To think this is morally wrong?

[Banana0pancakes]

So DH's biological father died 4 years ago. He was a waste of space and did nothing but cause upset while he was alive.

Dh and I went to the funeral with DH's half brother to put the past to rest and support dh half brother.

At the wake dh met family he had never met before because of the loss of contact growing up, though dh half brother had always been close to this side of the family.

Dh grandfather died last year, dh had become close in the last 4 years after the funeral reconciled them.

We have had the will reading and went along. Dh was not mentioned in the will at all despite it being made in 2017.

Dh brother was left 1000.

Every other grandchild was named and left 2000.

DH's biological father was removed from the will and his third of the estate was given to the two remaining children of the grandfather. There is also a clause in the will that states should his children die - the two it is now shared between- their portion should be given to their own offspring.

So am I right in feeling this is immoral? They've removed dh father line completely out the equation, treated dh half brother differently to the other 4 grandkids and totally pretended dh doesnt exist.

I'm so sad for him. If he had received a split of his fathers share it would equate to 15k which would be lovely but not massively life changing, so it's not about the money. It's a about feeling like he's been shit on again.

We're not going to contest it, I just want to know if I'm being overly emotional or if this is actually a shit thing to do?

Your DH had only known his grandfather for the last 4 years - and i highly doubt it was an automatically 'close' relationship.
Why does he feel entitled to this money?

The will was updated in 2017, a year after this 'reconciliation'.
Seems grandad was open to developing a relationship with your dh and your dh has been able to have that time with him.
There's no reason why dh should have been left any money - he's never been a part of that family's life.

What country are you in OP?

@UntamedWisteria

In England and Wales, who is entitled to read a Will depends on whether or not Probate has been granted. Before the Grant of Probate is issued, only the Executors named in the Will are entitled to read the Will. After the Grant of Probate has been issued, the Will becomes a public document and anyone can then apply to the Probate Registry for a copy of the Will.

If a Grant of Probate hasn't been applied for and the Will has not been provided to the Probate Registry, it will not become a public document.

That's not the kind of reading posters are wondering about, she doesn't mean they read it she means they went to some kind of gathering where it was read out to the benificiaries like an Agatha Christie type scenario by the solicitor

I know that's what she meant! That's why I posted the facts ... she could have read a copy of the will on her laptop, but she implies that she attended some sort of formal meeting where others were present.

I voted YABU purely on the basis that absolutely no one should feel entitled to inheritance.
It sounds a bit shit, but I think to evaluate your worth to someone based on what they leave you after they've died is pretty grim

And there's always the possibity that he thought your oh was getting close to him because of the potential money.

Of course could be very wrong but older people are more likely to be paranoid. Its not unheard of that relatives start to become close to those likely to pass away within a few years.

No, its not immoral.

Grandfather was entitled to distribute his assets around the family as he wished, and you and DS have absolutely no grounds whatever to contest the will.

Untamed, that's the right question.

Wills are a legal and cultural construct. Try disinheriting someone in France if you think a will always reflects the testator's wishes.

If all the beneficiaries agree, OP, and you are in England, your DP could seek a variation to put him on an equal footing. If his siblings don't agree then he might not have redress, subject to the opinion of an expert in the field in your jurisdiction.

I know it's loaded, OP, but I'd try and help your DP understand this might not have reflected his DGF's ultimate wishes, just the wishes at the time of writing, might reflect his DGF's emotions about his DF and, of itself, shouldn't impact on your DPs relations with the rest of his family who ultimately didn't write this will.

I think I'll have to change my user name, maybe the OP would like it instead? He wasn't your grandfather and you have described your DH's father appallingly so YABU.

Try to ignore the PPs happy to ignore how emotionally loaded wills and bereavement can be, unless, of course, it affects them in which case things are entirely different.

It's not wrong to wish that your df had rewritten his will in later days when they'd had longer together, but presumably when he wrote it in 2017, they'd only been reconciled for a year. A year when they had been not in touch for, say 20 years, is not long.

And it does depend on your pov as to how you regard "really close".

I don't think it is reasonable for him to have expected a split of his fathers inheritance when there presumably was a good reason why they hadn't had contact-and you're saying it was his father's fault.
It would have been nice if he'd had the same as the other grandchildren, but again, after only reconnecting for a year, I don't think it would be mean not to.

I can understand your frustration and sense of injustice for your OH, but honestly I think you need to let this go. For whatever reason, the money wasn’t left for him and tbh the sums concerned aren’t going to be life changing for any beneficiaries. Let it go and help your partner to let it go and any grief for the relationship that it sounds like he never really had.

