To think £30k is a really nice windfall?

[OrangePowder]

Friend has inherited from his aunt.

She had no children, but was married to a man with one son. Her husband predeceased her but it was always understood that she would make provision for his son in her will. Which she has done.

Friend and his sister, as the closest relatives of the woman were also told that they would inherit. They were expecting 50% of the estate (c. £300k) between them.

In the event aunt has left 50% to the step son (who she raised as her own) and the remaining 50% is split 5 ways, between her nephew, his sister and three others she felt had helped her a lot during her life.

My friend is furious that he was misled and doesn't seem to understand that to have £30k land in your lap is huge. FWIW he has parents in their late 80s who are very well off so can expect a substantial inheritance there too.

I wouldn' t expect to inherit anything from an aunt (or anyone really) so to me £30k would be amazing.

My aunt died in 2018. My aunt split the estate between me and my sibling, and my cousins. My other aunt was miffed that DSis and I inherited around £30k between us, because it was deducted from the sale of the house her DC inherited, so they “only” got about £250k between them. She’s still not speaking to us...

@OrangePowder

He expected to share £150k with his sister. I think because aunt had told everyone it would be split between her step son and niece and nephew.

I think this is the crux of things. She said that it would be split between three people, and it was actually split between six. So instead of getting a third or a half, he instead got a tenth.

It sounds like it's not about the money, it's about being misled.

I bet if she said from the beginning that she was going to give him a bit of her estate, or if she said that it would be splitting half between a number of people, he'd be fine with it.

But to have the rug pulled out from under his feet feels like he's been lied to from beyond the grave (a bit dramatic, but it does)--and it's complicated, I'm sure, by feeling guilty for looking greedy but also feeling deceived by someone you can't address the feelings with.

So, he's unreasonable to be disappointed by £30k as money, but he's not at all unreasonable to be disappointed that his aunt lied to him (and, I wouldn't be surprised based on your later description, used the inheritance promise as a way to manipulate his emotions while she was alive).

@Bearsinmotion how come grabby aunt’s DC inherited a house? Did aunt not split estate equally?

@OrangePowder

The "other" 3 are friends not relatives.

Not all family is blood

This is why it's best not to tell people you intend to leave them money unless they're a direct relative (son/daughter/partner) when they would reasonably expect to inherit so it would be reasonable to inform them if they won't inherit the full amount (although of course you're not obliged to). But anyone else e.g. niece/cousin/friend etc. it's just unnecessary - it creates expectations and entitlement. If their aunt hadn't told them your friend would be thrilled at £30k, instead he's annoyed it isn't more...

OP, did the aunt ever actually state that your friend and his sister would inherit precisely 25% of her estate each?

Everything you've written is ambiguous and, as a result, the whole thread is a game of Mumsnet Whispers; people believing what previous posters have misread or inferred, and discussing that as if it were true.

Friend and his sister, as the closest relatives of the woman were also told that they would inherit.

She told them they would inherit. They did inherit.

They were expecting 50% of the estate (c. £300k) between them.

They expected this. Why? Because she'd explicitly stated that this was in her will? That it was her intention? Or because this was their own idea of what would be fair? Or someone else had suggested this? Or some other reason?

What was the date of the will? Had she written one thing and told them another? Had she changed her will to reflect her feelings about the other three people? Or were they making unreliable inferences?

My friend is furious that he was misled

Was he? Explicitly? Implicitly? Ambiguously? In his own imagination?

He can be furious because he believes he was misled, without actually having been misled.

And frankly, so what if he was misled? Unless his aunt explicitly told him that he would receive a certain amount as payment for his helping her in life and £30,000 is less, at a fair hourly rate, than the value of his assistance to her, then he has nothing to complain about.

Is he actually saying that he would not have helped her in life, without expectation of payment?

If that is the case, he should have drawn up a contract and charged her per hour.

Most people help older friends and relatives because they're decent people with a sense of duty. Often there is no estate left to inherit.

And I very much agree that she did the right thing in willing half to the stepson (the late DH's half) and making her own decisions about the remaining half. Any bequests to friends and causes of her choosing, rightly came out of her half.

It is not unheard of for people to make promises of leaving portions of their estate to extract services/company etc only to do something completely different or not make a will at all.

In my opinion, wills should either be public documents during the lifetime of the testator or should have a strict expiry date after which intestacy rules are applied.

Cant even buy a new Toyota for £30k these days tbh.

But tbh, the issue here depends on why the friend thought she would get 50%?

In my opinion, wills should either be public documents during the lifetime of the testator

What the actual fuck?

