationship with you over this.

Are you able to pay her half of the money (£67,500), spread over the next 17 years (ie while her children are in school). That's about £4k a year. She can then choose how she best uses it for her kids education - she can put it towards school fees, tutoring, music lessons etc.

@Thatwasfast If I were OP and you were my sister I'd be grateful that you'd not speak to me again. Read the effing thread.

Off topic but: what a complete waste of money.

Op your children could have had 100k+ to get them through uni without any debt and a house deposit each. Instead they got... what? Some GCSE teaching in a nice old building? 13 classmates instead of 28?

AT LAST somebody said it. As someone who is not from the UK, I find the casual acceptance of this on this thread very unsettling. Oh and apparently 135k won't even cover it! Makes me feel a bit ill tbh.

Have all British people been brainwashed that this is a normal thing to do for your children? It's not normal in other countries and guess what, their kids get on just fine!

Unless your kids have special needs that require a specialist residential school, then this money is completely pissed away on fancy outbuildings.

Let's hope they actually go to University with all that expensive education! Oh wait, they'll be totally skint and God knows where they'll get the money for it.

The other way of looking at this is that She is asking you to steal from your ch8ldren to support her children. Because it’s their money not your money anyway.

What’s more if the money was split 50 50 then, because of the difference in your incomes, she would be able to privately educate her children from primary, whilst you would only be able to support university and extra curricular educational activities with that money as you would not have enough for privvate school.unless you find s9mewhere with maximum fees of 5k per year rather than per term!

That’s not fair either

Yes things might have been different if she had children when your father was alive. That’s life. It’s not fair.

I think OP’s sister is the one being unreasonable here.

In what universe is she living in to think that £135,000 would get more than two kids through one stage of private school?

She’s being ridiculous to expect there would have been anything left - especially as it seems like she was planning to educate hers privately all the way through! Bonkers.

@Collaborate

OP hasn't answered that. She was asked directly and came back, ignored those questions and answered others.

It could have been left to children and be legally theirs with half each in a fund.

OR

It could all have been left the OP with a so old note from her father explaining his wish that it be spent on education.

One option makes it legally her children's and she can't do anything. The other option makes it legally hers which she can legally do as she likes with. Of course she wouldn't have been obligated to consider her sisters children and their education once they were born, but given what she knows her father would want... It's difficult to accept that she didn't even think about it. But since she won't answer, we don't know.

Regarding the point about stealing from the children, if the OP minded to give her sister any cash, it would be from the OP's own share of the inheritance, not her children's inheritance. Hence, OP was talking about remortgaging the house (whose mortgage she paid off with her own personal £35K inheritance), not pulling her children out of their schools.

Op if you do want to give your sister some money, remind her that yours have only had private secondary education. you don’t need to hand over £67k this week .

Or ever.

What would you have done if you had had another child? Kept some for him / her as it was another grandchild and you would have treated your 3 the same?

This says it all really. It is obvious that OP wouldn't have deprived her own child if she'd had another one.

Those saying that she can't take her children's money are missing the point. She doesn't have to take her children's money, but she does need to make it up to her sister if she wants to be on good terms again. The OP isn't penniless, and could come to a sensible arrangement with her.

Everyone saying that the OP 'legally can't' do anything with the money left to her children - how is she managing to spend it on school fees, then? I'm assuming the kids aren't being personally invoiced. It was 'her father's wish' that it be used for eduction, she claims; but if, as people are asserting, it is absolutely her kids' money - then it's up to them how it's spent, isn't it?

It was specifically stipulated that it was for their education.

Let's hope they actually go to University with all that expensive education! Oh wait, they'll be totally skint and God knows where they'll get the money for it.

They’ll get a loan from the government for tuition fees and a loan for their living costs, like everyone else.

It doesn’t sound like the OP is a high earner so they’ll probably get a very generous loan.

Besides, that isn’t even real debt - it’s just 9% of your income over £25,000. My ds is only paying back about £60 a month - it’s really just a graduate contribution tax.

@WomanWithAltitude Read the bloody thread. If OP gives any of her children's money to her sister that is thread and she would be looking at an immediate custodial sentence. Where does theft from one's own children fall in your moral compass?

She doesn't have to take her children's money

Where do you think she's going to magic the money up from then? You thin a single mother should re-mortgage her house so that a family with a good dual income can benefit?

Remortaging your house to give some money to your sister is not a crime. Don't be so bloody stupid.

She does not have to take the children's money in order to make things right here.

The father left the two sisters exactly equal amounts.

The OP knows full well that if her sister had had children when he died that the money would have been split between them. Legally she doesn't have to do anything, but morally - she knows what happened was unfair.