In 2017, about a year after your husband's father dies, his grandfather gets round to updating his will. In 2020, he dies and leaves your husband nothing. Your husband and his grandfather had spent the four years getting to know one another better.

Your husband's grandfather may well have been coming round to thinking that he'd like to include your husband. Or he may not.

I think you're being unreasonable to think that a will written in 2017 ought to reflect a 2020 relationship.

I'd be concentrating on the gift that his estranged father dying gave him - the time with his grandfather.

I think it is a horrible thing to do, yes.
He should have had equal rules for all. I am confused as to the half brother though, as they must have shared a father, so how did the half brother get anything ? Such an odd sum to give him, surely he should have had an equal amount to all the other grandchildren, or more fairly an equal split of their father’s passed on share, between him and your DH. The other grandchildren will inherit this from their parents.
It is fairly common , if you disinherit a child, to pass their share on to their children anyway.
Must be a blow for your DH.

A will written in 2017 after they had known each other a short time makes sense that he wouldn’t inherit to me. It’s just money, it doesn’t mean that at the end his grandfather didn’t care about him and something written 3 years ago doesn’t reflect it.

If I were him I would reflect on the good few years and that they managed to have that reconciliation and enjoy time getting to know each other. Just because he maybe forgot about his will doesn’t mean he didn’t care.

My OH inherited everything from his father.
He left out his other children because they had leached off him for years. Any money given to them would not have been shared with their children, his grand children and Gt grandchildren.
We did give a payout to all the full grandchildren and GGC despite it not being in the will. There is usually something going on for people to be left out but the outside world doesn't always know. Did it cause problems for us? yes because greed takes over. Do they speak to us? No.
But their children benefitted so I feel morally we made the right choice.
The will was legal and they had no reason to contest it.

Sounds pretty fair to me.

So, your husband met this man four years ago and the will was written three years ago. You think he should have left something in his will to a man he had known for one year?! I think you're a bit bonkers to be honest.

Can totally understand feeling hurt at the unequal treatment of the grandchildren, and giving one of them half the amount seems to have had some thought put into it. It seems petty, although who knows what the thought process was.

I’m wondering though – if the will was written in 2017, wasn’t this only not long after the father’s funeral? So your DH and his grandfather had only recently made contact and were just making the first steps towards establishing a relationship of some kind?

Perhaps if he had written his will in 2020, four years down the line, he would have said something different. I guess he wasn’t particularly expecting to die when he did, and people don’t update their wills frequently. I don’t think it necessarily needs to detract from the relationship they built and the bond they shared later on.

It's not 'immoral'. Morality doesn't really come into it when dividing up an estate, IMO. The deceased has the right to leave their assets to whomever they choose in the manner they choose.

Was it hurtful considering your DH and his grandfather had seemingly 'rebuilt' their connection? Sure, but Grandad didn't have to consider 'hurt feelings' either.

Is it immoral? No, I don’t think so. Is it the way I would write my will were I in the same situation? No, absolutely not. I would treat all classes of relatives equally, especially if we’re only talking about relatively small sums of money like £1,000 or £2,000.

He clearly had a much stronger relationship with those he’s chosen to leave money to. However I would expect him to leave a letter alongside the will to explain why some grandchildren were left out, if for no other reason than to prevent them challenging it.

I do think you’re right not to challenge it, it would drag out, frustrate you, cause bad feeling and probably not be worth it financially.

If someone has been deliberately named as not allowed to receive anything then that is how it is. If someone isn't actually named then they can contest their "share".
In England.

I don't have children
I have written a will
I have nieces nephews and cousins
Some have been included in the will, some haven't. The ones that have are the ones I see regularly and we have a good relationship. The ones I haven't included i don't see very often and if that changed next week I would not be changing my will.
It's my choice what I do with my estate.
Same here. I don't know the background but a year isn't very long.
No one is entitled to anything they have not worked for. If someone chooses to leave you money fair enough

You said yourself dh's father was waste of space. So maybe he had bad relationship with his own father too, and your dh and his half brother having loving relationship with grand father. As for expecting some inheritance after only knowing for very short period of time, it doesn't look well. It gives a impression that he tried to be close because of money. If that's not the case, just carry on having contact with long lost relatives and forget about what he didn't get.

I agree it’s immoral. These situations are complex family matters. I’ve read threads similar to this where someone has been a step father for years since been small then left the supposedly step daughter not a penny and it all went to his niece. Even though he raised her from young and was married to her mother.

It’s sad but it seems to be a common issue.