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?

"When will stupid old people realise the harm they do by manipulating their family members via a will?"

But harm can only be done if the remaining/affected family allow it.

So you could say, when will stupid people stop concerning themselves about/feeling entitled to other people's money?

@sammylady37 It seems that you're the one worried about a childish idea of fairness, you seem upset about the idea that you shouldn't hoard assets and then maintain control of them after your death when you don't need them anymore. It reminds me of my child, many years ago when he was about 10, when he threw a tantrum about donating some toys he'd outgrown. We donated them anyway.

The idea that people deserve to hoard more than they need in this life and that they then deserve to control that hoard after they're dead, to enrich other people who didn't earn it or to punish other people from the grave, is abhorrent. It's not about fairness, it's about avarice, greed, cruelty, and stupidity. Unearned wealth and the rich/poor divide is at the root of every evil in society.

If four out of five get money and the four want to give the fifth a share why is a deed of variation needed ? Why can't the four just give a cheque to person five when the four get their money ?

Will readings only happen in movies! The executor writes to those who have inherited and a cheque will be sent after probate. There is no requirement to write to anyone who might have had high hopes but is disappointed. It's nobody's business what anybody else has inherited and Grandchild A should not be pressurised to part with an inheritance which is rightfully theirs.

I suspect you are F's parent, because otherwise you wouldn't be worrying about breaking it to them.

If the others are being nasty to A then I'd tell A to keep the lot.
If they'd been upset with the grandparent I would have more sympathy.

I know someone who, it was hinted, would be left 'something' in a relation's will.

Come the sad day, the 'something ' turned out to be a piece of furniture on which she'd climbed and fallen off as a young child, breaking a limb. Gee, thanks, Aunty!

I know it must be disappointing for the GCs left out of the will, but there was never any guarantee of a windfall. Just don't let it spoil family relationships. Unless the GP was of unsound mind, it was their free choice to dispose of their money and assets as they chose. There is no entitlement to someone's else's money, alive or dead.

I do hate it when people do this. Yes, they can. Yes, it's legal. It's still shit. My step grandfather did it. He cut my mum and dsis and me out with nothing despite my mum having done the vast bulk of the care in his last 2 years. She also found his body and arranged the funeral.

Fortunately my aunts would have none of it and ignored his hateful wishes. Not every will deserves to be adhered to.

I do wonder how many whimpering 'unfair' would be in a hurry to share with cousins were they to have Grandchild A's good fortune? I know I wouldn't.
Good luck to them and it will set them up for life. if their cousins choose to be vindictive, I guess they'll get on just fine without them.

Threads like this make me appreciate the fact that I have no expectation of inheritance from anyone. I fully expect to be disinherited by my parents at some stage and didn't recieve anything from any of my Grandparents, unless you count love and lovely memories

*sammylady37 It seems that you're the one worried about a childish idea of fairness, you seem upset about the idea that you shouldn't hoard assets and then maintain control of them after your death when you don't need them anymore. It reminds me of my child, many years ago when he was about 10, when he threw a tantrum about donating some toys he'd outgrown. We donated them anyway.

The idea that people deserve to hoard more than they need in this life and that they then deserve to control that hoard after they're dead, to enrich other people who didn't earn it or to punish other people from the grave, is abhorrent. It's not about fairness, it's about avarice, greed, cruelty, and stupidity. Unearned wealth and the rich/poor divide is at the root of every evil in society*

Living in your own home and keeping your savings in case you need them in the future is ‘hoarding’ now?

And it’s not about ‘maintaining control’ of my assets after my death. It’s about how I initially want my assets distributed. In my case, I’ll leave significant assets to niece A and none to niece B. I have a close, warm, deep relationship with niece A. I see niece B at funerals/weddings and tbh I suspect she’d struggle to pick me out of a line up. So, I’d like some of my assets to go to niece A and none of them to go to niece B. Why would I want to give her money/other assets? We’re practically strangers. In the last ten years we’ve seen each other three times. I get on better with my postman than I do with her, and see him more often! So yes, my will is unfair but I see no reason why it should be fair and I find it abhorrent and frankly disgusting that some think this niece B should have an automatic entitlement to my assets after my death simply because we are related. Insisting on ‘fairness’ in circumstances such as these is childish, among many other things.

And, once niece A inherits from me, she can do whatever she wants to do with what she gets. I don’t want to maintain control at that point. The assets will then be hers to do with as she wishes. She may decide to share with niece B, which would be fine as that’s her choice. My issue is with the choice being taken from me at the point I’m divesting myself of my assets.

It’s not about ‘punishing’ niece B. It’s about acknowledging and respecting the relationship with niece A. Frankly, I don’t care enough about niece B to want to hurt or punish her. My will is about acknowledging those I’m close to. Others I’m not close to are obviously excluded but the mindset I sat down with was “who would I like to leave something to?” not “who do I want to exclude?”.

And lastly, you think unearned wealth and the rich/poor divide is at the root of “every evil” in society? Every evil? Really?

It would be completely presumptuous to say that gcA should split between them all or any. They might like to, that's the most you can say but make sure you say it only to gcA and don't mention it to any of the others ever.

You tell the ones who have inherited something - privately - what they've inherited; don't mention it to the others at all.

