Do I have a right to be annoyed?

[somewhatmiffed]

Two sisters
Anne - 55 years old, single, owns a house with 120k outright, works 30 hours a week,
Sue- 42 years old married with 3 kids, two are now adults one is a child and severely disabled. Have a mortgaged house £150k. Works very part time due to youngest needs.

When their mum died she left her share in the the house to their dad and bequeathed money to Anne and sue (50k each ) and each the grand kids (20k each) The adult twins got their money direct, the younger child's money went in a account for him. The twins were 18 at the time so they bought driving lessons/cars and did a gap year travelling plus some designer hoodies.

Dad has a mirror will so when he dies his children get 50k each, grand kids 20k each. The house has been left to Anne and Sue and any remaining funds will also go to them.

Anne has at times expressed annoyance at this seeing it as Sue getting 60k more. She feels it should be split 50/50 and then Sue give from her share.

Recently dad mentioned changing his will so it's split 50:50 to Sue and Anne. He asked Sue what she thought, she said it's his money , his choice but the twins would probably be upset as they have been previously told about the inheritance (by their grandmother)

Sue knows that Anne has been saying something as it's not something dad would just think of.

Also to mention Anne lives other side of country and visits 3 times a year. (Although does ring weekly) Sue cares for her dad - shopping/paying bills etc. visits a couple times a week, grandchildren probably see him around once a month.

Is Sue right to be annoyed for the Will is changed?

No one has a right to be annoyed other than the dad. It's his money. He can do what he wants with it and should be able to do that without pressure.

This is such a difficult one.

If DS was to inherit from my DPs directly, he is likely to be in his early 20s and possibly would not make wise decisions with the money, whereas if we get it we would pay for house deposits, towards a wedding and other big events.

But we ourselves don't strictly need any inheritance and would plan to keep the majority for DS.

I can see both sides of situation with OP and Anne but it's the fact that it's likely Anne has had a conversation with Dad about this which makes it all very distasteful and grubby. urgh.

If any of my kids attempted this kind of conversation with me, I'd make them very aware that they're not 'entitled' to bloody anything!

The absolutely fair thing to do would be to split the whole estate 50/50 and OP can decide how much of her 50% she gives to her 3 kids. That would keep Anne happy I guess but would definitely taint any kind of relationship the sisters might have for the future...hope anne would be happy with that.

That why I included it as yes it may have influenced the thinking. But they were 18 at the time and it's a lot of money to get. My mum wanted them to enjoy it. My preference would have been to keep it in trust until they were 25. But they are now late twenties and working hard/ saving for house deposits and weddings so they are in a very different place.

He's not done it yet. I'm going to say nothing. He's in his 80's he could live another 20 years, he could go into a care home. He might not do it and at end of day it's totally his choice. I'm not telling kids either.

He would need assistance to do it and I doubt he'd ask me so he would have to wait until Dsis visits at Xmas to take him to solicitors.

If he chooses to do it and I find out Dsis has guilted him into it I would definitely step back from the relationship. There's been other issues around how she treats me but this would be a big issue for me.

I think a equal split with sister is fairer but that dad should be able to make bequests to grandkids too

Who is your sister leaving her estate to?

She might leave everything to your DC and they will be better off in the long run.

I am so so sorry that this happened to you.
Just know that you did your very best for your grandparents and their love and your relationship is worth more than any money.
Nowhere near as bad as you case but I feel similar. My extended family persuaded my beloved gran who I helped care for with my mum to cut me out too 'cos it's not fair'. They are now spending her money like water on holidays etc while my mum and I are still battered by what we had to go through. But I wouldn't swap places - my relationship with my gran was probably one of the most meaningful I will ever have.

But your dad leaving money to grandchildren, THEN splitting what is left among you and your sister, effectively does benefit you far more, because then you and your husband are relieved of a certain amount of responsibility to help your kids with things like cars, houses, uni, etc., as most parents do.

So it is unbalanced and unfair. It's not Anne's fault that Sue decided to have three kids, with all of the financial trade-offs that entails. She shouldn't lose out because she made different lifestyle choices.

If I were Anne and got screwed in both my mother and father's will, simply because I chose not to produce offspring, I'd leave it to the cat home first.

