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?

the perfect solution for all which won’t hurt anyone is 50% to son (who is entitled to 100% if she didn’t say otherwise), and split the remaining 50% equally between the 3 grandchildren.

The son's not entitled to 100 if his mother doesn't say otherwise! The intestate split would be between the deceased's children, so it would be half to the son and half to the daughter, and as the daughter is dead, her share would pass to her own daughter (granddaughter to the deceased).

Equal split. The GD hasn’t got parents, she needs what family she’s got - her cousins - on side.

Because to me it’s not split per family but per person, this way each grandchild gets recognised equally, as does the son, who can then choose what to do with his own inheritance

I assume that the son has suggested skipping a generation so that his children receive at least 2/3 rather than 1/2, so he's already putting his children in an advantageous position with his seemingly altruistic proposal.

In your friend's situation, the only sensible and equitable answer is that 50% goes to her son and 50% to her granddaughter, as it would have if her daughter was still alive.

It really doesn’t matter about the ins and outs of the granddaughter’s other inheritance. Im sure she’d rather be penniless and have her mother.

Bottom line is that your friend had 2 children and she should split her estate fairly between them. If she wants to split it between her grandchildren instead then it has to be an equal split between them.

It would be incredibly unfair to her granddaughter to give her less than her cousins.

My mother was in a similar position when my sister died, leaving me as the surviving child, but had grandchildren through me and my sister. Only difference is that my nieces didn't inherit anything from their mum.

The legal advice (Scotland) which DM followed, was that my sister's children should have her portion of DM's estate, after other bequests, divided equally among them, e.g. I get 50% and my 4 DNs get 12.5% each. She was also advised to disregard our current financial status, as this will usually change throughout life.

This proved to be true, as I was better off than my sister had been at the time my DM died, but my circumstances changed when my marriage ended and the money was spent on keeping me afloat until I found my feet again. Most of my DNs are currently better off than I am now!

Should add, before my sister died, all the grandchildren were to receive a small fixed sum each, e.g. £1000. But after DSis died, her four DC got their 12.5% each instead while my DC still got £1000. So although they got less than their cousins, it was extremely fair in the circumstances, in my view.

Why should the granddaughter with the property be penalised. All wrong. Three way split.

Equal split to the adult DC who can then do as they wish with it.

As the son is keen for it to skip a generation, I’m presuming he’s financially comfortable. Therefore he may well be passing on his wealth to his children when he dies, just like his sister did...only he will hopefully get many more years of living and get to see his children well into adulthood before that happens. His poor sister didn’t get that opportunity.

I think splitting the inheritance based on finances isn’t fair at all. But when people split inheritance based on a relative that’s distant and a relative they see often who makes the effort, and gives that individual more of the inheritance… that’s when I think it’s fair to split it unevenly.

Split between the dcs, who can then pass much or all of it on - or not - as they see fit.
Apart from relatively minor legacies to Gdcs/Ggdcs, this is what has happened within my own family - most of legacies passed to adult children whose needs are greater.

Absolutely this. Anything else could cause fallouts that are never recovered from.

Split equally.

That is then saying the DD just didn't exist. Which is another level of hurt.

If you split per person you'd have to be 20% to each DGC 20% to each DC with the DGD inheriting her mothers share.
You also have to remember the DSs children will eventually inherit his share too.

Yes I can see that, good point. It’s really difficult isn’t it . I still think the base line is to treat the grandchildren equally to avoid bad feeling, but it’s so difficult.

I know what you mean about equal not always being fair, especially with blended families.
This is not the situation here though is it - the only reason the granddaughter is better off is because she has inherited following the death of her mother.

I would say 50% to each of granddaughter and son then he can give it to his sons if he wants to, or 25% each to them
if she wishes to oblige.
My main thought is what a horrible time to cause such stress to an ill woman. What a stunning lack of compassion - to his mother and his niece.

I would split it..
son, daughter, gson, gson, gdaughter- 1/5 each.
Effectively, gdaughter - 2/5ths.and the others 1/5th.

It could also be fair to skip and just give each grandchild a third.

The split suggested by son is unfair.

50% to each of her children.
So, 50% to her daughter's child
And since her son has said to skip a generation, 25% to each of her grandkids from that side.

The poor girl is being penalised because her mother died early.

If her mother was still alive she would inherit half and get her mother's inheritance after, just like the others will with their dad.

She's being punished for losing her mother :(

Many years ago a childless uncle left money to my siblings and me. It was split very unfairly . Middle child a boy got £1500, I got £1000, my elder sister got £500. I always thought it was grossly unfair, especially as my sister spent holidays with uncle and aunt as we lived abroad at that time and she was at boarding school. I think she must have felt very hurt.

There is no guarantee that this young woman will inherit anything from her father. His assets could get dispersed any number of ways e.g. care fees, or a gambling habit, or anywhere in between. The uncle is making massive assumptions on what his BIL plans to do with his estate at some hopefully long in the future point in time. What she might theoretically inherit should not be a consideration in the here and now.

Options I would see are:

1. 50:50 to each of her children. i.e. she does not change her will. This is probably in alignment with what her husband would have wished, given that this is the current status.
2. 1/3 to each grandchild.

Whatever option she goes with, a letter could be placed with the will explaining her decision, to minimise conflict after her passing. And in the present, she tells her son, she has not reached a decision but does not want to discuss it further with him.

This

Your poor friend having to deal with this in her final days☹️

The son sounds awful

I would give him 2 choices: split it 50/50 between him and the granddaughter or an equal split between the 3 grandkids

At a push I might split 30/35/35 if I had a good relationship with the granddaughter and could explain in person the reasons for doing it

What a vile money grabbing shit her son is!

As PP have said 50% each to the son (who can then pass it on to his children if he wants to ) and 50% to the granddaughter.

The son sounds horrible. Is he normally that bad?