My paternal gm left my elder brother quite a lot of stuff but nothing for the rest of us. In fact, we all knew anyway because she was an old bag who only had eyes for my bro and we knew she wouldn't have minded if the rest of us died and got out of her life altogether. We didn't mind that my bro got things, he's a lovely generous bloke and if we'd needed or wanted any of it he'd have gladly shared. We thought he deserved to have it - even 50 years later I can say hand on heart that there was never any animosity about it.

Sounds like classic narcissistic behaviour and scapegoating to me. Grandparent doesn't sound like a very nice person.

some how F has no idea as nobody wants to deal with the aftermath of telling her but she’s jumped on the bandwagon of being against A. A is already starting to feel guilty but even if they did share their pot the damage has already been done.

Wow- rather dramatic- are people frightened of the 'aftermath' F will create? Poor A so even if they capitulate to the grabby demands, they'll still be in the naughty corner? Also now thinking the GP did the right thing, maybe to help A get away from the toxicity?

Having read your update, I think it would be helpful if A could agree to give F cash equal to what B-E are getting, and for the executors to lie and say it was a bequest. Then F will not feel as hurt. It sounds like there is going to be a lot of fall out either way but the issue of F seems to be the thing that is occupying you the most and it wouldn’t take too much to put him/her on an equal footing with the others.

Obviously you may not be in a position to make that happen.

if they are siblings, I'd share whatever i got from grandpartents if my sibling had been left out for a reason i felt was unfair (would be different if that sibling had been horrid to the GP themselves).

as i have to live rest of my life with my sibling, not the grandparents who has passed.

@Familyshitshow

Oh wow, a lot of replies to wake up to.

I don’t want to say how I’m related in the will as I’m trying to be anonymous as possible.

I think really I’m asking for advice how to break it to F in particular. F doesn’t have much of a clue, they know they’re not as well liked as A but nowhere in the same category as G. She will be devastated not only because she really needs the money, but more so that D/E haven’t bothered in years and still included.

WW3 has kicked off, some how F has no idea as nobody wants to deal with the aftermath of telling her but she’s jumped on the bandwagon of being against A. A is already starting to feel guilty but even if they did share their pot the damage has already been done.

Maybe grandma was actually quite astute. They’re turning on A who is not in anyway at fault. They sound greedy, entitled and nasty from the information we have.

And now I feel really really sorry for A who has had some real luck and isn't allowed to enjoy it because their siblings (I assume) think they should have it. I bet none of them would share if they'd inherited it all.

If I were A's parent I would be thoroughly ashamed of the attitude of the others and I would make sure that A knew that I thought she should keep the lot.

In fact, I'd say "no wonder it was divided as it has been. It's what you each deserve.".

The will isn’t a shit show - it is very clear. You are just not reading it as it was meant to be read - are you one of the grandchildren (not a) or the parent of one of the grandchildren that didn’t get as much as a?

F sounds like she was correctly judged by the grandparent. Doesn't even know that she's inherited nothing, body barely cold, and she's bitching with her cousins about A's inheritance? What a charmless way to act.

(I think my sister is going to cause merry hell about my parents will, because our other sister is disinherited - she hasn't spoken to our parents for years, fault on both sides. I have made myself financial plans for life based on what I hope to earn and plan to save. Any inheritance is a bonus, and I'll honour the wishes of those who give it to me - I could be sucking up to my rich spinster aunt, but frankly she's annoying, and she's welcome to leave the cash to my cousins and their children, to whom she's a second grandmother.)

@prh47bridge

Executors can ask about this and all parties must agree

Just to say again, only the beneficiaries who would be left worse off have to agree. So, if grandchild A wants to redistribute their share so that everyone ends up with the same amount, grandchild A would be able to execute a deed of variation on their own.

@prh47bridge

Is this true in Scotland too? Argh. Makes my personal experience so much worse.

@Familyshitshow

Oh wow, a lot of replies to wake up to.

I don’t want to say how I’m related in the will as I’m trying to be anonymous as possible.

I think really I’m asking for advice how to break it to F in particular. F doesn’t have much of a clue, they know they’re not as well liked as A but nowhere in the same category as G. She will be devastated not only because she really needs the money, but more so that D/E haven’t bothered in years and still included.

WW3 has kicked off, some how F has no idea as nobody wants to deal with the aftermath of telling her but she’s jumped on the bandwagon of being against A. A is already starting to feel guilty but even if they did share their pot the damage has already been done.

Why has WW3 kicked off if F doesn't know yet?

Who knows that A has inherited the bulk of the estate? What are they on A's case about atm if they don't know about F?

A should do whatever they want to do - split or not. It seems likes there's going to be trouble anyway so they should decide what they want to do and stick with it.

Are there siblings involved in this - because I think that makes a difference. I personally would encourage siblings to share fairly but not cousins. That's just for political purposes! Aside from G who should clearly get nothing.

@SunshineCake

If four out of five get money and the four want to give the fifth a share why is a deed of variation needed ? Why can't the four just give a cheque to person five when the four get their money ?

They could if they wanted. It's often tidier to do it as a deed of variation because it makes it come from the estate rather than be a gift from the other four.