Inheritance

[Familyshitshow]

Trying to keep this anonymous as possible for obvious reasons.

Darling Grandparent has left a shit show of a will and we’re not sure how to break it to the grandchildren:

Grandchild A: has got everything except some cash (the house/possessions/car/jewellery etc).
Grandchild B/C/D/E: has got the cash (not huge amounts) split between them.
Grandchild F: has been written out of the will (due to ‘personality differences’).
Grandchild G: nothing (but shouldn’t be too surprised due to behaviour somewhat recently but never that close).

Grandchild A knows they’ve inherited all and knew for a while but was a shock once the Will was written. Most of B/C/E knew it was coming that grandchild A would get all as they were the favoured.

Grandchild F has no idea that not only weren’t they particularly liked by their grandparent (silly life choices that the grand scheme of things aren’t a huge deal), that they need the funds more than all. Grandchild G will be very bitter but don’t really have a leg to stand on.

How on earth should the will be ‘read’ and should grandchild A split between all?

Grandparent made a decision which was expressed in a will and should be respected.Why cant they decide about how to distribute their assets?

They can and have. I don't think anyone has said otherwise. As a parent of several children I can decide to give one of them lots of pocket money and xmas/birthday presents, attention, praise, etc. and the others little. Doesn't mean it's a good idea or shouldn't be criticised. Doesn't mean that others can't ameliorate any harm done by me through such unkind treatment.

[quote Manolin]@lyralalala

Fair comment. I apologise. There is little advice to give the OP. I say this. Grandchild A should not be pressured into giving up their inheritance. Grandchild F could take solace in their difference. Sometimes its not a bad thing in the long run to be different from the crowd. There is little else I would do in the circumstances.[/quote]
Solace in being different is one thing, but very few people are going to find any solace in being bluntly hurt by a grandparent in such a cold and final way. Especially if, as the OP says, it's a very minor thing - anyone would be bitterly hurt if their parent or grandparent cut them from the will over something daft. You're not entitled to anything from anyone, but to be the one snubbed will hurt.

No-one has said that Grandchild A should be pressured into splitting. It's fair enough for A to wonder if they should (also they need to take their own circumstances into account - I know a spiteful father who left his entire will to one child, around 40k, knowing they'd want to split with their siblings to be fair, but to do so would put them at risk of deprivation of capital because they were on benefits. It was an openly spiteful act that he seemed sorry he wouldn't be around to see) depending on the circumstances of why they are the favourite.

A will written in a way that causes angst and pain for the people left behind could be just one of those things, or it could be a deliberate hand grenade that could cause lasting damage to the remaining family.

@Regretsandregrets

Grandparent made a decision which was expressed in a will and should be respected.Why cant they decide about how to distribute their assets?

They can.

However, beneficiaries can decide to do a Deed of Variation, or simply share out their split if they wish because at that point it's theirs to do with as they wish.

A beautiful final act on earth, using wealth to chuck a grenade at 7 people’s relationships. Nothing you can do but that was a shitty move.

There is no such thing as “reading wills” in England or Wales and perhaps in any other part of the UK. The executor has a duty to carry out the instructions of the will. If any grandchild subsequently decides to give away their share then that is up to them and they are free to do so, but this should not be done by the executor.

If these are young grandchildren then it is a lesson that we are entitled to do as we please with our assets in our wills. If they are older grandchildren, I would presume they know that already.

What MMN123 said.

It’s impossible to say the grandparent is a shit human being though because no-one knows the circumstances.

If it was e.g. a simple case of them not liking some grandchildren and favouring others then that could be seen as shit, but there could equally be valid reasons why the grandparent didn’t like the grandchild in particular, they’re not obliged to, it’s not their child after all.

Differences in opinion could be as simple as not liking the same colour schemes in which case disinheriting them would be petty and spiteful, or one could be a supporter of vigilante groups and use all their money to fund their lifestyle of being a professional protester, in which case the grandparent may not want that happening with their money.

There are reasons why I would disinherit someone, holding particularly abhorrent views on some subjects could be one, on the other hand if someone was constantly making it clear what their expectations of my money were when I was dead which so often happens on here (although not on this thread in particular) I would see to it that they didn’t get a penny.

