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.

@maria57

00100001...dont understand your question??? I have not said that it would result in neither me or my siblings not inherit! What my concern is that my 6 siblings will inherit and my portion of inheritance by being pushed out would go to the Grandchildren!

I read it as only GC will inherit, and none of you and your siblings will get anything?

@LaChanticleer

^I have 2 sons but my will is written to benefit only one and he knows that I would be decidedly p*ssed off of he decided to share, thus going against my instructions.

Have you discussed this with the son you’ve effectively cut out of your life in this way?^

No I haven't, it's none of his business.
I don't have a lot but it is entirely up to me what I choose to do with it and my decision has been made.
My benefiting son knows, as do my best friend and solicitor. The will actually has an additional note saying that I do not want anything going to the other soon and my reasons are listed.
My GP was witness to my signing of the will to negate any chance of said son trying to contest it on grounds of me not being of Sound Mind, although I suspect he wouldn't want anything anyway.

I think it is very harsh for the DC who hasn’t had children. Children fundamentally want to be treated fairly compared to their siblings, including financially. The thought of disinheriting one of my children simply because they haven’t had children in their turn would be abhorrent to me - unless they were filthy rich and quite generous and told me that was how they would want me to do it.

I have 2 siblings. One has 2 children, the same as me. My parents wills leave a quarter to each sibling and a quarter to be split between the four GC.

@Forgotthebins

I think it is very harsh for the DC who hasn’t had children. Children fundamentally want to be treated fairly compared to their siblings, including financially. The thought of disinheriting one of my children simply because they haven’t had children in their turn would be abhorrent to me - unless they were filthy rich and quite generous and told me that was how they would want me to do it.

But...no siblings are getting anything... It's not unfair!

Ultimately the decision is the parents one it's their money. Circumstances change however they may need care which is really expensive inheritance can be wiped out. It not a given that anyone will receive anything.

But...no siblings are getting anything... It's not unfair!

I don't think most parents would be that nonchalant and dispassionate about their own children getting nice things in life - most of us derive great joy from wonderful things happening to our own children. Of course, we're happy when nice things happen to other children (although not necessarily so much to adult children), but it's in a completely different league when it's our own kids.

If parts are being given out for the school play and your child scoops the lead, I don't think many parents would say "Well, it makes no difference to me as none of us adults are being cast". Same if they're made Head Girl/Boy, win a contest, win a star prize, anything that isn't open to adults anyway.

Essentially, the majority of parents feel great happiness and a sense of real reward - achievement maybe - when our children feel happy - even when they're grown up. They are kind of an extension of us - not in a territorial or ownership sense, but that strong connection is always there; the fact that, although they are of course completely separate people, they came from us and their lives can reflect very much on ours.

A PP mentioned above about her FIL not wanting to leave his child-free DD anything, in case her DP ended up with it and it 'left the family' - but she is his family. The strong implication is that, if you don't have children, you're a 'dead end' and 'not really worth sharing anything with' in your own right.

Whether or not it's intended, it does very clearly pass on the message that you've failed the family by not having children - that your only intrinsic worth/legacy would have been your (non-existent) children, but as you don't have them, we've saved you the bother of having nobody 'worthwhile' to pass money on to when you die by ending the family wealth link before you, so you can just muddle along in your child-free existence until you yourself fizzle out, whilst we concentrate on our children who were productive.

What OP mentions does seem a bit difficult, but particularly that the DC who will not inherit will only find this out after his parents have died - this bit is really awful. I do think every situation like this is unique though, and, too many other reasons might come into play - for example, the parents may not really like DC's partner (I am speaking theoretically here, as in OP's case, DC may not have one), but by passing inheritance to GC, it bypasses the partner. Also, "Today" Vs "Future Reality" may also vary widely - for example, a parent may have to pay for their care, sell their own house to do so etc. leaving only a very small amount in the inheritance pot for sharing, yet have given generous amounts given during the lifetime to one person. This, and many other factors mentioned by others may have been considered during the decision making. One poster said that retrospective changes could be made if all/and the executors agreed, and I feel this might be useful here once the final situation and its financial implications are understood, but that relies very heavily on all 'playing fair' - and often this is not the case when it is inherited money. I feel sorry for you OP and the discussions you may end up having, not a great situation.

