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 think the key is communication. I’ve read so many threads where details like this are revealed when the person dies. It’s almost like they wanted to create ill feelings. It’s much better if they communicate their reasoning. Though I guess most avoid such conversations as they’re awkward.

Also with grandkids there’s often the possibility of more unlike your own children. My uncle had a kid at 60. I’ve also read a thread on here where the person who died hadn’t updated their will in a while and so the newest grandchildren got nothing.

I don't think that there is ever a 100% fair way to give inheritance.

If you give it straight to the DC, then they may squander the inheritance on cruises/drugs/leaving it to a new spouse (so that the GC will get nothing) or the amount doesn't help them (IE they already have enough money for a house or couldn't ever afford one even if they do get an inheritance and it messes up their benefits. Also why should GC get different amounts depending on if they had siblings or not?

If you gave directly to the GC, then it may be more useful so that they can afford a deposit or training to get a better job which would help more in the long more and less inheritance tax is paid overall.

Maybe the fairest way if the DC don't need the money is to split it equal between the childless DC and the GC?

@MissLucyEyelesbarrow agreed, although it would be grossly unfair for an aunt or uncle to want to take from a niece or nephew struggling to get on the housing ladder. I’d give such a request a blunt response.

At the very least the child free child/adult should be told - it's horrendous - and frankly cowardly - finding this sort of thing out after the person has died.

@JustGotToKeepOnKeepingOn

I don't understand this 'skipping a generation' thing. Why not split equally between the children, they can then give what they choose to their children (the grandchildren). The money could also help provide the grandchildren with a better childhood. I'd be very unhappy if money was sat doing nothing waiting for a grandchild to be old enough to inherit it while I was struggling to meet the day to day costs of living.

This ^

I think that it should be split equally among children. If a child has received a lump sum already while the parents are alive that should be deducted from their allowance.

I really don’t get this skipping generation thing. It’s like they don’t trust their own dc to provide for their own children or that they want to be in control. Even those without children could hit hard times with illness or redundancy and be glad of the money.

The main issue with this is the fact the childless DC doesn’t know. Hurt and offence with wills often happen when people don’t expect things and are then completely caught off guard.

My Uncle kept his children very shielded from the vileness of my father. I can understand why, but they were left very hurt and bewildered when I inherited my Nana’s flat and my siblings shared money/shares etc with my aunt and uncle from the rest of the estate.

Once the situation was explained (GP’s brought me up from age 7. Siblings (all 8-10 years older than me) and I inherited our father’s share. Aunt, uncle and siblings were given the vast majority of their share when Grandad died to protect then 12 year old me from being homeless if nana died because whilst they were all prepared to ‘babysit’ every now and again none of them were prepared to take me in) my cousins completely understood it. However the damage that was done in that short spell where I was getting grief, effectively for being an abused child, and they felt unwanted/unloved by Grandparents has had a lasting effect.

I think that is terrible.
I have 3 kids (2 adult)
My sis has 2
My brother none.

If we inherit anything from my Mum, it's split equally between us 3. Me and sis will divide our share between our respective children probably.
It would be terrible to disinherit my brother though

YABU

I support this. When my grandmother passed away, she left a huge sum to my mother. And my mother will in turn leave her children....zilch. My grandmother was a good mother who cared about her children. My mother is not.

I know a family where the GM did this. When she died, she only had one GC, so he got the lot. Thanks to canny management on the part of the trustees, he was able to buy a large house in an expensive SE town with only a small mortgage at the age of 21.

He now has 5 cousins on that side of the family, the oldest are in their mid-20s. They have massive student debt and are living in house shares. The first GC has lodgers, no debt, a lovely lifestyle and works p/t. It has caused massive resentment between the GM's children.

Those of us who know the family well suspect that when granddad dies, his will may well redress the balance, especially as the parent of the loaded grandchild is absolutely minted, and the GC is an only child, so will get the lot.

I think equal shares to the children, and if they want to pass it straight on to their own children, that's up to them.

I agree that communication is key especially when anything other than generation to generation equal split is being planned.

My DM is apparently (according to DB1) planning some sort of ridiculous trust with her adult DGCs as beneficiaries. My two DBs and I are the trustees.

So not only are we being disinherited but as executors and trustees we will be left with all the work (which my DBs will faff about leaving DH and me to actually get things done). Cant talk to DM about how stupid the whole idea is as I am not supposed to know. I have told DB2 about it so that he isnt blindsided later.

A little bit of communication would make such a difference.

Each sibling should get the same as each other, regardless of whether or not they have children. (Separate from anything left directly to the grandchildren).

Each grandchild should get the same as each other, regardless of how many siblings they have.

It's reasonable to adjust for a lump sum given to one child/grandchild earlier on, as long as that is clearly explained.

Personally, if the estate is likely to be big enough, I'd leave a nice amount to each grandchild that would help them set themselves up (say £10-50k depending on the size of the estate), with the remaining larger balance split equally between my children.

Yeah I agree with everyone saying it doesn't seem fair!
My DH's gran split her estate between her 8 children, and each one then had the option to pass it straight on to their children (not all of them had children). MIL did this so DH and SIL got a lump sum.

I was thinking recently that now people live longer, this makes a lot more sense.

If someone is in their 80s or 90s when they die then their children are probably nearing retirement and unless something has gone badly wrong, should be reasonably financially secure. Whereas their grandchildren are likely to be in the toughest period of their lives financially.

There will also generally be more grandchildren than children, meaning inheritance gets split more ways and nobody gets a giant mega payout, which seems fairer as well.

