Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Who seems to be unreasonable and greedy? Looking for unbiased opinions and perspectives.

161 replies

SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 00:01

Indian family of 4 sons; father passed away leaving a will (registered and valid) splitting inheritance equally (25% each). Family migrated to the UK when kids were young.

  • 1st son: Rebellious, estranged from parents for years, had a love marriage parents didn’t support. Claims to have signed a document 4 decades ago renouncing inheritance (no copy exists). Wants his 25%, plans to pass it to his kids.
  • 2nd son: No contact with parents, divorced twice, parents still cared and loved him.
  • 3rd son: Family favourite, expected to inherit everything or at least exclude eldest brother. Divorced once, remarried recently.
  • 4th son: Follows 3rd son’s lead, divorced once, remarried recently.

Conflict: Eldest son’s brothers call him greedy/selfish for claiming his 25%. They thought inheritance would exclude him due to that old signed paper. Eldest wants to keep his share for his kids, not sell.

Question: Is the eldest son selfish for wanting the 25% left to him in the will?

YABU: Yes
YANBU: No

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:09

Strawberrryfields · 04/08/2025 07:37

I do actually think son 1 sounds greedy coming out of the woodwork after 40 years to claim money from his estranged family. Is he seeing it as some kind of compensation for his parents behaviour many years ago? He’s made his bed (presumably with you? So why shouldn’t he lie in it?)
Yes he’s in the will so it’s legally his but I don’t think he has some moral high ground here, he wants the money just as the others do and he’s conveniently ignoring the fact about denouncing the money as this doesn’t suit him now. At least son 3 has had some kind of relationship with his father the past 40 years not just popping up to get his money. I don’t think one is good and the other is bad, there is a lot of self-serving behaviour from both sides.

Edited

They made up because his father rang him and wanted to see him before he died. His son didn't know he was in hospital or that sick. In terms of funeral, eldest son paid £2,000ish give or take.

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:10

prelovedusername · 04/08/2025 07:44

The will is clear, 25% each. What I can’t understand is why you would want to expose your children to this nastiness by passing the inheritance to them.

It's so god damn hard to sell land in India and eldest son is ill. So can't travel back and forth.

OP posts:
Scottishgirl85 · 04/08/2025 13:10

SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:02

Rebellious basically doing what he wants to do, not following instructions given by his parents which equates to love marriage and other general stuff. For example, wanting to cut his hair etc. Nothing illegal, he's never been in prison or anything like that.

Edited
Show quote history

So basically living his life like a normal member of society? He was/is an adult, why do his parents have any right to tell him what to do? I find it both fascinating and alarming that anyone would consider his behaviour rebellious.

Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:11

HappilyUrbanTrimmer · 04/08/2025 07:46

Does the Will leave the mother destitute and dependent on her sons (and presumably only on sons 3&4 as 1&2 are so out of favour)? Although in general it is right for the Will to be respected, the mother's support fot son 3's claim mightbe more about this. She could have potentially challenged this distribution under the Inheritance (Provision For Family and Dependants) Act 1975 by making a claim to the court if she felt the will fails to make reasonable financial provision for her, but it's probably too late for that now (IANAL and I don't know what the time limits are) - best for sons1&2 that this didn't happen as a variation would have allowed her to favour her golden child in her own Will. Son 1 has every right to keep his inheritance for his children but if his mother has been left destitute then it woukd be the morally right thing to do to for all 4 brothers to assign a reasonable proportion of the income of the estate to the mother for her lifetime, while retaining its actual ownership. (Unnecessary if the mother has adequate assets in her name and isn't dependent on her sons)

The father sounds like a good man. He knew that the hotheaded denouncement of a 20yo was no good reason to actually cut off his son. He loved all his sons and didn't play favourites. That should be respected.

Show quote history

Nothing is on the mothers name, never was. Her husband had it all on his name. It's such a mess all around.

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:12

YourJoyousDenimExpert · 04/08/2025 07:47

I don’t think you can renounce inheritance in advance - only after the person whose will it is has died. At that point, inheritance can be declined. So the missing ‘renouncement document’ that you already acknowledge was not notarised anyway is not relevant.
Block them all, don’t sign anything they ask about, get the transfer to the children sorted and leave them to rage.

Oh, he gave it up in his 20's when no will was made. Their father only made a will when he got older but the sons didn't know about it.

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:12

RosesAndHellebores · 04/08/2025 07:49

There is a legal will setting out how the estate will be split. The prevailing law is UK (I assume England). The father made a legitimate decision in relation to his estate and I assume there is a solicitor/executors.

The law is the law and the will mist be observed.

What is the relevance of the family's ethnicity and/or origin. It is the law that matters and they need to respect it.

I agree.

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:13

Dangermoo · 04/08/2025 07:52

So he says thats why he wants it.

Show quote history

Yeah, he wants his kids to have it or he'll give it to charity. He doesn't want his brothers to have it due to the swearing/shouting.

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:13

curious79 · 04/08/2025 07:55

It doesn’t really matter who any of the characters are or however unsavoury or not. Under British law the will can’t be changed or changes made based on what the recipients want to do. It has to be executed as specified

True!

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:13

Waterbaby41 · 04/08/2025 07:58

The will is quite clear. Whatever eldest son chooses to do with his 25% is his business alone. The next - and any further shouty sweary phone call should be answered very simply "Fuck off" and put the phone down. Every time.

Agreed!

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:14

beAsensible1 · 04/08/2025 08:01

Eldest should get the 25 for his kids. Forget the what the others say. He’s estranged anyway so the bad blood doesn’t matter.

I agree.

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:14

gannett · 04/08/2025 08:05

Third son is just going to have to get over himself, isn't he? Wild that he expected to get it all, even fourth son's share. But the will is what it is and first son can do whatever he wants with his share.

