To think my dad is right to give more of grandmother's inheritance to me and my brother than his 2 older kids?

[sadirahunet]

My grandma, my last living grandparent died a few months ago, however due to everything going on etc they are only really now dealing with the financial side of things. My mum and dad have struggled greatly throughout our whole lives, but have done their very best for us. Parents live in a council house, brother lives with them. I'm a single mum barely scraping by in a shitty private rental. Older half sibling's are significantly older (late teens when I was born) but from what I know dad was always around for them during their childhood and they both say he's been a brilliant dad. We're all close-knit. His choice regarding grandma's money only comes from a financial perspective of who he thinks needs the money more and isn't favouritism or prioritsing his second family etc. I am absolutely certain of that.

When both of my maternal grandparent's died in the same year, my parent's only got a few thousand which was swallowed up by general life things. As for my half-siblings, their mother owns a house which is in a very well-off town near us, easily worth 400k if not more. Granted she has gone on to have 1 more child with her husband so there's 3 kids to consider there. I don't know much about her parent's as obviously her and her parents are nothing to do with me, but I do know they are divorced and both own a house each, again in a well-off area with ridiculous prices. They are in their late 80s.

Dad is likely going to get about 60k (DGM has 7 kids). He wants to split it into 4 quarters. The plan is to keep 15k, give me and my brother 15k each, and split the last quarter between my half-siblings. He would like me and my brother to put it towards house deposits which we both intend to do. I know my dad, he adores us all and would do anything for all 4 of us. I know for a fact that this isn't favouritism. It's just that my half-siblings are likely going to benefit from inheriting money from 3 different houses worth 400k+ in the future, 2 of which will probably happen in the next few years. Whereas me and Dbro, this money from our grandma is literally it for all we will ever inherit unless our parents come into a huge windfall, which DHalfSiblings would benefit from as well anyway.

DHalfSis is absolutely fine with the arrangement and agrees it's fair considering the circumstances. However DHalfbro and his long-term girlfriend who he has a child with are whinging and playing the 'second family' card. Dad is very hurt and before all of this, we all got on brilliantly and there was never any kind of bitterness. AIBU to think there arrangement is fair and DHalfBro isn't considering the wider picture? I know for a fact if it was the other way round he'd have given DHalfSibling's more and rightly so.

I don't think he's being unreasonable but I know in Mumsnet, the thinking seems to be that everychild should get the same even if its lifechanging for one child and/or a drop in the ocean for another.
I wouldn't have an issue with it if I was your brother, I'd be glad that my ds was getting a chance to get on property market.

My half siblings’ dad is a millionaire, they have been gifted houses, etc and when they inherit will never need to work again.

My father died leaving nothing.

My mother’s will stipulates that her (minimal) assets are to be divided equally among her children from both marriages.

It is the only right thing.

What is it about wills? Sometimes I wish relatives hoping for large payouts would get a big surprise and find xxx has left their millions to a cats home!! Everyone seems to think their situation warrants more of the money and with blended families its seems to be getting worse.

Being harsh you could say that someone's poor choices in life be that the wrong men, having children unplanned, messing about at school and not having a career and a well paid role - does mean that they get more of someone's estate?

There was a thread a while ago about someone who was insisting that they were a 'common law wife'. Others were saying there is no such thing but she wasnt having any of it. Lots of good advice was given around wills, getting married quickly and cheaply to protect herself.

She didnt want to do any of this and didnt see why she should.

I always wonder what happens to those people (actually I dont!). They hand wring if something awful happens saying that 'I was just about to',' he told me he would look after me' and its all too late.

Please - all make a will. Its very cheap and sometimes even free. So your wishes can be followed. I have a relative with an unusual situation where she is very exposed. She has been told time and time again but a tax advisor and an accountant as well as the rest of the family - and I dont use those words lightly to get married and get a will. She hasnt done so so the subject has been dropped. There will be lots of hand wringing when the time comes...

Equal is the only way to go regardless of anyone's own personal circumstances (IMHO)

I would split it evenly. I think it would be unreasonable to do otherwise.

I completely disagree with the vast majority here and say that exactly equal doesn't always have to be the only right answer (though often is).
I don't think any of us know enough about the personal circumstances of everyone in the op or the family dynamics in ops case to start saying her dad is an arsehole!!

