Is my friend BU with her will?

[Thunderfeelthethunder]

My friend has been sorting out her will and I think she’s being unreasonable about it.

She’s got three adult children. One of them has one child, another has three children, and the third adult doesn’t have kids (not through choice). She thinks it’s unlikely any of them will have more children in the future.

She plans to split whatever she’s got equally into seven, so each of her children and each of her grandchildren get an equal amount. Say it’s £10k each. That means the adult-child with three children will inherit so much more than the childless one.

If I were one of her children, I’d be upset by the perceived unfairness. Am I being overly sensitive to worry about the childless kid losing out?

Her money, her choice. I know what you mean, though one household will get £40,000 where another will get £10,000. Inheritance is a minefield of emotions.

True, but the fact is that, if we assume the money left to their parent will remain until that parent's death; maybe even be invested/used for property and grow considerably in value (of course, it may all be spent on consumables in the parent's lifetime), then it will come to them as well as what they've already had directly.

I know this is MN, where anybody hoping to benefit someday from an inheritance is disgusting, evil and grabby (interestingly, when it involves siblings who are using potentially devious means to end up with far more than their fair share, they are not also accused of the same) - but in the normal course of things, I don't think it's at all unusual to assume that whatever is left from a parent's estate, when they do eventually sadly die, will be rolled along and become their children's money/assets - split equally between the children.

It's also very risky, from a fairness pov, leaving money to grandchildren as you can never be certain that all of your GC will have been born before you die, especially if you have sons.

I remember a thread from a long time ago (I may not be 100% on my memory of every detail). OP had two children whilst her sister was resolute that she would never marry or have children herself; so the grandparents left a very large chunk of their estate in trust to pay for the two named grandchildren's private education and then their university fees.

As it happened, after the grandparents died, the 'child-free' sister significantly changed her outlook on life and did go on to marry and have two children. She assumed that they would also be entitled to have private education paid for, as it had been put in trust 'for the grandchildren's education'; however not only was there not enough to see four children all the way through their education, but the trust also could not legally be used in any way to benefit the unnamed, at-the-time-unconceived grandchildren, so they couldn't even share it, so that they would, say, all go to state primary but then all go private from secondary.

It’s totally up to your friend.

That means the adult-child with three children will inherit so much more than the childless one.

The money goes directly to the grandchildren so it doesn’t mean that at all.

There are other options. If she wanted to, she could leave 25% of her estate to be split equally between the GC and then 25% to each adult child. She could split the estate 3 ways and leave it to her children to pass on the money to their children. She could bypass her children and leave it all to the grandchildren! It’s about what your friend wants to do and what she thinks is fair.

How long are the grandchildren considered the same household as their parents? Whilst they are still living with their parents? 30 years later when they have their own partners and children? Why aren't all the current children (and grandchildren) not considered one household?

Often it is beneficial for inheritance to skip a generation as the grandchildren need a lump sum to buy a home/get set up in the world far more than their already established parents. That's also assuming that they will get any inheritance from their parents at a beneficial time (or at all), rather than when they are in their sixties.

It's not OP's decision, but it is her business, if her friend has chosen to share the situation with her.

Anybody has a right to consider, and speak to others about, their opinion on the fairness of something happening in the public eye, or which has been revealed to them - even though they obviously have no say in changing the circumstances. No identifying details have been divulged.

A large proportion of this forum could just be shut down now if nobody is ever to discuss circumstances that don't directly affect them - to begin with, all topics about the royals and other celebs would be gone at a stroke, not to mention international politics.

She should split the cash equally between her own children, then give each grandchild a set token amount (5k each?)

Why?

Why are you bothered about this? You won't be getting any of it.

If I were doing this type of division of my assets, then I would want to make sure that any as yet unborn grandchildren would also benefit. I guess just a simple change of the wording could do this. At least then the currently childless sister would know that her mum had treated her the same as her sibling.

Is this something you could discuss with your friend?

I agree with you.