So people can be put under pressure and hassled about the contents of their will? Fuck that.

It says a lot about your attitude to other people's money that you think this.

Anyone who only spends time with or helps out an elderly relative because they expect money when that person dies doesn't actually deserve the money in the first place.

If someone genuinely wants to be able to look online at someone's will, so they can then say "No I'm not going to come and help you move a heavy item downstairs because I'm not in your will / you haven't left me enough money", they are a complete shit.

Here you go @Randomo, go wild - www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/?price=cash:13345-30000&sortOrder=cashAsc&usedCarResultCount=24

@GnomeDePlume

It is not unheard of for people to make promises of leaving portions of their estate to extract services/company etc only to do something completely different or not make a will at all.

In my opinion, wills should either be public documents during the lifetime of the testator or should have a strict expiry date after which intestacy rules are applied.

Oh dear

[quote EssentialHummus]Here you go @Randomo, go wild - www.toyota.co.uk/new-cars/?price=cash:13345-30000&sortOrder=cashAsc&usedCarResultCount=24[/quote]
Haha, fair.

But tbh, they always trick you with the 'from £xxx price'. Once you add automatic, sensors, etc, the price shoots up!

In my mind I was thinking of the toyota RAV4. But youre right, you can buy a yaris within that budget.

I remember when new SUVs used to be £25k tops.

My suggestion that unenthusiastic 'helpers' should bill hourly for their services would stop piss-takers on both sides GnomeDePlume

@Honeygirlz they lived closer than we were and spent much more time with her than we did. Also they are much younger and that amount of money is life changing for them, DSIS and I both own property, for my cousins it’s an opportunity they may well not get any other way.

I was pleased for them and for me. Funnily enough I spent £1000 on a lovely oak desk and a proper office chair. A year in to working from home and I think of her every day. She was an absolute wild child and would be very amused at my very sensible expenditure!

@Bearsinmotion ah i see! How sad that your aunt just couldn’t be happy. You sound very nice though.

@GnomeDePlume

It is not unheard of for people to make promises of leaving portions of their estate to extract services/company etc only to do something completely different or not make a will at all.

In my opinion, wills should either be public documents during the lifetime of the testator or should have a strict expiry date after which intestacy rules are applied.

So you want to endorse actual bullying of people into changing their will and remove the decisions of people made in sound mind who may have a prolonged illness like dementia so can't renew it every 5 years?

Yes may have been some of mums money

But truly if you were the only child and parents died

Wouldn’t you assume (never wise lol) that you would get all /most of the estate

Rather then half and remainder split with nephew Neice friends

Nephew shouldn’t Joan

Son /stepson is allowed to be peeve

Not Suee if he is @OrangePowder

She's told the niblings she was sharing so I doubt it came as a shock. I'm guessing dss is somewhere in his 50s at least from the post, I don't think he is justified in bemoaning only 150k cos he had to share with people who cared for his DSm in her later years.

If o had 300k to leave, at least a small token would be going to my 4 niblings and I'd expect my 3 kids to not be ungrateful

It's my opinion re wills being public and/or being time limited. We have been very open with our wills with our now adult DCs. We have explained the contents, they know where they are stored so are welcome to look at them any time. I have seen a number of times, just in my own circle, terms in wills which cause a lot of hurt when that was the opposite of what was intended.

My opinion re wills being time limited is because we saw with our own wills that provisions made when the DCs were young would be entirely inappropriate as the DCs are now adults.

People make wills at a particular time to deal with the situation in front of them. The reality is that a will can then sit for decades and become entirely inappropriate (children have become adults, helpful neighbours have left the area, more children have been born). The testator forgets the detail of their will and thinks they have left everything sorted only for their executors to be left with a nightmare.

You know that wasn't legal, right? It's not down to an executor's choice as to who gets what
It know that but nothing I can do about it now ☹️ and I was stupidly naïve and trusting when my father said we hadn’t been left anything.
Believe me, I have recently discovered since his and my mother’s deaths that my father was definitely not the person he appeared to be.

In my opinion, wills should either be public documents during the lifetime of the testator or should have a strict expiry date after which intestacy rules are applied.

That says a lot about you, and it isn't good. People are entitled to do whatever they like with their money while they are alive, why should that change when they die? No-one, no matter what they are "told" should expect to inherit. As for the will being a public document while the testator is alive I've never heard of anything so ridiculous. Can you not see the problems that would cause?

My opinion re wills being time limited is because we saw with our own wills that provisions made when the DCs were young would be entirely inappropriate as the DCs are now adults.

Not a valid reason - if people can't be bothered to update their wills as circumstances change that's their problem.