I seems very unfair to me, I don't really see how your half siblings could see that as anything other than a slap in the face. I agree that whatever your dad does now, the damage is done. No way could I maintain a close relationship with a parent who saw me as lesser, and only worth the scraps that are left once his preferred children are accommodated for. Him bowing to pressure and splitting it evenly now wouldn't change that, they will always feel/know that is how he sees them. If I was them, I would refuse it entirely, as I wouldn't want any form of relationship after that.

It’s your dads money to do with as he likes, none of his DCs should expect anything.

As for being “fair” because your half siblings may inherit from their mother’s side of the family YABU. Their personal financial situation shouldn’t be a factor.

This doesn't make any sense? So in the early 80's your Dad had repaid his mortgage? This would make him around 50 years old at least

Eh?

I paid mine off in the 00s when I was 38.

Going against the grain here, I think it's fine/ completely fair the way the dad has decided to share it - he's looking at who needs the money the most now. Regardless of whether the OP is better off in the future, private renting is insecure and stressful giving the OP and her brother the opportunity to get on the housing ladder when things are so much harder for their generation is the right thing to do IMO. I would take the same view as your half sister if I were a home owner doing ok in life and my half siblings were less fortunate. First/ second family is a red herring and irrelevant - all 4 are his children. Plus, it's your dad's business who he gives what to, I'm not sure why everyone gets to have a say/ know what each other is getting.

I assume the people objecting have no idea what it's like to live in insecure housing as a single parent or watch someone they love doing it when they have the opportunity to help them.

It's not right for him not to split the money equally between his children.

You cannot rely on the assumption that your half siblings will inherit from their mother/mother's parents. Often money is swalowed up by caring fees, debt etc.

I would feel exactly as your half brother does. Like he and his sister are second best. I would never forgive my dad for doing that.

The correct way should be half siblings get half.
My dh from a broken home didn't even get a third, there were 3 children.
He got 1/6th from his dad, and his mum said 1/3 her and her partner had one child.
Why do kids from broken homes always have less, as hough their life hasn't been ruined enough.

It was the early 80s. The mortgage was paid off

So, he had teenage DC when you came along. That made him at least late 30's when he divorced his wife1. He has had 40 years since then to get back on the property ladder but didn't.

The more I read here the more I think that your dad sounds like a bit of a nightmare to be honest.

@Crazycrazylady

I don't think he's being unreasonable but I know in Mumsnet, the thinking seems to be that everychild should get the same even if its lifechanging for one child and/or a drop in the ocean for another. I wouldn't have an issue with it if I was your brother, I'd be glad that my ds was getting a chance to get on property market.

I don't think treating your children equally is just a reflection of opinions on MN tbf

I will add that when Ddad divorced his first wife he walked away from the house they bought together so she could stay there with the kids without having to worry about her home

Possible that their settlement was she kept the house and he kept his pension, so he may not have been all that generous

Anyway, I think YABU. He should treat his 4 children the same

@Micah

*wow! Your husband's older children are going to inherit from their mother and her family? Presumably your kids might inherit from your family? Either way they're being treated unfairly because they're parents aren't together. I wonder how you'd feel if your marriage breaks up and your husband goes on to have more kids? Would you feel that it was ok for your kids to be left out?

I'm sad for your step children*

The stepchildren are grown, independent adults. If their dad died financially they’d be fine. The other children would be left orphaned, would you really have their house sold from under them to give half to adult siblings? Their guardians are going to need every penny to potentially buy a bigger house and provide for children they never planned for, and they will miss out on years of earnings from their parents for their upbringings.

When all the children are adults they can revise the wills.

^ What Micah said.

They're being 'excluded' because they are grown adults aged 30 - 25. They have been provided for throughout childhood and helped to launch themselves into adult life. All as it should be - given that we have the money to do it.

Our DCs are being prioritised because they are pre-school / primary age. If DH dies they may still have me or they may not. We could both die. Either way they will lose out on the support of DHs future earnings which are several times higher than I could earn. They are children - it's right that we should try to provide for them if the worst happens.

And yes - once all DCs are adults the will can be looked at again.

