To be fighting about FIL's will

[Angelofod]

So my husband's father died last year rather unexpectedly. Anyway fast forward to sorting out his will and he has put in there that there is 10k to be split between his grandchildren. When he died we were expecting our first child, he already had 3 grandchildren from his eldest son, one of which has been adopted by another family and the other 2 are in care. I'm not saying they shouldn't get their share but do you think my child should too? FIL knew we were expecting and he was so excited to be having a grandchild he would actually see and be able to have a connection with! We were all utterly devastated when he passed. The only issue is the person sorting the will out doesn't think my child should receive anything as he wasn't born when the will was made or before his grandfather died. I just can't help but think FIL would have definitely wanted our child to have a share, the will still hasn't been sorted and my child has been born now and is still a grandchild.

We will be calling citizens advice when they open for some advice on the legalities, we just want to do what's right

"Why should my child suffer just because he's not in care?"

Wtf?

They are the only GC with their birth parents.

Maybe that's worth more than any share of £10,000

Sorry, that post didn't come out right-as it is totally insulting to the parents of the adopted child.

These type of posts are so frustrating. It’s all well and good for posters to say what they think would be fair, but that’s not how the law works! The law will look at the wording of the will. In this case ‘grandchildren’. Unfortunately for the OP, this means children alive at the time of her FIL’s death. If he had meant for children conceived but as yet unborn to be included, the will should have stated this (en ventre sa mere).
As is not uncommon with wills, poor drafting is the problem. But if the executor decides to deviate from the terms of the will, he may find himself in trouble (whether he changes the will to benefit your child, or his own).
You could look into getting a deed of variation, but this may end up costing almost as much as your child may benefit.

BIL can not bend the rules the law is the law. An adopted child unless specifically named in the will, will not be included as a grandchild as by law they are no longer a legal grandchild following adoption. Unless there is specific wording to include the unborn child they will not qualify under the will either.

YABVU

Look at the will first, and yes this is worth fighting tooth and nail for.

In practical terms, it's really not. Even if OP had a good legal case, which based on what she's written doesn't seem likely, it typically isn't worth pursuing stuff like this for a couple of grand. The issue isn't how much the money might mean to OP or her DC, it's about how much it is compared to the costs of fighting it.

Also OP I suspect CAB won't be able to do much for you, if so then maybe it would be worth seeing an actual solicitor even if it means paying for an hour of advice. If someone professionally qualified explains to you that children not born yet don't count will put your mind at rest, it'll be worth it.

I wonder who FIL got to draft this? Any solicitor or will writer worth their salt should've raised the issue with him. Wasn't a DIY job was it?

Why should my child suffer just because he's not in care?

the adopted child is no longer part of YOUR family

Sorry, above post an error

Zippey how old are you, 5?

Bejam legally, maybe not. But in every way that matters that child is still very much part of their family. If my GC or nephew were adopted they would still mean every bit as much to me as they did before some paperwork.

I was sympathetic to start with, regardless of circumstances most grandparents would want all their grandchildren to ‘have a share of the pot’, however there’s a legal ‘line’ for a reason. However after reading

Why should my child suffer just because he's not in care?

I mean, what the actual fuck. Your child suffer? These children are in care, they’ve actually known suffering and that’s not from the lack of what’s actually quite a meagre sum of money in terms of saving. Your child’s current or future happiness will not be affected by not getting this money in any significant way - and if you think it will, then set up your own dedicated savings account for them. Absolutely shocking what you’ve said here, there’s no defending it.

Adopted children are looked on as part of the family legally, at least in Scottish law, so an adopted child has the same rights as a biological child, which is how it should be.

And I suspect your unborn child will be entitled to thier share of the £10,000, but get some legal advice first.

Hope you are successful OP.

I think what I meant is regardless of whether they are in care it shouldn't make a difference legally. The fact they are in care isn't actually relevant to my question and I kinda wish I hadn't put that information in the post as it's all people can focus on instead of the actual question. What it should have been is 3 children born at the time and one not.

My child will not suffer the trials our nephews have suffered but that will not change regardless of 2.5 k 5 k or a million quid. Will my child suffer financially? Probably! What is stopping there being an equal share and my BIL topping up his children's money? As you all think he's such a caring character?

You could look into getting a deed of variation, but this may end up costing almost as much as your child may benefit.

A deed of variation could only be made if the affected beneficiaries are adults. It could not be made if the intention is to split the £10k in a way other than was directed by the will. This is because the beneficiaries who would be negatively affected by the variation are under 18. In order for a variation of this type to be made, a court order would be required. This would be very costly.

The simplest option would be for the remaining adult beneficiaries to put in place a deed of variation to benefit your DS to the same value as the other grandchildren out of their own portion of the estate and thus not affecting the £10k. They are, however, under no legal obligation to do so.

I'm bowing out now. Legally and morally you have no leg to stand on.

Genuinely shocked at the number of people who would have no problems taking money from children in care. What a world.

The two grandchildren who were alive/born at the time of death and hadn't been adopted out are legally entitled to £5000 each. Any change from that, including giving anything to the adopted out child or including your DS, requires an official deed of variation. Without one, the executor is guilty of a crime.

@FilthyforFirth good! you haven't said anything at all helpful anyway

I wish MN would make their mind up around these things.

Last week there was a post from someone who's children had inherited from Grandad (named in will) and her sister who didn't have children at the time and had stated that children weren't on her agenda, had a child years later and wanted some of the inheritance.

There were a lot of posters advising the OP that she should remortgage, give her sister the money etc when the children were actually named, and not calling the sister grabby, yet this OP has been flamed for asking the question when her FIL knew that the child was due to be born.

Unfortunately OP the law is the law, however it may be worth obtaining some legal advice just to be fully certain on the legalities of the will, especially with the adoption, even if your chold doesn't inherit, it will be fully clear with no blurred lines and the thinking 'was it right'.

@MCC85 to be honest, the main reason is exactly that, we just want to RIGHT thing to happen. If our child doesn't benefit then fair enough but if he should then he should! Regardless of the situation of anyone else involved

Morally I think your child should benefit from the will. I hope you are successful with your claim.

There is legal precedent for children in vitro being included in an estate distribution. It all depends on the testator’s intent.

The OP is mistaken to think that £2500 is going to result in a huge windfall when her child reaches 18. Inflation will soon erode any increase in value from bank interest. By 2037 it will be almost worthless. From a legal point of view it sounds as if it could be another Jarndyce versus Jarndyce