Inheritance really does bring out the worst in some people. It’s the deceased’s money to do with whatever they wish, and anyone who then creates family disharmony over it once that person is dead is the petty one, after all it’s not the beneficiary’s fault if they inherited everything is it?

What's the point in making a will if the beneficiaries are just going to divvy it up between them as THEY see fit rather than the deceased get to actually choose where THEIR money goes??

I disagree with you on this. There should be absolutely no pressure for any beneficiary to split their inheritance, but once they've inherited, it's their money. If grandchild A is very close to grandchild F (for example) and wants to give them some, that's fine. I think you can say where you want your money to go, but you can't stipulate what they must do with it/must not do with it once they get it.

I agree with @MrsTerryPratchett.

I disagree with you on this. There should be absolutely no pressure for any beneficiary to split their inheritance, but once they've inherited, it's their money. If grandchild A is very close to grandchild F (for example) and wants to give them some, that's fine. I think you can say where you want your money to go, but you can't stipulate what they must do with it/must not do with it once they get it. I think the key here though is that they should be able to decide. So if the individual wants to share the inheritance then that is up to them, but there shouldn’t be any pressure or expectation applied from other quarters.

How on earth should the will be ‘read’ and should grandchild A split between all?

What do you mean how should the will be ‘read’? Its terms seem pretty clear.

And unless you are grandchild A (are you?), it’s no of your business what A decides to do with their inheritance.

If grandchild A is a minor child, then surely the monies go in trust for them until they come of age and can decide what to do with it?

For tax reasons a deed of variation might be better than beneficiaries splitting assets after they’ve received them. If the sums are significant.

It’s impossible to say the grandparent is a shit human being though because no-one knows the circumstances.

If it was e.g. a simple case of them not liking some grandchildren and favouring others then that could be seen as shit, but there could equally be valid reasons why the grandparent didn’t like the grandchild in particular, they’re not obliged to, it’s not their child after all.

Differences in opinion could be as simple as not liking the same colour schemes in which case disinheriting them would be petty and spiteful, or one could be a supporter of vigilante groups and use all their money to fund their lifestyle of being a professional protester, in which case the grandparent may not want that happening with their money.

The OP does state the reasons though - silly life choices for F who has no idea that the grandparent didn't like them whereas G "will be very bitter but don’t really have a leg to stand on." The OP also states that of all the grandchildren F would actually be the one who'd benefit most from any help.

From that it can be deduced that the Grandparent has pulled a pretty shit low stunt on their family without any warning.

The will doesn't need to be read. The executor just has to divvy the value of the estate up as per the will.

Any animosity should be directed at the deceased and not A.

If A feels so inclined s/he could chose to give a sum of money to any of the others once they have wrapped up the estate. I wouldn't bother with a deed of variation.

Its not for you to tell A what to do i assume these grandchildren are adults do its between them.

I'm one of 12 Grandchildren of a quite wealthy Grandparent.

We don't get on. Frankly, she is a horrible person who manipulates everyone around her.

I will get nothing in the will, which she will do in an attempt to upset me, which it won't, because I wouldn't wipe my arse on money from her.

The Grandchildren here may or may not give a shit about how the money and assets are being divided, we don't know their individual relationships with the Grandparent. So I wouldn't assume that it's throwing a grenade into their lives.

It is quite possible to do a deed of variation on a will, but all parties have to be in agreement, which would probably not be the case here.
'Will reading' is a dramatic construct and doesn't happen in real life.
People can, and do, use wills as a method to point score from the grave.

GC A should not be emotionally blackmailed into sharing as this is now their property.

The will should be divided as specified unless the beneficiairies of their own free will decide to do a deed of variaiton.

The only people who get to decide that are the beneficiaries and no-one else.

It may not seem 'fair' but it is what it is. It may alos be desperately hurtful and i hope that the fallout of that is not too bad.

I worked for a time in a probate law office and have seen many what we called 'spiteful wills'. It happens more often than you think But the worst was when someone wrote out a niece because of their hatred for their brother (the niece's father) and said literally something in the will of 'haha Steve, I won in the end'.