My step-DCs know what is in the will. Things like this should be out in the open. They get it. They are not the sort to begrudge support to children who would (in this hypothetical situation) have lost a parent at a young age.

Money and love are not the same thing.

I think the inheritence from the mum is irrelevant. Hopefully their mum will be around for decades yet so that money won't help get on the property ladder or provide for young kids.

I do think their financial situation is somewhat relevant. For me £15k would just be added to my savings and not make a difference. To my sister it would mean she's a few years closer to buying a house. If my parents came into £30k inheritence which was to be passed on what I'd like them to do is ask me what I think about it. I'd say of course DSis should have the lot.

When it comes to inheritance, all get treated the same.

OP you should be glad of your quarter. It would be wrong for you to take some of their share just because you need it more. That's not how these things work.

YABU. my mother is extremely well off. I have never seen a penny of it since I left home aged 16. We get £25 each for birthdays and Chirstmas. Not a complaint, just showing the money does not trickle down in gifts. When her parents died she inherited a 6 figure sum (to add to her money) and then complained she was going to have to make another trip to see her financial advisor as she had no idea what to do with it. Meanwhile me and my siblings were renting at the time, saving for deposits, with small children. She did not give us a penny, nor did we ask for it. I have no doubt that her money will either be eaten up with care home costs or given away to her cousins. I think YABU to judge your siblings on what you can see and not what you know to be true.

He has had 40 years since then to get back on the property ladder but didn't

Do you have any idea how impossible it is to get back on the property ladder when you have no deposit and your income and ability to save is reduced by minimum 20% due to child maintenance?

Unless you’re on a high wage banks won’t consider someone on 30k who has no deposit and take home pay is less than £1800.

Sorry but it's blatant favouritism for the second family. They are probably better off because they're older too. I don't see why they should be punished for being better off.

I also agree that is often rosier for children in the second family, whereas many first family children feel they will always play second fiddle

I will add that when Ddad divorced his first wife he walked away from the house they bought together so she could stay there with the kids without having to worry about her home. She then sold that and got a new house with her husband a few years later.

That's what he should have done!! No one gets cookies for not making their children destitute

In this circumstance I’d split it evenly. 60k divided by 4 or 5 doesn’t make a huge difference. If split equally between all the kids and himself you all get £12k and it’s all straightforward and fair. By splitting it into 4 chunks, you will get £15k....yes, it’s a bit more but not hugely more and will that £3k make such a difference to you and be worth famiky strife about?

As a general principle I think money should be left equally to all the children in this circumstance. In fact, you guys aren’t even the children and it’s wasn’t left to you. You’re only getting it because your Dad is passing it on, so it’s actually a gift from him and not an inheritance form someone who has died. Giving large gifts can change someone’s life and if it will be acceptable to some not to receive because they are in better circumstances, that can work....but would usually be one person receiving a gift as they need it, rather than all been given it at once rather than one excluded which feels rather unfair.

Are you guys seeing this as an inheritance from the grandparents or a gift from your Dad? Inheritances probably do work better if fair and even. I think with gifts there is more flexibility to meet need, but the water is muddied here because it feels like an inheritance to you all and money is being dished out to all...but some get less. That does feel unfair.

My PiL have gifted their children sums if money at different times. My SiL was gifted money to fund IVF when she needed it. We didn’t receive then. We were gifted money when buying a property (different sum) and no-one else got any then. My BiL was gifted money to pay for a new kitchen at the point they needed it. I have no idea if PiL are recording what they gift now and will adjust inheritance accordingly or not....I’d imagine probably not and that’s fine. But the difference to Ops situation is that the different sums were at different times, not all at the same time with some being given more and some less. That feels uncomfortable.

Op I think you are being grabby for the sake of an extra £3k here. Be the big one here and say to your Dad that you’re happy to each have £12k and it to be fair.....it’s all a gift after all.

Ouch it must really sting to be given a lesser share of any inheritance (especially in favour of children from a second family who benefited from having their father live with them throughout their childhood).

If your dad is adamant, I'd make it right by splitting the difference myself.

Maternal inheritance is irrelevant... just like a lottery win would be, their mum isnt your stepmum or anything to do with you so you simply don't have a claim.

Parents should split equally between their children

So either give all £12k and same to his self

Or keep £40k for him and you all have £5k each