Parent gifts/Inheritance- unfair?

[ducksandquackers]

I’ll start with a little background, my parents were both from low income families, my dad went on to be a lawyer and my mum a teacher. My dad is now 77 my mum passed away 6 years ago.
I have one brother, he’s 50, I’m 42. He has one daughter who is 18, I have one son who is 8 months.
When my mum passed away my dad sold their home, bought a small one bedroom flat. Never really thought twice about what happened with the money. I guess I assumed it was out away in savings or something similar.
My brother is an accountant, makes £150,000+ a year, his wife passed away 7 years ago, he used her life insurance to pay off their mortgage and has been financially comfortable since. I’m a nurse, my husband a police officer. We aren’t struggling per se but in my family we are the worst off.

We met for a family meal last night, my brother, niece, husband, dad and son. I asked my niece if the new student loan changes would impact her as she’s due to go to uni after summer. She said no, she wouldn’t be getting a student loan. My husband joked asking how she would afford everything then and she said “Grandad gave me money for course fees and Accomodation”. I could tell my dad and brother didn’t want that to be something I knew.
I questioned my brother today. He told me when my dad sold the house, he gave a chunk of the money (£150,000) to my niece. At the time I’d said I’d never have children, so he wanted to give it to his granddaughter now rather than once he’s gone and can’t see her make use of it. My brother and I would get the split of the flat he’s currently in, anything left in pensions and some moneys he’s saved after he passes.
Now when I didn’t have kids this would be fair I think. I get that. But I do have a son now, not only has he missed out on a grandma on my side, and a grandad young enough to be able to play and look after him, he’s missed out on holidays with grandparents and all sorts. But also, he’s missed out on inheritance.
For years my brother has been putting £500-£1000 a month in savings for my niece, so she has a good amount in savings anyway. My husband and I have a mortgage and don’t make enough to save that sort of money for my son. My husbands parents won’t leave much in the way of inheritance and what they do is split between 6 grandkids.

So AIBU to think it’s not fair my niece gets all the money from my parents house? Even if she was the only grandchild at the point of the deal? She isn’t now and surely my son is just as entitled to that as she is? Should I talk to my dad?

@FirstDogOnTheMoon I think you need to calm down tbh. I did not call you names, you are massively overreacting to the terms you object to, they are not "insults".

Again, you’re contradicting yourself.

You said you’d be hurt if the inheritance was unfair.

You said any gift of money was early inheritance which was unfair.

You said you were fine with your sister receiving said gift aka early inheritance.

No it seems the issue is the amount of money, not the way in which it is done.

So you’re contradicting your whole argument. Either what the OPs dad is fine or what your parents did is not fine. You can’t have it both ways. Unless it’s purely about the amount of cash and therefore you’re a bit grabby?

🙄

Continues being rude and insulting whilst declaring they aren’t rude and insulting. Excellent argument.

@FirstDogOnTheMoon Look I'm not contradicting myself ok. My view is not as black and white as yours, it's nuanced. I don't view the odd bit of money here and there to get us out of a scrape or help us with x or y as inheritance - though if they wanted to view it as such and give us less in their will I would totally respect that and not see it as an act of favouritism. But I do think that the proceeds from your family home, of such a great value, leaving a comparatively small amount left just to get you through your last few years, given to a family member because you want to set them up, is clearly intended to serve the same function as inheritance. I don't believe it's as simple as "all money before = just a gift". Yes, technically it's a gift, but the intention behind it is the same.

I'm not grabby. If my parents have no money at all left to pass on when they die that's absolutely fine. But I would find it hurtful if they gave my sister more for no reason. And further to that, as a parent, I would not skip a generation. I would want my own children to benefit from my wealth first, and pass it along to their children. Especially if one of my children was not well off. So I don't personally think that was the right decision.

This is my opinion. You don't have to agree with it, but there is no point repeatedly saying "you are wrong", because it is subjective.

Continues being rude and insulting whilst declaring they aren’t rude and insulting. Excellent argument.

I think you should call it quits with this "you're insulting me" shtick. I find what you said to me about growing up significantly ruder than anything I said to you, so we could do this all day.

You need to redirect this to yourself as you started being rude and name calling for no reason. As I said I’m not engaging with you any more. You’re still contradicting yourself in your last message, you’re still being really rude.

I disagree. Early you are dressing up a gift as Inheritance. Early inheritances are simply gifts. A gift that could only be classed as inheritance for tax purposes after the person dies.

@ProfessorXtra Ok. I disagree,

@FirstDogOnTheMoon I'm really not being rude, I've been very measured.

And I never asked you to engage with me.

"Obtuse" is no more of an insult than "contradictory" and "dog with a bone" is just a metaphor that means it feels like you won't let this go and it's pointless.

None of this is name calling. I'd class "grow up, you're immature" as pretty insulting, though.

I really don't understand why you feel so insulted.

I would speak to your dad and tell him how hurt you are on your child's behalf.

Put yourself in your dad's shoes.

Given your age and infertility, he accepted he was only going to have one grandchild, so downsized and gave a lump sum to the only grandchild he was going to have.

He must have been thrilled for you to have a baby, but I would say he is now feeling awful that he cannot offer the £150k that he gave his other grandchild.

If I were in his shoes, I'd leave £150k in his will to the other grandchild to be held in trust until he was 18, then split the remainder of the estate 50/50 between you and your brother.

But you can't force him to do that, nor might he have any money left should he need to go into a nursing home.

ps - your dad is only 77. Too old to play with grandchildren?! My grandad skipped along the beach with my kids (his great grandchildren) even when he was in his early 90s!