Not that Steve was ever likely to know as wills are not 'read' out to anyone nowadays thankheavens.

A, obviously, can keep everything - but shouldn't be surprised if it affects future family relationships (my DB got money but the rest went to DGCs when my DM died - affected my view of DM and DB).

'A' could sell house and give a bit to everyone.

Who are you in this OP? The executor? A child / parent in the 'in between' generation?

The executor(s) must execute the will. Copies can be provided to the GCs if they wish but it's not obligatory. The executor(s) do not have to tell anyone anything, other than 'you have inherited this from your GP, here it is'.

A, or any of the other beneficiaries, could make the choice to share out their portion - or to give it to charity, to their best friend, save it for their own future children, blow it on a holiday, or spend it on drink and drugs. That's entirely up to them.

You and other relatives can do what you like in your own wills. So if you feel strongly that you'd like to help redress this imbalance, you can do so and you can explain in your will that that is what you're doing.

Do not put pressure on A. This is not their fault. They are not a moral extension of you and they are not answerable to you (unless your minor child and even then, not for this inheritance, which is nothing to do with you).

If A does wish to re-distribute the assets, it would be worth their talking to a solicitor about drawing up a deed of variation, to protect the recipients from the tax man, in the unlikely event that A dies within the next seven years.

I deal with situations like this for a living.

There is no dramatic Will reading. Until proven the Will is private and "belongs" to the Executors - they are not required to offer up the contents but I would advise that they let the beneficiaries know that they have a legacy at the very least.

Money and inheritance bring out the worst in people.

People write Wills like this due to personal grievances but rather than just hurting those involved they put a wedge between them too. Grandchild A will probably end up ostracised by the rest.

Yes, a testator has the right to leave their estate as they see fit but I always advise that if there is an uneven split or decisions that might seem unfair that they leave a letter saying why they have done what they have done. Even if it is hard to read it can help salvage the relationship of those left behind.

I think the testator usually does it with some glee at upsetting the party but I try to (gently) remind them that they will not be there to see the fallout.

If the Will was written by a solicitor you can request the file (so any attendance notes etc) to see if it was just a mistake - it is incredibly difficult for adult non dependents to challenge the contents of a Will, not to mention expensive. Alternatively, if there is the suggestion that she did not have mental capacity or was coerced into making the Will there is the power to have the Will set aside.

If it was just that she held personal grudges I would just let it all go.

If you are named as an Executor you don't have to do it, you can renounce or have power reserved to you.

The Will should be settled as it stands.

The OP has said that there were reasons that the GP split their assets that way.

One of my DGMs left me a quarter of her estate and my cousins got £1000 each. I saw her 2 x a week and helped take her to appointments, go shopping etc; one cousin visited occasionally, the others when they heard cousin had been given money.

Other DGM left everything to one of my uncles. He did everything for her while the other had moved abroad. She also really disliked abroad uncle's wife and didn't want her to get the money. Her perogative.

Oh and of course you don't have to wait until you die to redress the imbalance, if that's what you want to do. You and the other people who make up the 'we' who are concerned about all this, could make your own gift to F right now.

You could even do that, lie and pretend it was from the GP's will, if you really want to.

What you can't do is use anybody's money but your own, to do that.

How on earth should the will be ‘read’ and should grandchild A split between all?

You have got to be kidding! REALLY - you HAVE to be kidding!

As one who fully expects to be ignored in my parents wills I think I have quite a firm grasp of the emotions here and I am quite bemused by your question.

Wills are not read - that's an Agatha Christie mechanism that no longer happens.

And the main inheritor gets what they have been left. Anyone trying to apply pressure on them to 'share it all out' should be sat upon and told firmly to desist!

Anything else is just selfish, money grabbing and nasty!

If F and G have pissed off said grandparent in life then so be it! Actions have consequences. Learn that life lesson and move on!

Its unfortunate for the others but there's not likely to be any way to challenge the will

A could share if they wanted, depends on their circumstances and how much they need the money