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?

Meh. My brother, who doesn't have children, is leaving his estate to my children and nothing to me. It's his will, it's up to him.

Your friend is sharing hers out, that seems fair to me.

My parents also made a weird will at some point where they were going to spilt the money into halves and then were going to share my half equally between me and my children (so four of us) and my sister’s half equally between her and her two children (three in total).

Effectively it meant I got less than my sibling because I had three children. I was mightily unimpressed, especially as they hadn’t even told me they were doing it. I would have been stunned when they died and I found out.

I could see the logic in giving my sister and I a lump sum each, then giving some to each grandchild (either equal amounts, or mine getting a little less, as that’s what would have happened if it was all left to me and my sibling) but I was mightily pissed off to find out I was going to get less than my sister because of a contraceptive failure years earlier.

They’ve changed it back now, but haven’t told my son, who they told would be getting something. I guess at some point, I’ll have to tell him as I don’t want their loss to be marred by realising he’s not getting the inheritance he’s expecting.

And yes, I know the Mumsnet massive thinks we shouldn’t expect anything, but many of us hope it will make life a little easier as we go into old age.

So no, OP, I don’t think you’re unreasonable. I understand grandparents wanting to leave some to their grandchildren, but I think it does complicate things massively when they start splitting the whole thing up, rather than perhaps a small sum to each grandchild and the remainder of the estate split equally between the children. That could still be perceived as the offspring with children effectively getting more, but it’s not quite so stark.

Why should her children lose some of their inheritance because of their nieces and nephews.

It sounds badly thought out and sure to cause upset.

There’s definantly two schools of thought in this thread.

One that says it should be left to children only, and one that says it okay to leave it to children plus grandchildren.

Option one feels it unfair if left to grandchildren as different siblings could have have different number of children, so each sibling family subset would therefore inherit more in this scenario. Leaving it equally between each child eliminates this problem, as each family subset receives the same.

Option two considers each family member to be an individual subset. Therefore, every member, whether child or grandchild, is ‘eligible’ to receive some inheritance. This is considered fair, as all descendants are treated equally (although often grandchildren get a smaller amount than their parents).

Option three, of course, is leaving everything to The Cats Protection league!

They’re not loosing their inheritance, if the will hasn’t decreed it’s their inheritance to receive.

My MIL is quite open with me about their Wills etc, because she likes having someone a bit impartial to bounce things off (and she knows I'm not money oriented). DH has 2 siblings, both of whom are married with one child. No one, us included, thought we were going to have a child. Their Will originally was split three way but not quite equally as the other two got a little chunk in trust for their children. We then had DD. The second he told his parents we were having a baby they changed it so a straight up equal 3 way split, no kids trusts, just three ways to the family. She says if things change again they'll reassess. But what PILs want is to look after all of their family, regardless of their financial situation, they want to leave them all the same, DCs and DGCs.

I'm all for equal splits. Very much of the opinion that as far as kids go, if you do for one, you do for the other(s). But I understand the want to leave a provision for the grandchildren too. And to assist your children in raising them. It makes sense.

Also, it's entirely their choice. Its their money. It's not guaranteed to anyone. There might not be anything left if there's a need for care later on. I also regularly tell my parents and in laws to spend their money. Enjoy their life, their time after raising kids and working hard. If there's anything to leave it will ALWAYS be appreciated but we (DH and I, I'm not necessarily speaking for all our siblings....) would rather have them, happy and stress free, than their money.

Most will writers will say that you need to state a percentage in your will over an actual amount due to estate value and readily accessible cash fluctuations in life.

I'm just about to do mine again and mine will state x percent to eldest, x percent to youngest and if they're dead their children if they have any (neither do yet). Otherwise if you say eldest 200k and youngest 1k and there is no cash they'll not get a bean.

We know she can do what she likes with her money for god’s sake. That’s a given and very obvious. But, what she has drafted isn’t likely to satisfy all of her children due to the way she is
skipping generations and at a time where they either could put their inheritance to good use to get ahead financially, or for them to build their own wealth with and provide for their children when the time comes.

People act as though they’d be happy with their parents choice even if it diluted what they stood to receive outside of reason. It is more common to see a gesture to grandchildren rather than them being equal shareholders unless the estate is particularly generous.

To emphasise: yes it’s her choice. Although it doesn’t mean they’ll like it and that even the ones with most children won’t be shocked by how she’s structured it.

As others have said …

1. Her money, her choice
2. If it is being split equally between children and grandchildren, no one is getting more than anyone else. The child with more children is not getting their children’s money.
3. This is assuming that the will is being properly drawn up, alllowing for the possibility of more children and creating trusts to hold the money where the grandchildren are under 18.
4. None of this is your business anyway.

