Inheritance - what's fair?

[BrittleBean]

NC for this.

Relative's will stipulates that 65% of their estate be divided between three nieces / nephews and 35% between great nieces / nephews.

Niece 1 has three children
Nephew has one
Niece 2 has two

Is it reasonable that each great-niece / nephew receives an equal share or unreasonable that one family inherits a larger total share than the other two?

TIA

Yes that's fair
The money is being left to individuals not 'families' and is equally split between the different individuals
It's quite thoughtful

You are cogitating on what you might get, you are even discussing it with your friends sister as to what is fair. This person isn't even dead! I would be horrified if I thought my relatives were talking about my demise in terms of my value when dead and gone. I honestly think it is vulgar and undignified to have these conversations about 'what I'm getting and what you're getting', like vultures hopping round a dying animal.

Equal money to each £100 -50% to 2 children would be £25 each, 50% between 5 grandchildren is £50 to 5 is £10 each.

I have a brother and a sister who each have two children, I only have one. I would be upset if I got less that them, unless it's stipulated specifically in the will then I think it's immoral

Definately everyone is treated as an individual. It is not family money, it is for the person.

I know a case with family friends where family had a fall out. Grandmothers Will said that x% should go to each grand child. Daughter has 4 children and son has 1 child. Son thought it should be divided 50/50 so that sisters kids would share 50% and his daughter would get the 50%. Everyone involved were adults and everyone else thought the grand children should be treated as individuals and also the will did I indicate a % for each grandchild. Son took it to court and lost. He never spoke to his sister and her kids ever again. His wife and daughter visit the sister a lot he time and goes to family holidays and celebrations but he stays home.

Mango - why immoral?

The inheritance is going to individuals who are presumably loved equally hence the equal amount. I think it would be stranger if the 3 child family got less because of their parents choice to have 3.

There are times where an unequal inheritance is justified eg one recipient had a lump sum already, one recipient is disabled so needs extra financial assistance

I think he’s done it well. Essentially the niece/nephew level is split fairly and then the younger generation is treated as individuals.

Eg, if the inheritance was £300k

Level 1: £65k each
Level 2: 17.5k each

If you look at it per family it looks uneven but by the time the children inherit, they will be independent adults and the parents won’t have a choice on how the money is spent.
Family 1 (3) £117.5
Family 2 (1) £82.k
Family 3 (2)£100k

He could have done it equally at level one (£100k each) allowing them to split with level 2 if they’d wanted. If he’d done it by family group as per the % split, I think it would be more unfair eg
Family 1 (3) each child £11.6k
Family 2 (1) Child gets £35k
Family 3 (2) each child £17.5k

I think the implications of the younger generation having different amounts would be far greater than the family unit as a whole have different amounts.

When my grandmother passed away (after my grandfather), she did not leave a will. My uncle (son 1) was the executor of the estate and after the house was sold he gave £1000 (about 20 years ago) to each family to be shared between the grandchildren.

Son 1 has two children
Son 2 has four children
Daughter 1 has three children
Daughter 2 has two children
Son 3 has two children
Daughter 3 has no children
Son 4 has no children

Daughter 3 and Son 4 were not married and still lived with grandmother, so most of the proceeds were used to buy them another property. They were adults but did most of the care on a daily basis so completely fair.

Yes you guessed it we are the family of Son 2. My brother is the eldest of all the grandchildren and was my grandparents absolute favourite. Everyone knew this and everyone expected him to get a larger share.

Myself, sister and younger brother felt so bad for him we offered him the full £1000. He wouldn't take it, so we decided to return the money and asked it be given to a local cat charity ( grandparents always had cats!).

I don't think "per family" is fair at all. Each niece / nephew, and grandniece/ grandnephew, should have an equal share and equal opportunity. The inheritance isn't for the benefit of the family but for the individual.

If there are concerns about fairness I would leave the level 2 beneficiaries to receive 17.5k each and then it’s a decision for the niece or nephew receiving £65k who has 3 children to decide whether to gift they brother with one child £17.5k of that. But that’s a decision between the siblings. The next generation are best left receiving equal and the older generation siblings decide whether to “square it” among themselves. But best it be a voluntary gesture from one sibling to another if it’s done and that way that person can take into account other factors. The Will itself is fair and it’s for siblings to correct any resulting unfairness if they think that’s the right thing to do.

@Standrewsschool

Mango - why immoral?

Okay, what would you say if one of the grandchildren had no children?

65% of the estate is for nieces and nephews, of which there are three. That should be split equally into three, regardless of family size.

