An inheritance one

[Spicyspice]

Did you/will you inherit from your grandparents? Or did everything go to your parents?

Was having a conversation with someone who feels hard done by, I’ll call him Tom. Toms grandparents have left Toms parents a big inheritance. Tom feels that his parents should have shared it with him as his parents are already wealthy.

It’s not really something I’d ever thought about as neither my parents or grandparents have any money/assets but does Tom have a point?

Tom - yanbu
Tom - yabu

I think it is ok for Tom to feel disappointed given that he is currently struggling. It sounds like he was feeling down and shared those thoughts with a friend while processing his thoughts. I think it all depends on how Tom is handling it. If he was demanding money or being an arse that is different. If he was just having a down moment when things seemed hopeless and that his health will never improve then to call him greedy or a CF seems a bit harsh.

I think it is far more common for grandparents to leave it just to their children. I don’t think that there is a right or wrong.

However lots of grandchildren provide care for their grandparents which can also impact on things like career progression and earning potential and loss of leisure time. I know that is not why we care for our loved ones but it is part of the discussion.

He’s suffering with chronic pain, working his arse off, wealthy parents, no help.

His parents are the problem, not the inheritance or lack of.

My GP didn't have anything to leave, and my parents barely a penny.

Tom is a brat

I know of some grandparents who have discussed their wills with their children.
In cases where the children are long term financially stable, the grandparents have left a large portion of their estates to their grandchildren so IHT is only paid once on the money whereas if the GPs money goes to their DCs whose estates then passed onto their DCs - the initial DGCs - IHT is paid twice.
Obviously if the DC aren’t long term financially stable, they inherit from their parents & token amounts to the grandchildren.
I have done this with my will. I have no spouse or siblings however I do have cousins who will be next of kin so any monies remaining in my estate goes their children - the next generation down - so IHT will only be paid once on the money.

No I don’t think so.

He’s a tradesman and has done loads of work for them, he’s a while off retirement but suffering chronic pain. They are apparently very wealthy and also had a significant lottery win at some point.

I’m not siding with Tom even though it sounds like I am.

Bit much? Most of us with living parents who own a house and with whom we have a loving relationship will get something when they die, it's just a fact. Often, grandparents pass a chunk directly to grandchildren. It isn't greedy or graspy of whatever to be aware of this and to expect it to happen!

My parents are all very much with us, but unless they have to pay protracted care fees when they die I will get an inheritance, along with my siblings.

Could MN please chill tf out about this entirely normal, everyday phenomenon. My son will get every penny I have when I die and he expects it, why on earth shouldn't he.

My Mum's parents left everything to their son, I'm not sure if that's because he was unmarried and the rest of the siblings were, or if it was the dated idea that only males should inherit. I have a friend who's grandmother was very wealthy and paid off the mortgages of all her grandchildren in her will! I don't think Tom should have expected an inheritance from grandparents, his parents have the option to pass some money down to him if they wanted to.

I think Tom's parents are being shitty not to help him out a bit if he's in poor health and they're comfortably off. I don't understand why anyone would want to watch their kids struggle with their health if they could do something to lighten the load.

The standard thing is for people to leave money to their own children. However, if I were the wealthy parents (I wish!), I would absolutely be passing some of it on to Tom. I can't imagine already being well off, then being left a load of money, and not sharing it with my struggling children. But people are very weird about money. It's unusual when people do the decent thing tbh.

Exactly! When one of mine was about 6, he learned about the concept of a Will. He asked me who would get my stuff when I died and I naturally said he (and his sibling) would. This is the natural and expected order of events so it's a bit bizarre to say people shouldn't feel disappointed or let down if their parents disinherit them.

Yes, sort of, my grandparents left the family home to me as remainderman of a life interest trust for my parents when I was 16, I've been the trustee since my mid 20's. My folks have use of the property for their life, then it reverts to me - so everyones happy.

And before anyone asks, no, it doesn't save any tax, even though my parents don't own the property, they have beneficial rights, so its value gets added to their estate.

That's good estate planning, there is no point in leaving it to the children if they don't need it, it will increase their estate value, whereas passed directly to the GC it doesn't.

Tom is greedy and somewhat needy. My grandparents left everything to my mum and sibling we’d known this was her wishes forever and our parents will do the same. My parents did however gift us a small sum each to do with as we pleased. I bought my darling first dog which my grandparents would have been absolutely overjoyed with. I’ll definitely do the same with my own children although our parents have also left them a small provision.

I think that Tom has every right to feel disappointed. When your parents are living the life of Riley and you are struggling with no help, seeing your parents being made richer and you know that nothing will be coming your way is rather a slap in the face.

I do think that in the future more inheritance will skip a generation as the children will already be set up and the grandchildren will be struggling to find somewhere to live and affording to have children of their own. Also with so many people having new partners, there will be a much larger risk for the inheritance to end up going to someone outside the blood family.

Problem with leaving to GC is if one DC produces 5 GC and the other has none. One child's family has a bigger slice of the estate than the other one, which coukd be hurtful.

