Deceased grandmother's jewelery

[Cheeseaandbiscuits]

Looking for opinions on this situation.
Elderly lady has recently died and her jewelery is being divided between female family, one daughter and six granddaughters.
As she did not specify who was to have what, it's for the family to decide. Majority of the jewellery is of little financial value but very sentimental, either she had most her life or were past down from her mother/grandmother.

The part I'm looking for opinions on comes down to the granddaughters. They are all adults. The lady had a close relationship with three of them and when they got older they would visit her frequently, make meals for her when she was ill etc. The other three didn't give her the time of day at all. She always got them a gift at birthday's and Christmas and never got a word of thanks. They chose never to visit her off their own backs, and when they were suggested to do so when she had little time left to live they wouldn't, nor when she was in hospital extremely ill. They knew it was now or never and chose never.

Do you think that the three granddaughters who chose not to be in her life are entitled to some of her jewellery collection now she's passed away?

YABU - they should still get
YANBU - they shouldn't get

YABU. You don't get to judge the quality of anyone else's relationship with their grandmother. If they want some of her jewellery they should have it.

The granddaughter’s who visited should get first pick - that way they can choose something that evokes a particular memory or relates to an event that they know the back story too.

The others should still get something though, because Nana wanted it that way.

It's her children that are deciding what's happening with her, she had sons too. They have mixed opinions.

I would tend to divide but allocate most personal pieces to the ones that were close to their grand mother.

The children should make that decision between them, or allow the close ones to choose first (after the daughter chooses the items they want)

Do check the jewellery though, occasionally pieces might be worth more than expected.

I personally treasure the rings I have from each of my grandmothers and wear them in their memory.

I imagine parents of the less engaged grandchildren may feel upset if their daughters do not get a perceived fair share and their views are also valid even though it may seem unfair if your children have been more engaged

Legally, each surviving child gets equal financial value of jewellery (assuming no surviving spouse). If they then wish to make gifts, it's up to them.

Reading this, I'm very glad that my DM has specified a piece of jewelry (and other items) for each of us in her will. She had a similar problem when her DM died overseas. All the nearest (physically) relatives descended like a bunch of locusts on everything.

I'd do as someone else has suggested. If you're the executor, allow each person to choose one (only) piece of jewelry as a memento, starting with the oldest.

I think the most natural thing would be for her daughter to decide. However, the daughter may not think it is worth cutting out her nieces if this will cause bad feelings with her brothers (though the jewellery is sentimental rather than valuable).

If I were the daughter, I would claim the jewellery for myself then, quietly when the fuss has died down, share some with the granddaughters who were close to her.

My aunt (only daughter) kept the things she was most attached to herself and then put other items in envelopes and did a lucky dip for the granddaughters and her two SILs. Seemed pretty fair to us.

Legally the jewellery belongs to either her surviving spouse or if none, equally between her children. If you wanted to be really technical about it, the jewellery should be valued and split between the children in equal monetary value.

Most families are able to come to some sort of compromise, such as the daughters get the jewellery and the sons get the tools etc. It's too expensive to pay a lawyer to sort out this type of thing.

The children should be encouraged to sit down and talk about the split of possessions.

Practically, it's up to the children to decide whether to gift anything (our if their own share) to grandchildren.

If she countinued to buy them birthday and Christmas presents then I'm sure she'd have wanted them included in the inheritance of her jewellery too. She seems to have treated everyone equally when she was alive.

I would let the three who were close to her have the choice to pick an item each and then they have made their choice allow the three who were indifferent to her whilst alive to choose a piece after them. This would seem fair to me especially if they had a piece of jewellery they particularly remember her wearing on their visits caring for her.

I'd let the daughter choose a piece of it first then let the 3 granddaughters who were close to her pick a piece each and then finally let the less close 3 have their turn.

@BlueSuffragette

I'd let the daughter choose a piece of it first then let the 3 granddaughters who were close to her pick a piece each and then finally let the less close 3 have their turn.

I would also do this. Everyone still gets something but those closer have a choice of something that has a personal memory attached

It’s pretty clear that you think you deserve the inheritance for being so involved with your grandma. However, it doesn’t work that way.

Also, realistically not letting the other granddaughters have anything is likely to cause resentment. It really isn’t worth causing a family fall-out over rings that aren’t worth anything but sentimental value. I’m sure that’s the last thing your grandma would have wanted, especially considering she still sent birthday and Christmas cards.

I agree with loveydovey give the ones who bothered first choice.

If that's what she said in her will then that's what should happen. Equal split. Try and give the most sentimental pieces to the attentive ones or let everyone choose a few pieces beginning with them.

If the jewellery is of no financial value, with the three non-close granddaughters even want any?

@RaspberryToupee
Not my grandmother

It does potentially seem unfair on her sons, whether they were in the visiting/caring camp or not. Although they probably wouldn't want to actually wear the jewellery themselves, they might like to keep it safe and have nice memories of their DGM wearing it - or give it to their wives, or even their own daughters, if they have any (now or in the future). presumably it wouldn't have just been given away to strangers if she'd only had sons and grandsons.

Without a will, it goes to the children who decide what to do with it. So they decide which grandchildren get what.

I would ask all the granddaughters if they would like some, and say it has no real financial value from the outset but is something to remember her by. Who knows, maybe the disengaged granddaughters won't want any. I would let the ones more involved have first pick though.

If it was her wish it should be followed, I agree with pp let each one choose a piece they would like and go from there.

OP, if there's no financial value then I'd disagree with most PPs and say the jewellery can't have sentimental value to those who couldn't be bothered to spend time with her. If there'll be friction and they don't know the totality of the pieces, given them less or buy some costume jewellery and give them that.

This is how my Granny's jewellery was split. The most helpful got first pick 1 piece each, then the others took 1 each. My uncle bought a book off raffle tickets and placed one ticket on a item and the matching ticket went into a concealed bag (luck dip), making it more fair. Don't forget to make sure total quantity of items is divided by 7, bundle the cheaper items together or with more expensive items to help.

The ones who never saw her should get nothing. An inheritance IS earned. Someone might leave their estate to the donkey sanctuary if their heirs have been absent. It’s their choice.