Inheritance straight to GC, skipping childless DC

[Shuk]

How would you feel if your parents left money to your nieces & nephews but not you or your siblings, and you don't have DC, but have possibly had more financial support as an adult than your siblings (though not as much as their dc will inherit)

YABU - no one is entitled to anything
YANBU - this isn't fair and likely to cause considerable upset

For context it's not my parents, and I have DC who would benefit. I think this is hugely unfair.

I'd think the fairest way to do it would be to take into account the financial support already give but still giving the child free DC some money.

I can kind of understand this.... me and my brother are in our late 40s / early 50s, both have good jobs and financially secure. When my parents die, any inheritance would be much more useful to my DC's generation (house deposits, uni fees, first car etc etc).

But I can see that if some siblings have DC and some don't then that would cause problems!

If you are one of the beneficiaries, you can (if the executors are supportive) alter the will retrospectively.

It's their choice, surely?

As long as whoever did it had a conversation while still alive and explained why then it could be ok.

I agree with you OP.

Of course none is entitled to inherit anything from anyone, but money/estates/ inherited possessions can symbolise other things in families.

This arrangement symbolises what the grandparents value - and it’s reproduction, but not their own children IYSWIM.

O n the other hand, maybe the (grand)parents felt they’d already helped their child who hadn’t had children, and they’re sort of “evening up” the inheritance?

But on the face of it, if I were the childless child of these parents, I would feel unvalued and overlooked not a nice memory of a dead parent, basically, and very sad for the child who has been passed over.

Our intention is to divide equally what we leave between our two DC, but if one or both of them decide to alter the Will for the money to be distributed directly to their DC, that would be no issue.

If there was a major discrepancy is how much help one DC had received, we would try and generally put that right, unless there was a good reason not to.

My DP left their assets directly to their DGC - both my DB and I have two DC each, so an equal split - and it has been a huge help to them. DP did this knowing that we were comfortable with this.

This is what my parents did.

My siblings and I all had quite significant financial help from them when they were alive. They never gave directly to the GC, but were very very concerned about how hard it is for young people now to get on the housing ladder etc, hence their decision that the GC should inherit rather than my siblings and me.

I have children who will benefit, as do two of my siblings. Two other siblings don't have children and therefore don't inherit anything. Neither of them have bad feeling about this in terms of the finances, but one has expressed that it would have been nice to maybe be left a small token item named in the will so that they weren't left out of it entirely.

My slight concern is that my DC are much younger than their cousins and are very young to inherit what is a substantial amount of money.

I'd split it according to each DC, but where the DC have DGC divide their sum equally between them.

Sending it straight to the DGC can make sense where the DC are older / already paid off the mortgage / reasonably comfortable but the DGC need help getting on the housing ladder etc

Disinheriting someone for being child free isn't on though - I'd be very upset if that was done to me.

Great way to cause a huge family rift. As the childless DC I would potentially feel as though I mattered less to the person leaving me out of their will.

Better to give each DC the same, smaller sum and each grandchild a bigger sum on the basis their generation may benefit more from the financial assistance.

Can't it all be shared around a little??
Why so black and white

Well the GDC are their own people, so while their parents will be pleased for them it’s not them benefitting personally. None of the DC are getting anything direct and the ones with kids have had less help than those without. Do the ones with kids think that’s fair?

I suppose I believe in a starting presumption of willing equal shares to your offspring only (or maybe setting aside say a quarter or something to go to grandkids now), but various considerations, including unusual variations in need or in pre-inheritance financial assistance might be enough to rebut that presumption.

the impact on inheritance of people having very different numbers of kids (or indeed siblings - should a childless couple leave 50% to the husband's one sibling and 5% each to the wife's 10 siblings [hardly equal shares] or should all eleven siblings on both sides get 9% each [effectively diluting the husband's bequest to his own blood relatives to nothing?) is really murky and makes things difficult to do cleanly and fairly.

my instinct is that what you're describing is probably unfair unless the omitted child is very well off indeed, but I'm sure plenty of others would disagree.

In my will i have left to the children of my brothers and sisters. The sis who has no kids gets the same share as a niece or nephew so I have 3 siblings - two have two kids each. Will is divided by 5 - that's only if my own kids weren't around to inherit though.

@flippertyop

In my will i have left to the children of my brothers and sisters. The sis who has no kids gets the same share as a niece or nephew so I have 3 siblings - two have two kids each. Will is divided by 5 - that's only if my own kids weren't around to inherit though.

My will is the same - should me & DH & our kids go at once each of my siblings and nieces & nephews are treated as an equal individually.

Interesting range of views, I would think perhaps the fairest would be to divide equally between all GC and child free DC, so if say 5 GC and 1 DC each get a sixth share.

Are all DC past child bearing age? Otherwise what happens if another grandchild is born later?

But the parents of the GC are not getting anything either so I don't get the problem? All adult children are being treated the same unless they plan to pinch the cash 🤔

Seems fair that while alive they helped their children and then will help the next generation.

@BasementIdeas

Are all DC past child bearing age? Otherwise what happens if another grandchild is born later?

DC is male, and whilst not looking likely, you never know!

My DF left to me and my siblings and a specified amount to each grandchild. So one sibling got a bigger proportion more kids other no kids but at least some money was received by all :-)

I think it’s hurtful. I wouldn’t say anything but I’d be upset

Either spend it all before you go or leave it equally to your children.

no i dont think its fair its like punishing one because they didnt provide gc

Very unfair.

It depends on whether the grandparents have given their children money during their lifetime.

My MIL did this - the plan was that she used up her tax gift allowance each year giving money to her children, then the rest was for care home fees, then when she died the residue would be divided between grandchildren as a nice thing to remember her by.

It does need regular review as things change, and also good communication about the intentions.

If the childless child is not part of the decision making process, it would be rather awkward.

I suspect we are likely to be in a similar situation. Other siblings have received more financial help and use parents as unpaid childcare frequently - and only make effort when childcare is required or it's a birthday etc. We are childfree and make a lot of effort to spend time with parents, but are fully expecting to be cut out of will in favour of grandchildren. It is not a nice feeling.