But I'm sure inheritance causes all kinds of problems in families anyway. Why would choosing a new norm make that any worse or better?

I agree that communication is important. Much better tackled any feelings of hurt now than have them added to the grief after death.

My own grandmother has a will that leaves her estate to one of her sons and his family - not to my Dad and his, who get nothing. On the face of it, that is hurtful and seems more so considering she lives with my Dad and his wife, who care for her.

BUT she has communicated why to everyone so that they are not hurt by this when she is gone: she put in a considerable amount of money to my Dad's house, when they all moved in together - so it's a bigger house than he would have bought/afforded without it. She is addressing that inbalance when she goes but handing what's left to my uncle and family.

She assumes I will inherit some 'benefit' from that when my Dad goes (I probably won't, he and is younger wife will have spent it all by then and I really don't blame either of them for that ).

It's the communication that means none of this is hurtful when she goes. And will allow us all just to grieve her, without it complicationg that time.

I am pretty sure there are tax advantages to leaving the main residence to children as opposed to anyone else (inc grandchildren).

Leave your money split equally between your children and they can decide whether to pass it on.

@Mountaingoat12

I am pretty sure there are tax advantages to leaving the main residence to children as opposed to anyone else (inc grandchildren).

Leave your money split equally between your children and they can decide whether to pass it on.

There aren't.

In principle I’m not against recognising grandchildren (I’ve been helped that way myself) but it does have to be fair and the person doing it needs to think very carefully about possible implications. My children inherited and the will was written in a way that the child I was pregnant with was also directly included. It would have been a massive pain if only one child had been as we’d have wanted to even it up between them but not been legally able to do so.

I cannot vote because I don’t think the two options are opposite and mutually exclusive. I could say YABU because I firmly believe nobody is entitled to anything. But I also think that it is wrong and divisive to disinherit a child because they are childless themselves in favour of their siblings children.

If somebody is going to leave their estate to the family, as most people do, I don’t see the logic of skipping a generation. Take that to its natural conclusion down a line and every other generation is skipped over, just why? If the child of the deceased wants to help their offspring get onto the housing ladder, then they are free to share.

@Ozanj

GP to skip dc to pass to GC are usually doing it as one last power trip in my experience. It just doesn’t happen in families with healthy relationships

Sorry, but you're talking rubbish. Every family is different.

My DP's did exactly that and discussed it with DB and myself when they were making their Wills, to make sure that we agreed. We did - it made sense. DH and I and my DB and his DW are comfortable and don't need more money. As it worked out, the inheritance our DC received helped them all get a foot on the property ladder.

My family have very healthy relationships - the reason being that we talk and we're not totally selfish.

I hope FIL does give his money direct to grandchildren rather than his children ( my H). The kids need it more.

I would be really upset with anyone giving a large sum of money directly to my children. I am NC with my family (they have a lot of money and I would have been in a position to inherit quite a lot - I'm an only child and mum's partner is NC with his children and GC).

I've been very direct with my mum that I am perfectly happy to never inherit anything, but I absolutely do NOT want that money to go directly to my dc. I think maybe it would be different if we were talking £5000. We'd probably be talking more £500K each. I think it's hugely inappropriate to put an 18 year old in a position of coming into that much money without having the life experience and maturity to know how to cope with it. I suspect she'll still leave it to them out of spite. I think if children are actual children, unless there is a backstory, it's more appropriate for that money to go to the adults who can keep it safe for them.

But in this case, yes, I think it's really hurtful to leave someone who doesn't have children out of the will entirely.

A child hasn't been disinherited for being childless though as none of the children are inheriting.

@JustGotToKeepOnKeepingOn

I don't understand this 'skipping a generation' thing. Why not split equally between the children, they can then give what they choose to their children (the grandchildren). The money could also help provide the grandchildren with a better childhood. I'd be very unhappy if money was sat doing nothing waiting for a grandchild to be old enough to inherit it while I was struggling to meet the day to day costs of living.

Well, it depends, doesn't it?

My niece and nephews grandparents on the other side have all agreed to skip a generation. There are five GC, two from one and three from another. The first generation are all well off, no needs at all. The five GC are all adults ranging from 18 to 33, one of whom has a career in the arts and will never have any money, another has worked hard but struggling to get on property ladder, the remaining three a bit more settled due to better off parents but still, the money would be useful.

If it is left to the direct offspring and they don't immediately move it down the line, or do so but die within seven years, assuming their estates are over the IHR limits (they very much will be) then it just adds to money that IHT gets paid on. Skipping a generation is a type of IHT planning.

On my side, however, we are three siblings. One has no kids, one has two, one has one. The two are over age thirty, the one is aged four.

Originally my mother wanted to write her will to split everything seven ways between three siblings, three GC and one DIL (there are no other spouses). I said no.

So in the end we agreed she would split three ways, between the three siblings, but the sibling with two DC gets one third of her third, with her kids also getting a third of that each, the sibling with one DC getting a third of his third while his wife and child get a third each too (mad), and the childless sibling (me) gets a third in full.

It's bonkers but at least this way I get my full third. I don't "need" it as such but it would make my retirement easier (course she might not have much left to leave, and that's fine, but unlikely).

The driving force for all this nonsense is my mother wanting my brother's wife to inherit so she "has her own money". At least it's only coming from my brother's due share this way!

If she skipped a generation, I'd get nothing. I'll leave all my estate to my niece and nephew (the two who are adults now) anyway, so they'll get it in the end, or it'll be spent on care.

@Clymene not all parents have money just lying around to help their DC buy a house.