I couldn't care less if my parents leave me and siblings and grandkids nothing or anything tbh

I’d care if it was done unfairly and couldn’t understand why. That’s just human.

Our wills leave a small legacy to each grandchild, just as a remembrance, and the bulk split 50:50 to our children. They don’t have equal numbers of children, but we felt the fairest thing was to split equally between them. They are aware, and understand it could all go in care fees! Whatever is left, they will appreciate the fairness of our intentions.

She should simply divide it between her kids evenly and not worry about the grandkids at all, except maybe some trinkets or small gifts, and this will definitely cause issues between the siblings when she dies.

But it's her money and nothing you can do about it, so just stay quiet.

Yabu because no the adult child with the three children isn't getting more. Each of the grandchildren is getting a share. Not the parent.

But why? I have 3 children and one grandchild, and I have left that grandchild a share in my will.
All my children love my GC and will not begrudge her a penny.

It will feel exceedingly unfair to the child with no kids. It will permanently damage the siblings relationship too.

Frankly its none of your business but also its fair that money goes to the grand child not the parent.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to have an opinion on it!

My DHs Grandmother's will gives a far greater percentage to grandchildren and great grandchildren then her children. Her reasoning is her children got a lot of financial support throughout their lives are both retired and have sufficient money. Nobody has battered an eyelid to this as end of the day it's her money to do with as she wishes and thankfully we still enjoy her company.

Not personally what I'd do, but I don't think it's unreasonable. I do think the bulk of inheritances should go to the children, assuming that's what happened in previous generations. Yes, grandchildren are often at a life stage that requires large sums more than their parents, but it's not fair to skip (or significantly reduce for) a generation if you yourself benefited from your own parents.

I plan to do something kind of similar. I plan to leave each of my grandchildren a lump sum (say £10k if I were doing it today) and the divide the rest between my two children. So technically one child might benefit more in that their "side" gets more, but since I'm valuing my children and grandchildren equally as individuals I feel it's fair.

My Mum has 2 childFREE children and one child with two children.

The will is heavily weighted so that the grandchildren recieve a significant portion of property held in trust for them until the death of all 3 sisters. My mother seems to have overlooked the fact that if we cannot rent out the properties we just have properties to maintain out of our own probably pensions at that time just to pass down to our nieces.

Yes I'm hugely pissed off by it.

Well I inherited nothing as that was what was left after the funeral was paid for. I tell a lie I have a plate and teapot that remind me of my mother when I use them. I have nothing of my fathers, he died when I was a child. He had medals from WWII that I used to polish for him but they went to my brother. Money or the lack of it doesn't bother me but I am bitter about the medals, they meant nothing to my brother and he doesn't know where they are.

Her children's inheritance is what she leaves them when she dies.
They're not losing anything!

Did she ask for your opinion?

It's her money, so her choice.

Regardless of how she decides to split the money, the grandchildren are people in their own right... not just extensions of their parents. So each sibling would inherit the same amount under your friend's plan.

No, children are not an extension of their parents - but they are a continuation inasmuch as what is likely to happen to the money eventually, however old they are at the time - unless their parents make sure that they spend their whole legacy on consumables that are gone and retain no value by the time they die.

I don't think that's really the same scenario, though.

Unless you know/suspect you will die very young, it doesn't normally make a lot of sense to leave your money/assets to somebody of the same generation (apart from marital assets reverting wholly to the surviving spouse, of course).

It's usually standard to leave to the next generation; but controversy can arise, as on here, when people skip a generation and leave to the next one below.

If you have/had other siblings who have children, and your brother left everything to your children but not his other nieces/nephews, I can see why any siblings in that scenario would also feel it to be very unfair.

That said, people don't tend to feel quite such an expectation of inheriting sideways - i.e. from an aunt or uncle - as they would from directly above - i.e. a parent or indeed grandparent.

Yes, many people on MN seem determined to paint anybody hoping for an eventual inheritance as grabby, and it is entirely up to the will-maker to leave their money to whomever they wish (unless the law where they live dictates otherwise); but I don't personally see anything wrong with having that default expectation that, when your parents have sadly gone and their money obviously still remains, you and your siblings would then receive an equal share of it.

If it was my children I would be leaving my will to my direct descendants. My son and daughter 50/50, regardless of offspring. It would be up to them, if they decide to share that out. After all. My children will be providing for their own children, as I have done, so it will trickle down anyway. Eventually.