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?

I don’t see it as sibling is being favoured if both siblings inherit, plus one siblings children (grandchildren). I see that the Will-maker considers her children and grandchildren to be one big family unit, not two subsets. I think someone described it above as she’s leaving money to all her descendants, which I think is how I view it.

An elderly family member died last year and she split her will between her three dc who got a third each. She did not take into account the different numbers of dc each of them had.

She made it very clear to the executors that splitting it 3 ways was the only fair way to do it.

I believe that is what my parents intend to do. My brother, my three children (DB has no children nor is ever likely to) and I will receive a fifth each. Their choice - whatever I think is by the by. 🤷‍♀️

Incidentally, my DH and his two sisters received a quarter of their parents' will, with the remaining quarter split equally between the grandchildren - DH's sister's two and (at the time) our two children. (DH's other sister has no children).

We had a third child who was conceived a month or so after DH's father died (his mother had died several years earlier). DH simply passed on a share of his inheritance to DC3, equal to that of our two older DC.

Mmm I think it's OKish if there's no chance of any more children, but my inlaws are threatening to split evenly among the current group of grandchildren and great-grandchildren even though some of the grandchildren have kids and some are unmarried as yet but have plenty of child-bearing years ahead, that just feels wrong. And nothing at all directly for DH & siblings.

I think you should stop at the highest complete generation and then leave them to distribute to their own families as and when.

How will one sister get more?
She won't the children will get the money

Imo I think it's traditional to leave it to your children and then it's up to them to leave money to their own kids. If she proceeds on the basis she discussed with you then I'd at least tell her to talk to her children about it. The childless sibling might be absolutely fine or it could cause a huge rift in the future.

Friend disclosed this bit of info so why should t OP discuss it here on an anonymous forum

OP your friend chose to share this info with you so I don't think people are being fair in telling you to butt out.

I would mention to friend that she possible can't be sure all GC have been born yet ( are the kids male or female) men could end up with kids many years from now

How does your sister benefit if her children inherit?

Exactly this.

Maybe they want the money to go to the children they know and love. It isn't the fault of children born after their death but the ILs don't know them.

I love my GC as much as my children and my GC will need help more than my children who all benefitted from either no university fees or very low fees, cheaper houses etc. So if I decide to leave it equally between all my descendants or I decide to leave it to GC as they will need it more I think that is up to me.

If anyone doesn't like it they are welcome to drop out.

My grandparent did this on death: equal split between kids and grandkids. My mum has more kids than her siblings but she didn’t ‘get more’ as we the grandchildren are not an extension of our mum. In any event keep your nose out!

The thing is a person's will is their expression of how they want to distribute their estate. Regardless of whether the living see it as fair or not.

For example. My Nan (98) has left an equal split of her money (she does not have anything else) to my mum (only child), me (only grandchild) and the eldest of my children because that is what she wants to do. My youngest will be gifted some of my inheritance from her.

My parents have left everything to me (only child) BUT I am of the mind to ask them to bypass me with some of it because my son and daughter will pay inheritance tax if they don't. Whilst that is a nice problem to have, my parents won't want them to have to if it can be helped. Plus, by the time they die I am likely to be early to mid 60s and retired already if my pension plans perform and I won't necessarily need that money so it might as well go to my son and daughter to use as they're more likely to need it (potentially young families, etc).

I may not be the norm in relation to inheritance planning, but I am a financial adviser so can see the benefit in monies being left to other, less financially sound, members of a family.

I thought IHT tax was paid on the estate rather than paid by the beneficiary. Eg someone dies with an estate of more than 325k they pay iht on the estate. Isn't that how it works?

Yes it does, poor wording by me but my family are wanting to avoid it - so it is probably a better idea for my parents estate to skip a generation. If it goes to me it'll take my estate value into the IHT bracket by quite a margin and honestly as I've paid tax on everything I earn and own I don't want to give them 40% on my death as well.

That makes sense

For married couples, or a widower or widow - no it's not how it may work out in many cases.

£325k for each parents, one parent dies and they pass their £325 to the remaining spouse - so now you have £650k if there is a house left in the estate - that leave another £150k so now you have £800k before IH tax kicks in on anything over £800k

Even if the other parent died 25 years ago and the widow/widower didn't remarry this would still be relevant

Agreed

That's right. A widowed relative in my family died last year and the executors needed the marriage certificate for this reason

If it's left to the kids it will be held in trust for the kids. A parent can't just take it. Trust me, mine tried.

Sorry, you're slightly incorrect. It is 325k each, plus an additional 175k each (or up to) if residential property is involved which will pass to the surviving spouse.

As my parents estate is just under the 1m currently as it is partially made up of pensions that are not taken into account for IHT I will inherit without their estate paying it. However, IF I then die my estate will be over the threshold and therefore my estate would pay IHT before being passed to my children. Whereas if my parents bypass me and at least half of their estate went to my children that should mean my estate won't invoke IHT.

I wonder if people are imagining the grandchildren as children or adults and whether they actually skews opinion slightly.
When my grandparents died I was an adult with the starting of my own family. My brother the same. Us inheriting anything didn’t benefit our parents in any way.
If you picture them as children then maybe you see if as more going into each of those families when it really isn’t the case.
I think it’s quite nice that this friend seems to view all her grandchildren as individual people that she has her own relationships with rather than just extensions on their parents.

I love how many people in this thread are making comments about how it's 'fair', 'it's her money etc' but if it was you in this boat I bet you wouldn't see it as being quite so fair. I feel the daughter without children will feel very hurt by this.

100% this as well.