If my sister championed me and suggested the 50/50 split would be more fair, I would probably be inclined to leave my estate to the nieces and nephews. But if I were treated like a second-class citizen to her and her family, never.

No clue I've never asked her. I'd be surprised if she done a will

Yes, this!

We don't know (and I'd bet Sue doesn't either) the sacrifices Anne has made. Facing the world single, and with no children, is NOT easy. It can be painful & lonely.

She may have moved away from her parents for her job - no husband to lean on for income. It's very different when it's just you. She may need to work longer hours - one income, and it's not that much cheaper to live as a singleton.

Sue needs to have a bit of compassion and stop being so self-centred.

Anne's not getting screwed in the wills. Grandchildren are new people born into the family in their own right. The grandparents have more close relatives to love, so leave money to more people, yes reducing the amount to the people on the list but it's not screwing her over any more than a third sibling would have done.

That means Sue gets less than Anne. That’s not fair.

No, of course it's not fair. There are four individual people here, the grandchildren's portion is completely separate to the portion to be shared between Sue and Anne.

How do you know it won't get eaten up by care fees? Inheritance isn't real money until the person passes. It's just grabby and weird. I'd keep my will private. It's like wishing someone dead. Really distasteful. You are not owed anything. None of you.

Absolutely.

My sibling has more kids than me. Our parents have lovely relationships with all of them. I would never consider them being left something in their will as my sibling ‘getting more’. (And FWIW they are CONSIDERABLY better off than I am).

You’d have to be awfully meanspirited to consider a bequest from a much loved grandparent to a grandchild as ‘doing you out of inheritance’. It’s horrid and only outgrossed by the ‘aggrieved’ adult child actually raising it with the Dad.

Anne is disgusting.

Except that theoretically the grandchildren's portion relieves Sue and her husband of some very large expenses that they might otherwise help the kids with, such as cars, uni, gap year, whatever. So in effect it is financially advantaging Sue and her husband to the detriment of Anne.

Unless they are fully launched adults, the children are not "separate." The bottom line is that one household/family is getting far more than the other.

Sue is assuming that Anne has spoken to their dad. It's just as possible that either he read something about a similar arrangement and hurt feelings and is the one who brought it up.

I also think Sue comes across as manipulative. "oh the children will be upset".
I would hope that the grandchildren would be upset - by the death of their grandad rather than the money.

I also object to:
Also to mention Anne lives other side of country and visits 3 times a year. (Although does ring weekly) Sue cares for her dad - shopping/paying bills etc. visits a couple times a week, grandchildren probably see him around once a month.

I live the other side of the country to my parents. You know what, I'd love to live closer, but it hasn't worked out that way with jobs. She visits three times a year and rings weekly. What do you expect from the other end of the country?
But these devoted grandchildren who expect an inheritance and live locally only see him once a month.

If Sue's dc are going to be disappointed, then why doesn't she ask if £60k can be taken out of her inheritance for her dc?
After all, she was only bothered that they'd be disappointed, and if you think about it, she'll only be giving them £30k out of her money, because if it was going straight from the will then Anne would be giving £30k out of hers too, and she obviously thinks that's fair.

Not necessarily . The kids could use it towards a house deposit.
Would you immediately cease all financial assistance for your children if they inherited a bit of money from the grandparents?
Assuming they're even still children by the time anyone actually inherits, of course. Nobody's dead yet.

Many parents help toward house deposits, too.

Anne has to support a household and secure her own old age on one income. Her needs should take priority over her nieces' and nephews, where her dad's bequests are concerned. It's the responsibility of Sue and her husband to assist the children they chose to produce.

Sounds good. I would be disappointed at having such a grabby family.
Designer hoodies? Speechless.

It's the responsibility of Sue and her husband to assist the children they chose to produce
Sure it is.
By the same token, it's Anne's responsibility to secure her old age herself, and not rely on a bequest from her Dad to do so.

The grandchildren are nearly 30, and do not live locally.

You are correct I am guessing Anne has mentioned it based on the fact that she has said it to me before. She may not have.

But if they DO get money from dad, it should be in equal amounts, not weighted toward Sue just because she chose to bear children.