35% of the estate is for great nephews and nieces, of which there are six. That should be split equally into six, regardless of family size. Assuming they are kids and there is a possibility of further children from any nieces or nephews, then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to put the money to one side in a savings account and split it at a later date. It’d likely be going into trust accounts anyway.

@bestofme21

When my grandmother passed away (after my grandfather), she did not leave a will. My uncle (son 1) was the executor of the estate and after the house was sold he gave £1000 (about 20 years ago) to each family to be shared between the grandchildren.

Son 1 has two children
Son 2 has four children
Daughter 1 has three children
Daughter 2 has two children
Son 3 has two children
Daughter 3 has no children
Son 4 has no children

Daughter 3 and Son 4 were not married and still lived with grandmother, so most of the proceeds were used to buy them another property. They were adults but did most of the care on a daily basis so completely fair.

Yes you guessed it we are the family of Son 2. My brother is the eldest of all the grandchildren and was my grandparents absolute favourite. Everyone knew this and everyone expected him to get a larger share.

Myself, sister and younger brother felt so bad for him we offered him the full £1000. He wouldn't take it, so we decided to return the money and asked it be given to a local cat charity ( grandparents always had cats!).

I don't think "per family" is fair at all. Each niece / nephew, and grandniece/ grandnephew, should have an equal share and equal opportunity. The inheritance isn't for the benefit of the family but for the individual.

@bestofme21, the fact that your grandmother left no will didn't mean that your uncle could just decide on his own how the money should be left. He would have been administrator, not executor (executor is the term used only when there's a will) and he would have had to follow the law in the Intestacy Act, which would normally mean your grandmother's estate would have been split equally between her seven children.

Presumably the seven of them got together and agreed a deed of variation (I think that's what it's called) to redistribute the inheritance so most of it went to the two children who needed a new home, and to give the £1000 to each grandchild.

If your grandmother had wanted to give more to your brother, she should have made a will. Nobody can be certain that what they want to happen to their money will happen without making a will.

Correction, to each family to share between the grandchildren! The rest still stands, though.

Sounds fine to me. My parents will leaves all to grandchildren. I have one and my sister has 2 but it’s never crossed my mind that my dd should have double what her cousins receive.

Mango - the will is treating each recipient as an individual, not as a family unit, as in the case above.

Ie. Each child gets x% of the Will, and each grandchild gets y% of the Will.

You could argue that if child 1 has 1 child, and child 2 has 2 children, and the Will is split 50:50 between family units, then the two grandchild family are being penalised, as they are getting less money each, then the single child of family one.

This sort of split seems to be quite common but always seems to have someone feeling they are worse off whether it is done on an equal family share or on an individual basis. Originally my grandfather has a similar set up with his will- 1/4 goes to each of his children, then the remaining 1/4 to be split between 5 grandchildren. If he outlived any of his children then their share would be split between that child’s children. Accept in the case of my aunt who had no children- her share was to be split 50% to her partner and the other 50% to be split between the grandchildren. My aunt wasn’t happy she wanted the estate to be split into thirds and nothing to the grandchildren. The will is different now- I don’t know quite how and my grandfather and aunt no longer talk (lots of reasons). Different people have differing opinions on what is fair. My opinion is that it is my Grandfather’s money and he can do what he wants with it so if I’m even in the will and I get less than say my cousin then that is his choice.

Fair is to honor what the remative has expressed, irrespective of whether that means one family receiving more.

Their wishes.

To prevent any family bickering (which I accept in your case won't happen) the relative could leave the whole blinking lot to an animal charity say for Head Chogs, or Dong Keys etc.

I think either way would have been fair, but the relative has made clear which way they want their estate to be divided.

Given that the younger generation are all adults it sounds like he has built a relationship with each of them individually, rather than as children of their parents. I think it's nice that he wants to treat each of them the same.

The 65% going 3 ways and 35% going 5 ways is a good compromise I think.

You would logically just split it equally according to percentages the will stipulates and the amount of people inheriting.

Dividing it between 'families' doesn't make sense when it's been left to individuals. Imagine the arguments that would cause!

Even if some of the beneficiaries were children the money would then go into individual bank account for each child.

@Fifthtimelucky -
The 65% going 3 ways and 35% going 5 ways is a good compromise I think.
That's not a compromise, it's what the will stipulates.

The amount is going to individual people. Not families.

The fact that one niece has 3 kids, and others have 1 or 2, is not relevant.

The terms of the will are very clear.

Yes I know that. I mean that it was a good compromise for the relative to make. It sounds like he thought carefully about how to divide his estate.

I'm one of three, and if we were in this situation I really can't imagine begrudging my niece and nephew their share, because collectively it's more than I'd be getting.

What an odd way to look at things.