The strong implication is that, if you don't have children, you're a 'dead end' and 'not really worth sharing anything with' in your own right.

You’ve put this really well. A lot of posters are looking at this just as a monetary transaction. But it’s not. It’s symbolic of one’s place in the family.

@LaChanticleer

The strong implication is that, if you don't have children, you're a 'dead end' and 'not really worth sharing anything with' in your own right.

You’ve put this really well. A lot of posters are looking at this just as a monetary transaction. But it’s not. It’s symbolic of one’s place in the family.

I agree. It’s the same as the people who only leave money to their sons because daughters dont need it ( they have a man to look after them).

Or leave out those who have a good job or “ married well “ ( interesting that this always means “married money” not “ married someone they love and are very happy “).

Its clearly about how much they are valued and loved.

I think the only reasonable exceptions are when one adult child is vulnerable ( perhaps has Sn or severe health problems ) or something very extreme ( like serving 20 years in prison ) AND everything is explained and agreed while the parents are still alive.

It doesn't matter if it's fair. It's their money.

Some people leave money directly to grandchildren rather than children so that if the spouse of the child outlives the child they can’t just waltz off with the inheritance and not leave anything to the grandchildren. Could that be the case here?

I think it's bad to skip the children anyway. You don't know their financial position (how much pension etc) unless you have a weird family set up. It is controlling and stops them having the option of helping their children out with some or all of the inheritance.

@Swonderful

I think it's bad to skip the children anyway. You don't know their financial position (how much pension etc) unless you have a weird family set up. It is controlling and stops them having the option of helping their children out with some or all of the inheritance.

For the millionth time - not if you discuss it as a family beforehand, and agree that it's the sensible way forward!

What if the siblings dont not get on to sit down and discuss it as a Family??
You could argue that the Parents of the said Siblings should/could sit down with each sibling and discuss the decision they have made at some point. But, what if one Parent has now got Dementia and the other Parent is being influenced now by certain Siblings who only have their own interests at heart .
I am the single Sibling who was one of two Power of Attorneys and found out the other Power of Attorney is underhand. But before I could act on what I knew the inderhand Power of Attorney backs out of Power of Attorney leaving me also no longer Power of Attorney because unknown to me this was a Power of Attorney whereby if one backs out it means the other one can no longer be Power of Attorney.

Who are you aiming your swearing message at???

@Partayyyyy

it's not your money itsnot up to anyone to decide, why dose everyone have to start moaning about money/assets who gets it who dosnt bla blabla sickening shit fucking suck it up respect the person's wishes who cares about money if u actually care about the person who it actually belongs to grow up get a life work more if money matters stop sponging and pretending it's on another's behalf and maybe teach them to work aswell !!moaning on about somebody else's savings for god sake get a life

Who are you aiming your message at???

@maria57

What if the siblings dont not get on to sit down and discuss it as a Family?? You could argue that the Parents of the said Siblings should/could sit down with each sibling and discuss the decision they have made at some point. But, what if one Parent has now got Dementia and the other Parent is being influenced now by certain Siblings who only have their own interests at heart . I am the single Sibling who was one of two Power of Attorneys and found out the other Power of Attorney is underhand. But before I could act on what I knew the inderhand Power of Attorney backs out of Power of Attorney leaving me also no longer Power of Attorney because unknown to me this was a Power of Attorney whereby if one backs out it means the other one can no longer be Power of Attorney.

