Inheritance one

[Oculusopen]

GF & GM wrote matching wills about 15 years ago. They split 10% of their estate among all grandchildren - 6 GCs. 90% of estate to be split equally among their 3 DCs: DC1, DC2 & DC3.

A couple of years later (10 years ago) DC1 died leaving behind GC1 & GC2. DC2 & DC3 took good care of GF & GM. GCs also visited regularly but were not involved in day to day care.

DF & GM recently died in quick succession. GC1 will inherit 1/60 th of the estate.

Does this seem right?

Eh?
Because it's a public declaration that the grandchildren meant nothing to their grandmother.

Wills are publicly available - although not immediately. You wouldn't be able to get it for several months, but you can go online and pay around a fiver to see it.
In the meantime, if you know the executor/solicitor and are yourself a beneficiary, then you should have the right to see it now.
Ordinarily you are right, but the wording on the will is critical. If the will is silent (unlikely if drawn up by a lawyer), the the default would be that any deceased child's share was split between their own children. For what you are saying to be right, there would need to be an express clause stating that if any child were to predecease them, then they didn't want their descendants receiving this - that is highly unusual.

Eh?

It’s a public declaration she wanted her children to inherit.

??? Er, I wonder.

DC1’s share goes to their children so yes, seems fair to me

DC2 is the executor and not very bright. She gets quite defensive when asked about things.

Thank you for the advice, I should be able to order the will online.

Who are you in this OP. If your the other child you need to support your nephew and nieces against your sibling.

DC2 might be correct if the will has been written that way but its morally repugnant and needs to be called out.

Have you actually googled it yet, as opposed to just reading the random thoughts of MN?

You may think DC2 is not "bright" and is acting defensively, but unless the will stipulates DC1's share goes to GC of DC1, DC2 is correct. Presumably a solicitor is involved anyway, and this won't get past them incorrectly.

Someone who wants their surving dc to inherit more because a sibling has died rather than pass on the original bequest to the dc of the deceased is highly unusual. And it's unusual because the majority of people recognise that depriving your grandchildren who have already lost a parent is a shitty thing do

You won't be able to do that until probate is granted .
Have you sat down calmly with 'dc2' and just asked to see the will?
It would be better to have clarity before it goes to probate and assets are distributed
If dc2 refuses, seek legal advice

Fair thing to do is child 1's share now goes to his offspring. If he was still here, that's would have happened down the line. It's the decent way to share things out.

Her will, her money, her choice. Being objective, it was her wishes, to the point of actually stating it rather than relying on the law of the land. No one can know her reasons why.

Unless it says otherwise, the offspring of DC1 (who predecessors the grandparents) will inherit their share plus the 1/6 each of the 10% left to grandchildren. The others inherit exactly what they would have inherited if their sibling / uncle or aunt had not died.

This works out as:
DC2: 30%
DC3: 30%
GC1: 15% plus 1.67% c = 16.67%
GC2: 16.67%
GC3: 1.67%
GC4: 1.67%
GC5: 1.67%
GC6: 1.67%

Unless the gift clause dealing with the 90% split equally between the children includes wording specifying that, in the event they pre-decease their parents, their share is to be passed to their children (ie grand children of the legator) then the gift fails and the 90% is split 50/50 between the surviving siblings.

However, if the beneficiaries all agree, they have two years from d.o.d. to vary the Will. Morally, I think that most families would feel that this is the right thing to do, but most people throw morals out of the window when it comes to inheritances and just want to take as much as they can. (I work in a related area and how vile and greedy some family members can be is shocking.

The justification of the other siblings doing more of the day to day care is immaterial really, but I’m sure they will use it to justify not varying the will in favour of their deceased sibling’s children. They will see it as somehow unfair to their children as they won’t be receiving as much from the grandparent’s estate, ignoring the fact that their children may well inherit more eventually when they pass away.

Grandparents had ten years to update the will to reflect this. For all we know they may have wanted it to be the way it's turned out.

Only if it says that in the will. What is morally right is completely different to the legal right which is the will must be executed exactly in line with the instructions written it in. Really important that people get proper legal advice when drawing up a will to make sure the instructions included are what they intend, not what they think they intend

No they won't. Unless stated otherwise, DC1's inheritance has legally failed and goes back into the 90% pot.

Or it’s in her interests to interpret the will in this way.

If DC2, as both a beneficiary of the will and the executor, makes a unilateral decision to change the will or interpret it for their own benefit (eg receiving 45% of the value of the estate not 45% as indicated by the will) then they are committing an offence and can get into a lot of trouble.

*45% not 30%

Of course she had a right to do it. But it's still a public statement about the grandchildren which unless there were extraordinary circumstances would be deeply hurtful.

It depends on the wording in the will.

These things are best sorted out by consensus and in the interests of family harmony. In the event if a lack of clarity, if all beneficiaries agree, a deed of variation can be fine to ensure that GC1 and 2 are not disadvantaged. Apart from DC2, would everyone rise agree to that?

Nobody knows what was actually written in the will, because the executor is refusing to share it.

Until everyone affected has seen a copy of the will, anything else is speculation.

In the UK, inheritance will not lapse (legally fail due the death of a beneficiary) when that beneficiary is a direct child and has living descendants. So the default situation in this case should be that the grandchildren inherit the deceased child's share. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Will4and1Vict/7/26/section/33)

Of course there are ways for the will to be worded that would specify this should not happen.

And if you're not in the UK that doesn't help!