Definitely this.

When people save for their kid's future they always claim it's for Uni, driving lessons, a car, deposit etc. This money was gifted years ago and is now available. His GD is deciding how it will be used. Her choice, her money. She sounds calm and responsible rather than manipulative as hinted at by the OP. Your niece never had 150k at 8 months either. I'm pretty sure your dad will try to address this in some way but if you just try to barge in and cause family ructions everyone loses. You had a stroke of good fortune when unexpectedly you got what you always wanted - a child - quite late in life. Don't ruin it by becoming bitter and twisted over money. You were managing fine before you knew. Nothing has really changed except your niece still hasn't got her own mum.

I'm giving the OP the benefit of the doubt as she is really not coming across well in how she speaks about her niece. OP, you miss your mum and wish she was here to support you with your first child. The money was given before your child existed so is neither here nor there. I'm sure a 75k lump sum would be helpful for you right now, but that money is gone.

He didn’t secretly give money to one sibling, he gave it to his granddaughter. His granddaughter happens to be an entirely separate individual to her father. OP didn’t have the right to that information either, it’s a matter concerning the parties involved and as such it’s up to them whether they want to disclose it or not, and if so to whom.

That isn’t nepotism. I suppose you could say it’s favouritism for a person that actually existed at the time over one that didn’t though.

My FIL may leave all his money to his youngest son, who doesn't work and lives on benefits. Or he may leave all of it to his three grandchildren (my children), who otherwise may not be able to afford a deposit for a house, ever. Or he may split it equally between DH and his brother. Or it may all just go on his care.

Who knows? Any decision would have its justification. Your father's decision to give money to his only grandchild had its justification at the time it was given and you shouldn't feel slighted by it.

Ok?

@ProfessorXtra Ok!

I think we all understand that a person's assets are theirs to distribute as gifts or as inheritance as they wish. That's not the issue though.

The issue is that it seems very unwise and potentially hugely inequitable to make these decisions based on a snapshot in time. Circumstances change massively over time... further grandchildren might be born, there may be illness, death, divorce, redundancy among family members. I completely understand how the OP can feel that her child is being treated unfavourably to the other grandchild.

If I were to make decisions about financial gifts or my will, based on current circumstances, then one of my adult children is on the face of it more 'needy' than the other. But I'm not stupid. I know that circumstances change and this may not always be the case. I'm also aware that to a certain extent, the situation is down to some poor choices by my ds 2 (the 'needy' one) as he dropped out of Uni and dossed around for a while so has fallen behind ds1 in terms of job and earning. I'm not going to 'punish' my ds1 for having been diligent.

A loving and thoughtful parent should be capable of looking at the bigger picture, and not making assumptions about future events. I suspect in the OP's case, the situation was a bit less clear because she'd said she wouldn't have children (and subsequently did have a child later) so being charitable, the grandparent may have thought the existing Grand daughter would be the only grandchild ever. But as I've said, there are many other factors which can change people's circumstances- death, sickness etc - and it seems very short sighted to give a grand child 150k without being sure you can treat other children/grandchildren equally.

@watermeloncougar completely agree, well said!

We're all well aware it's his money to do what he wants with. But there is room for nuance and difference of opinion around whether we think he's made the right decision.

It is the issue though. OP doesn’t have to like it, and she can be deeply hurt, but ultimately her father can be as unfair as he likes, regardless as to whether or not it’s based on solid reasoning* or merely whim.

OP is absolutely entitled to feel whatever she feels about it, but she’s also got to accept it. Changing it is not within her control, the only thing that is within OP’s control is how she responds.

*solid reasoning as he sees it, obviously.

@whumpthereitis yes, I'm not disputing the facts. My point is that I can't comprehend how a loving parent can behave like that towards their children (or their children's children.) Being a good, loving parent means not favouring one child or grandchild over others. Of course, people can do whatever their wish, but showing favouritism is a sure fire way to make some of your children feel extremely hurt. Which personally I could never do.

He didn't favour anyone. He had 1 grandchild. Only 1. The other never existed and at the time never would

I think we all understand that a person's assets are theirs to distribute as gifts or as inheritance as they wish. That's not the issue though.

Actually, if you "understand that a persons assets are theirs to distribute as gifts or inheritance as they wish" then it is the only issue.

I do not understand where this idea that people are entitled to be left money by parents / relatives has come from, but it is deeply disturbing. Nobody is entitled to someone elses money in any circumstances, and sitting waiting for someone to die so that you can have their money, and squabbling over what your own view of "fair" is unsavoury. Perhaps it isn't "fair" that the OP's child gets to have two parents whilst her neice hasn't had her mother? Perhaps it isn't "fair" that her brother has been more successful than her and her husband in monetary terms? We can all make lists of things about life that aren't "fair". Spoiler alert - life isn't "fair".

Given the vast number of threads on this site about how unfair parents are in not leaving their children the money they think they should be entitled to, perhaps we should advocate the great equaliser, since so many people will also have parents who have nothing to leave them. We'll treat money and assets at death like annual leave at work - use it or lose it. Anything left at death goes into a central "pot" for general charitable purposes - we can work out the details later. It will apply to everyone from the monarchy down, and heavy penalties will be in place for those seeking to avoid it by off-shoring their money / assets. Then everyone will have to rely on their own "merits" to succeed in life / buy stuff. Nobody inherits anything, nobody expects anything, and nobody gets to sit around grief-stricken about what their dead parents didn't leave them rather than grief-stricken because their parent is dead.