I do have sympathy for your situation - my DH found himself in a similar situation with his one sisters who proved herself to be grasping and dishonest - and tried hard to exclude another sister from their DP's Will because it would benefit her. She felt their sister 'didn't deserve' a legacy!

You can never completely protect the situation, as sometimes people show that they don't share your values and there's very little you can do about it. DH got lawyers involved and each sibling received their fair share (more or less), but what really impacted him was the fact that the sister he thought was a decent human being, clearly isn't. Sad.

We knew and agreed with my parents intentions 10/15 years before the first of them died, so we were able to discuss sensibly, and made sure there were no surprises/shocks for anyone.

@Darkstar4855

Some people leave money directly to grandchildren rather than children so that if the spouse of the child outlives the child they can’t just waltz off with the inheritance and not leave anything to the grandchildren. Could that be the case here?

It might be the case for the (adult) children who have children, but clearly isn't the case for the childfree child.

My dad left my sister out of his will. He left £x shared between me and brother equally and everything else to mum. No mention of sister.

Mum was executor. So she gifted my sister the same as my brother and I got and my sister doesn't know. Only I know. Unless she reads the will online which I doubt she will do.
I told her "as a result of dad dying, we're all getting £x each", I never said it was left to her in his will, she just assumed it was.

My mum then changed her will to make me executor because it was my brother and if he finds out, which he would if mum dies reasonably soon, he'll tell my sister which would cause upset and he would probably also try to say mum was coerced and deduct it from my sister's share of mum's estate.
I have proof she wasn't coerced, my (now ex) partner was with me when she brought it up of her own accord, before dad died.

Nothing to do with me @VanGoghsDog, but I'm curious as to why your father excluded your sister, and yet your mother didn't. You sound like a lovely person.

@ajandjjmum

Nothing to do with me *@VanGoghsDog*, but I'm curious as to why your father excluded your sister, and yet your mother didn't. You sound like a lovely person.

Well, she's not his biological daughter, mum had her before they got married, but he did adopt her so she is his daughter (and my sister), but he took against her as a teen and they never really got on. He was a very difficult man, I never got on with him either.

Well, she's not his biological daughter, mum had her before they got married, but he did adopt her so she is his daughter (and my sister), but he took against her as a teen and they never really got on.

I can't believe the amount of nastiness you read of on here, in inheritance threads, where people can have adopted a child and treat them exactly the same as their bio kids throughout their life - but then decide to punish them for not arriving into the family as full blood children of both parents by not leaving them anything in their will.

I'd love to know what goes through these people's heads. The poor adopted people who are thrown under the bus must rationalise it that, contrary to appearances, they were never actually really accepted at all - maybe they weren't. It's wicked behaviour.

She does have a father she will inherit from (I only have one father), but I agree it was very bad of him to leave her out totally.

She does have a father she will inherit from (I only have one father), but I agree it was very bad of him to leave her out totally.

I could sort of see the thinking in a blended family where it's very much 'these are mum's kids and these are dad's kids' - and then, of course, there's the common issue of the children of the first parent to die getting nothing because it all goes to the surviving spouse and then they leave the lot to their own kids.

However, for an adoption to have taken place, it invariably means that the (other) bio parent plays no/very little part in the child's life and/or isn't on the scene at all.

Leaving your money when you die isn't really about what the receivers get; it's about you as the giver, using the last available act of love to show what they mean to you and declaring that they are the human legacy of your life with whom you thus entrust your material legacy, whatever it may be. Of course, practically speaking, the money is extremely helpful to have - and everybody would hope that it's as much as possible - but on the primary level, it's essentially a symbolic act.

That's why a pauper who only has £300 to their name and leaves £100 each to their three kids will likely cause no upset or ill-feeling at all; whereas somebody with £21m leaving £10m each to two of their three kids and £1m to the other (without any clearly pre-discussed reasons) will sow upset and likely leave a massive chasm in the family. In some circumstances, receiving £1m can indeed be the direct source of heartbreak and bitterness.