Giving grandchildren different amounts of inheritance

[Darinki]

Good evening all,
I am posting on behalf of a friend who isn’t massively tech literate but is seeking advice, obviously she will get professional advice but it is causing a lot of worry and I want to give her some opinions to help in decision making, she knows I am posting and has encouraged it.

My friend is in her 70s, she’s recently been diagnosed with terminal cancer, her husband passed away in 2022.
She had two children, one passed away many years ago the other is in his mid 50s. She has 3 grandchildren, 2 are her sons and 1 is her late daughters. They are all between 18-22.

When it comes to assets all she really has is her house, she got a valuation done recently and it was was around 1.2 mil. She also has some cash savings but she suspects these will be spent on care as her condition worsens.
She has already spoke to her son and he has suggested when she re-writes her will they just skip a generation and go straight to the 3 grandchildren.
Her daughters daughter got inheritance from her mum, she owns property in London worth around 700k at 22 so not doing badly at all, she also has no student debt.
Her sons children will have student debt and other than small savings from their parents no house deposit etc.
Her son thinks because of this the inheritance should be split 10/45/45 or similar. This would still be say £100,000 if not a little more to the cousin who owns property already, but it would also give his 2 children the opportunity to buy a better property. They all live in the London/SE area so housing is expensive!
My friend however is worried that this is unfair on her granddaughter, and is getting herself very stressed trying to decide. She sees merit in both arguments.
so
YABU - It should be equal they all deserve the same
YANBU - It makes sense to give those who have less now more

Thoughts?

Fairly split. It’s the only way.

I’m sorry for your friend’s situation. I think her son is being awful putting this kind of pressure on his mother. The poor girl has money because her mother died and she inherited early. Presumably his sons will inherit when he dies. I would do an even split. That is more generous to his kids than if a generation wasn’t split as otherwise his 2 would only get 25%. His suggestion is the least fair.

I would give half to the granddaughter and then give half to the son. That way she is splitting the money equally between her two children.

Her son can forward his portion to his children if he wishes

Her daughters daughter got inheritance from her mum, she owns property in London worth around 700k at 22 so not doing badly at all, she also has no student debt.

She also has no mum.
I'd split it equally. Maaaybe she should give the grandkids who need cash a smallish cash gift, separately and privately, if that will help them out. But not in the will.

Cheeky of her son to say "oh, you should give my children so much more than my niece"!

The reason the niece has more ATM is because she already inherited from her mother because her mother died young! It seems likely the son's children will inherit from him in turn, only fortunately he is still living.

If the niece gets less, she loses out not only in respect of the grandmother's inheritance, but in terms of the balance long term. Emotionally it's also something that's likely to feel hurtful for her, as if she gets so much less than her cousins, it might feel like granny loved her less .She was already dealt an emotional blow through the early death of her mother.

Split equally. Surviving son being a dick. Granddaughter losing her mother is not something you can put money on.

Op as a career myself it's hard but turns a blind eye

Absolutely this

I don't agree that equal is always "fair". My sons, for example, have a very wealthy father. My daughter does not.

Her son is being a dick. How unfair that he thinks his children should receive 90% of the inheritance. Had his sister still be here today, they (him and his sister) would get 50% each, meaning his children eventually inherit 25% each along the line. To think his children should profit on his dead sister's part of the inheritance is shocking to me.

He could die next year himself, then his kids have 90% of the inheritance plus inheritance from him.

The poor niece. She has no mother. No siblings. She's lost a grandparent and another on the way out. She'll have little family support around her as she starts her own family etc. That inheritance would help with the financial strain raising a family brings with it when there's little support around her (I.e. cost of childcare etc.).

If anything, I'd say the niece should get 50% in lieu of he mum, and the uncle should get 50%. If he chooses to pass on to his kids, then so be it, but that's significantly less than he is suggesting.

CF.

This is what I would do. It's the normal thing to do. Split equally between your kids or, if they have died, between their kids.

I think they should all get an equal share. Shame on him for trying to get more for his kids.

She could split it 4 ways, 25% each to the grandchildren and 25% to her son. Then he can pass on his share how he wants.

Split equally between the 3 grandchildren.
No question!!!!

The son has his own children first on his agenda- of course, but ffs we are talking a young woman with no mother.

The emotional impact of not splitting equally into 3 on this

She loves them equally so should leave an equal amount.

She can’t equalise the play field for all grandchildren because they have different life circumstances and her daughter’s death can’t be put in monetary terms. The son is being very unfair by assigning arbitrary numbers like 10/45/45z

Life isn't fair though. I'm the poorest person in my family, it doesn’t mean that I should receive more inheritance.

Split equally. The dds dd only has that money because her mum is dead. When the son dies he can leave his money to his own children if he likes then all of the dgc will have had 2 inheritances. You can’t say to someone they get less inheritance because they’ve had 2 bereavements so it’s fairer to leave more to people who’ve only had one.

I would split evenly between all three, so 33.3%. That way it's the fairest. Like a previous poster said, if they didn't skip a generation, then the son would have only got 50% and 2 grandsons 25% each and the grand daughter 50%. Any jewellery I would probably give to the grand daughter.

The son is thinking only of his 2 children when in fact, grandma should think in terms of equal fairness for all 3 grand children. In fact, grandma should spoil the grand daughter more because she's lost her mum at such a young age.

The son is absolutely awful, grabby and selfish - fancy wanting to financially penalise his own niece because her mother died when she was so young. His own children will inherit from him in time, and in the meantime have the benefit of a living and presumably supportive parent. Of course he’s suggested it skip a generation, it benefits his children over their cousin.

If anything I’d say a third each was generous - there’s a very good argument the granddaughter should get half and he should get half to distribute between his children if he wishes.

He’s awful stressing out his terminally ill mother over this too.

50/50 as it would be if the daughter was alive... OP please pass my regrets to your friend for having a vulture for a son. Imagine knowing your mother has been given a terminal Dx and this is the shit he's trying to pull

Hadn't finished

The emotional impact of not splitting equally into 3 on this young lady with no mum would be lifelong and would probably impact on her mental health- especially it being her mums mum doing this.

Only other fair way would be split into 1/4's for son + 3 grandchildren and then son can give his share to his kids... but then one could argue it should've be split into /5 and the young lady gets 2/5 so her mums share too.
Or even half and half to each of your kids so late daughter's daughter gets 1/2 as does son- son then does as he wishes...

I think equally between 3 is my final answer!

He is suggesting his niece is better off in life because she was bereaved of a parent at a young age. Gosh that’s heartless. She might have a house but she has no mother.

Your friend could leave the lions share to her sons children only for him to die the next day and they inherit his wealth too.

She should absolutely split it equally between her three grandchildren.

Who has what student loans etc is zero to do with the principle of the matter imo else where does that end? X has better earning potential as they trained in a specific area? Y has a rich girlfriend? Z has an expensive hobby?

The only reason she has that money is because she lost a parent young. She’s not the ‘winner’ or ahead of her cousins. The son’s suggestion is a bit revolting IMO.

My sibling died before our remaining parent and my parent’s will still split the estate between the four children, but my sibling’s share went to the next generation.

Equally. They’re equally her grandchildren.

At 22 she might have “money” but she’s already lost her mum. And her uncle/the son sounds like a grabby prat.

@Beezknees The situation for my three children is that when my ex-husband dies my two sons will be left with an equal share of his mortage-free property (currently worth in excess of 1 mil). When husband and I die we will be able to leave our daughter (and my two sons - his stepsons) with nothing (despite us both working).
So if family members made the choice to reflect on this within their wills then I would fully appreciate the reasons as to why.