I don't see why you're worried about the people involved when it's nothing to do with you

It's not really any of your business. But when my DGF died his will was split firstly between his two daughters, then 6 grandchildren as they had 3 kids each. If one had had less children or the other more it would still have been split equally between the grandkids. The adults with kids in this case won't receive more because it's left to their kids, not them. My DGF stipulated that for grandkids the money could only be received when each reached the age of 21.

I can't see how it's necessary to split a will in the hope that more children would be born - where do you draw the line? It doesn't work like that. You can't leave a sum to someone that may never be born, just in case.

A close member of my family has done this - left everything equally to two sons and three grandsons. Absolutely their own business to do so - however, in doing so they have done huge damage to their relationship with the son who only has one child. He said he didn't realise it was a baby making competition!

I'm not saying what is right or what is wrong - but in a real life situation this is a real example of how it made this person feel.

Unless your friend has asked you to look out for her children in this regard, yes, you’re being overly sensitive to worry about the childless kid losing out.

It’s not unreasonable to wonder how you might approach a similar situation or might react if you were one of the children, but you’re judging her parenting here when it’s not clear there is any harm being done.

Presumably the grandchildren if under 18 will have theirs put in a trust fund.
The dcs themselves won’t have this money it’s their for the dgc

She won't get any more than the other siblings- it's her children that will receive that amount, not the adults.

Another idea is to just skip a generation so she could split it 5 ways and give to the 4 grand children and to the one with no children.... more likely to need money as won't have children to help them in old age. The ones with children will be happy as they won't have to worry so much about leaving money to their own children.

Its none of your business.

It's her money, her choice. But I'd be gutted if my mother did this! I am one of three children too and I'll inherit one third from my mother in her will. If I inherited less than a third simply because my sibling has children I'd be upset.

Well its her money so her choice, but yes I see why you would think this.

Do you think you are bothered about it because it represents something about the way she might think about you i.e. you have no kids?

I thought someone might write something like this. I couldn’t be bothered with a lengthy explanation at the time.
It’s the way people look at things, sometimes illogically, as far as inheritance is concerned. Families start to look at each other as different factions: ‘My sister’s family gets £xxx because she’s got children. I only get £x because I’m single’.
If money is divided equally amongst adult children only, there will be complaints such as, ‘ My brother is single and gets £xxx the same as me, but I’ve got 3 children and more responsibilities.’
People get greedy, jealous, indignant, have a misplaced sense of fairness and injustice.
In my opinion, I think individuals should make their wills and they should remain confidential. Often impossible unfortunately.

Am I being overly sensitive to worry about the childless kid losing out?

Well, yes they are potentially getting less inheritance than they might otherwise. But firstly, they're getting the same as their siblings. Who knows, one of the siblings might feel just as hard done by that the inheritance they were expecting has been reduced by some of it going straight to their children.
Secondly, they may feel they're getting less than they might otherwise, but they're getting more than if their mother left it all to charity, which she'd be perfectly entitled to do. People shouldn't expect a bloody inheritance. I wouldn't write my will in this way, but I don't think it's massively unreasonable and if I found out a child of mine was whining about it, I'd be disappointed they were so grabby (I appreciate that in this case, the children haven't complained, it's OP being concerned).

Are you a really nosy friend, or are you the childless sibling? Because this is none of your business.

Its her money to do with as she pleases.

Of course irl it's none of your business etc etc but that doesn't mean that we can't have a theoretical discussion :)

In your OP you framed the inheritance two ways: once as 7 individuals getting equal amounts, and once as 3 children getting unequal amounts. I think that the wording matters here: if the money is left directly as 10k for each individual, that's totally reasonable; if it's left as unequal amounts to each of her children (and they are not obliged to pass the money on directly to the grandkids) that seems unfair.

I think that amounts also make a difference. Here, you're talking about a total amount (70k) which divided into 3 would be unlikely to be life-changing for any household (it's not the kind of sum that would pay off a mortgage or pay for a care home) - but 10k each is a very nice gift that could pay for a first car for a young person, or a small renovation, or a very nice holiday, or whatever. I would find it more unfair if the amounts were, say, hundreds of thousands, and given to the household rather than the individual, as in my family that would mean one sibling would inherit twice as much as the other, while both sibling households have similar expenses at the moment (primarily, large mortgages).