The "renouncement" of his inheritance which happened FORTY years ago and was never legally binding is irrelevant. If the dad had wanted to follow it through he would have done so in the will (the only document that actually matters).

She used to live with 2nd son but he kicked her out, 1st and 3rd son refused to have her so the 4th one took her in. She’s been kicked out by her 3 sons multiple times.

There's definitely a "nightmare MIL" back story here, isn't there...

Yeah, I agree. She's awful and played a part in these divorces. She never knew how to keep a family together and strong.

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:15

MyrrAgain · 04/08/2025 08:16

What someone said 40 years ago, maybe before they had children etc is not always relevant today.

The dad wanted it split 4 ways and also had 40 years to think about it and change things if he wanted to.

Maybe having children himself the 1st son sees things differently and wants to pass it on to his children so he’s doing so. Makes sense. Maybe the dad wanted this too which is why he left the 25%!

I agree.

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:15

5128gap · 04/08/2025 08:33

No more greedy that the rest of his brothers who want him to give it up so they can have it. Personally I think that everyone who circles and moithers about the contents of a will is coming at it from a position of greed, because its always about getting their mitts on someone else's cash that they've not earned themselves. In this case the deceased was clear, so there isn't anything to fight about.

I agree.

OP posts:
StrictlySequinsandStiIettos · 04/08/2025 13:15

Blimey OP, can you get to 11.38am please?!! P4
I have questions.... Wink

AprilShowers25 · 04/08/2025 13:16

As far as I understand it you cannot renounce an inheritance in advance, it has to be after the death.

Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:16

StrictlySequinsandStiIettos · 04/08/2025 11:38

Is the land in the UK or in India?
Your MIL now lives with her fourth son and his new wife?
Culturally, is new wife expected to be her carer?
What date was FIL's will written, how long ago?
Who were they living with when he was alive?
Who took care of him?
Why is there no provision for his wife? Who was expected to take care of her?
What are the long term plans for her?

I would be selling the land and, depending on how old your children are, passing the money to them or putting it into a trust.
Depending on how much £ there is, I would be potentially giving half (or your own share) to BIL4 (or his new wife) for the ongoing upkeep of your MIL which, cultural or not, is a massive undertaking.
If the land and extended family are all in the UK then I am amazed your MIL has not contested the will tbf. It should have all gone to her if a dependent. If she has to go into care, will it not be seen as deprivation of assets just passing down the whole inheritance to the next generation?

It's all in India. Selling land in India is so long winded and dreadful, its easier to transfer it. Eldest son is in his 60's, not amazing health but doesn't want to travel back and forth to India.

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:17

Scottishgirl85 · 04/08/2025 13:10

So basically living his life like a normal member of society? He was/is an adult, why do his parents have any right to tell him what to do? I find it both fascinating and alarming that anyone would consider his behaviour rebellious.

Show quote history

Yeah, its because he didn't want an arranged marriage like his brothers.

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:17

StrictlySequinsandStiIettos · 04/08/2025 13:15

Blimey OP, can you get to 11.38am please?!! P4
I have questions.... Wink

Haha, I think I've answered!

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:17

AprilShowers25 · 04/08/2025 13:16

As far as I understand it you cannot renounce an inheritance in advance, it has to be after the death.

Oh, did not know that!

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:18

JMSA · 04/08/2025 13:05

Funny how they don’t ‘estrange’ themselves from the cash.

Fair enough!

OP posts:
Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:19

I have the answers I need, thank you all. Will follow the will and that's that.

OP posts:
StrictlySequinsandStiIettos · 04/08/2025 13:22

SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:16

It's all in India. Selling land in India is so long winded and dreadful, its easier to transfer it. Eldest son is in his 60's, not amazing health but doesn't want to travel back and forth to India.

Show quote history

So we are talking land that nobody actually uses and only has value if you were to move there?
Who actually lives in India from all the brothers?
How do you stop people stealing it/building on it/squatting, if noone is there?
How much is it actually worth in pounds?
And what about your MIL?!!!!!!

Original poster
SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:23

StrictlySequinsandStiIettos · 04/08/2025 13:22

So we are talking land that nobody actually uses and only has value if you were to move there?
Who actually lives in India from all the brothers?
How do you stop people stealing it/building on it/squatting, if noone is there?
How much is it actually worth in pounds?
And what about your MIL?!!!!!!

Show quote history

None of the brothers live in India. I’m not sure how much it’s worth, but apparently a lot. MIL lives in UK with her 4th son.

OP posts:
StrictlySequinsandStiIettos · 04/08/2025 13:28

Then I don't get it.
Sorry for being so obtuse.
You're all arguing over the ownership of land and keeping it within your own families when it actually sounds like a mill stone/albatross around your neck...if it is impossible to sell/so much hassle to sell.
So why would your children want or need it?
They are based and born here. Highly unlikely then, they'll move there or have the time to do the admin/pain of paperwork that goes with this.
If eldest brother had inherited all of it, would his children actually benefit?
Or is this just all a pissing contest?!

HappilyUrbanTrimmer · 04/08/2025 13:31

SequinTheDay · 04/08/2025 13:11

Nothing is on the mothers name, never was. Her husband had it all on his name. It's such a mess all around.

Show quote history

That's irrelevant. If they were married the law of marriage is that property is effectively supposed to be held in common (in that it'sfine for it not to be, but the other partuis protected if it isn't). If a couple divorce then it doesn't matter whose name the assets are held in, the assets are split 50:50 unless one partner has greater need due to having children (obviously irrelevant here). If the marriage ends in the death of the person who has the assets in their name, the other person in the marriage has a right to claim on the estate for a reasonable proportion of the assets if the will leaves them unable to support themselves otherwise.

Swipe left for the next trending thread