A 67,500 mortgage is not the end of the world.

I’m blown away at the cost of education!!
There are far more eloquent replies than mine, but for what it’s worth;

It’s not possible to plan for future grandchildren, by youngest’s cousin is 27 years older than him. If this was our family, and my kids were missing out, I would accept their grandad had not known them, and therefore could not have gifted them. It would be a bitter pill, but I cannot see how I could change it.
Had the money been left to your kids without the condition of education, would she still have expected them to cough up half to their new cousins?
Hope this doesn’t cost your relationship op, but I don’t see it as your money to give away. It’s also not her fault to have got the shitty end of the stick, but she’s made an assumption.

@ChrisjenAvasarala OP deal with it in the OP - "and left a substantial amount (135k) to my two children". The only thing we don't know is whether the will established an educational trust or whether the reference to education was just the father's wishes and feelings. Either way, the money deos not belong to OP and it is so bizarre that many posters here are encouraging her to play fast and loose with:

1. He children's money; and
2. Her children's education: and
3. Her own financial security.

If the Will said it was for YOUR children's education then that's what it's for . Not hers who didn't exist . I would double check the wording in case she tries to claim it back off you . My friend lost her house over a similar situation with her brother .
Inheritance makes people crazy ! FWIW how did she think she would get private education for 2 kids for all their schooling for what's left of the £135k 🙄

She absolutely should not remortgage her house! She is a single mother with two dependents, no way should she jeapordise her family’s financial security to pay for private schooling that will cost a lot more than £67k anyway.

This is not a debt the OP, or her children, owe.

@LadyDracula here is how I would make it right.

Bearing in mind that your sister and her DH are actual fairly wealthy and it is obvious that the pot is nowhere big enough to put her two children through private education from age 4 to 18, clearly she and DH will be paying for most themselves anyway. It's not exactly that they need the money but want the principle of fairness to be upheld in the long run.

If the £135k had been shared equally you would each have had £67,500, and it is 20 years until your Sister's youngest is 21 and presumably completes university.

£67.5k over the next 20 years is £280 per month. You haven't mentioned your income but if you could afford that then that would be the best way to set things equally. More likely, that is out of your league. In which case suggest something manageable say £50 per month until your kids have left full time education, then once they are adults you can increase it - whatever you can manage without putting yourself in poverty, possibly this will end up contributing to your Sister's kids' first house deposit rather than their education by the time you have made it up to £67500, but you can get there eventually.

You've acted entirely legally but not fairly. Your sister is reasonable to expect a fair contribution but unreasonable to expect your children to leave schools where they are settled.

Your DFs wishes were that his grandchildren at the time of his death received education with his money. He couldn't possibly have foreseen more grand children, wills are not made on ifs and buts.

This.

It's a really hard situation, but ultimately the money was left by a DGF to his existing GCs. The GCs that he knew and with whom he had a relationship. OP isn't the one being a CF.

We see it all of the time on will threads that inheritance is not a right, it's a privilege, particularly for grandchildren who wouldn't normally inherit. The Ops DF did what he thought was right at that time. He could have left it for all of his possible future GCs but presumably in his mind he had two grandchildren that he had a relationship with, had watched grow, and wanted them to benefit from the money for an education so he left it to them (by the sound of it anyway). So yes, he may have been badly advised or it may have been exactly what he wanted.

Imagine if the children were older. 'My DF left money for my DNs to buy houses. The money was left to them by name. I now have children that were born after DF's death that none of us had expected I'd have, and I think they should benefit from the inheritance. AIBU to make my DNs sell and share the money with their cousins Or make my DSis remortgage to give my DCs some money?' It's ludicrous!

I would not be remortgaging my house in order to give your DSis the money and risking financial difficulty (although that is potentially the only way to maintain a relationship with your sister which I suspect is irrevocably damaged by now anyway) and I absolutely wouldn't entertain the idea of pulling my DCs out of school. It's a horrible situation but I wouldn't be potentially putting myself in a precarious situation like that. The DSis has had more than enough chance to speak up, presumably she knew the terms of the will which didn't say 'for my grandchildren' but for 'Jane and John'.

Op has also made her choices on the basis the money was for her DCs and shouldn't have to potentially put herself in financial difficulty because her sister has decided she deserves to take her DNs inheritance.

Such a sad situation. Frankly this family would all have been happier if there was no £135k. I am sure ops kids would have been perfectly fine in state schools (agree with Elspeth on that) and for a negligible benefit of “better” schooling sisters relationships damaged if not destroyed. I don’t think there are wrong doers here but an unfortunate chain of events.