Also, most people write their will then dont revisit it for years .. if a GC dies before the grandparent, then the split between each childs family is uneven.. Or if there is a remarriage and step-GC - how will that work? Equally, one adult GC from one sibling, but one much younger GC from the other. How about a "late surprise" baby born after the grandparent has lost capacity - they'd get nothing as too late to revise the will.

My parents gave me around $500 from my Grandmothers estate, and when my other Gran died I was left $2.5k, so enough for a second hand car.

I inherited (not a huge sum) directly from one grandparent. But that's because their child (my parent) predeceased them. I'd rather still have my parent tbh. My other parent inherited from their parents and passed a small sum on to me and siblings.

It is greedy and graspy to expect it to happen. If it does happen, that's lovely for the beneficiaries, but to expect it (and in Tom's case to be disappointed when it didn't happen) is entitled in the extreme.

If Tom's parents are supposedly mean for not sharing it with him - as in sharing it now, as presumably they will 'share' it (and more) with him when they die - does he also think that his grandparents were mean for not sharing it with him and/or his parents before they died?

Was it a generous amount of liquid assets, or was it mainly the proceeds of their house/other assets that they would only no longer need because they were no longer alive?

Also, how come grandparents (plural)? Assuming they were happily married until the end, wouldn't the one who died first automatically leave everything to the survivor - especially if it was mainly their house, which the widow(er) would obviously still need until their death?

I don't really see why one child having more than another is relevant. It's not going to the child, and the grandchildren should be judged evenly. It's not their fault how many siblings they have and house and nursery prices aren't cheaper because they have siblings.

Also you can just say in the will that you want it split evenly between all grandchildren at time of death instead of naming them all individually.

What step grandchildren get should depend on the relationship with the deceased. I can't see why they would get anything if their parents married into the family when they were older teens and had no relationship with the deceased, but someone who was part of the family for many years with a close bond probably would receive something.

Our swill is split between the thee children with £5000 per grandchild and step grandchildren.Absolutely no surprises and they all know about it.

I did the same thing - my will names my niece and nephew, rather than my brother (though he is named if the kids predecease me or die with me (i.e. I'm driving them somewhere and we have an accident). Not because of taxes/fees (I'm not in the UK), but he has more than enough money. He knows the plan and is not the least upset (actually, his only comment was that I should make sure to spend money on myself and not worry about leaving anything for his kids, he has that covered).

But by the same token, it's equally not the fault of a much younger grandchild(ren) who is/are born after their grandparents have already died that they were born later than their older siblings.

If the will states "split evenly between all grandchildren at time of death", that likely means that it's all already been distributed to your older siblings and/or cousins before your were born - so they could potentially end up with a fortune each and you don't get a penny.

I know some people would counter that by saying that, if you had no relationship with your GPs, why would they want to leave you anything?; but it's not like you actively decided to ignore/mistreat/betray them or bring shame on the family when you weren't yet even alive whilst they were.

Sad that it was that you never got to have a personal knowledge of or relationship with each other, as no parts of your lives ever overlapped, I think most people would want you to benefit because you were their grandchild rather than because they believed that you specifically brought value to their lives. They dearly loved their children, and so they dearly loved you automatically, because their child (your parent) loved you.

In a 'normal' loving, caring family dynamic (and assuming that your children don't predecease you), the best way that you can ensure that all of your grandchildren benefit from your money after your death is by entrusting it to your children to pass on to them - whether after they have died or whilst they are still alive; considering that, unlike with grandchildren, everybody can know how many children they will have before they die (or, even if not, in tragic circumstances, their surviving wives/partners will know and presumably be able to ensure fair distribution of family money).

That's caring and kind of you; but it's not really skipping a generation by leaving to your cousins' children as presumably they will be in broadly the same age range as your own children would have been if you'd had any?

@Politicians247UnderwearExtinguishingService

But by the same token, it's equally not the fault of a much younger grandchild(ren) who is/are born after their grandparents have already died that they were born later than their older siblings.

But what's the solution to this? I said above that my money is left to my niece and nephew (by name, not "alive at the time of my death"). I will update if my siblings have more kids before I die, but should they have more kids after I die, that kid/those kids will not get anything from me. Short of saying that, should another child be born, that the niece and nephew who got money from me have to give the new kid money to make things even (and at this point, it would be their money, not mine, there is no way to make things even. Given ages, it is fairly unlikely that this would happen, but there is nothing that I can do if it does.

Sorry, that wasn't meant to come across as any kind of criticism of you personally.

I think your solution is the fairest that you could hope to achieve. It's not like you're skipping a generation, as would be the case with a GP leaving straight to their GC, as the 'missing link' - your siblings - are obviously the same generation and (naturally-speaking, notwithstanding serious illness or accidents) likely to die within a few years before or after you anyway.

Also, aunties and uncles do often legitimately form a closer relationship with certain of their nieces/nephews than with others - so I don't think there's necessarily the expectation of perfect 'fairness' as there would be with grandparents and grandchildren, with the direct downwards (non-sideways) descent.

In my family it's always been that everything is left to the surviving spouse, on the death of that spouse everything is then left to the children, split equally, irrespective of the particular circumstances of the children.
Nothing is ever left to grandchildren. If the children want to give anything to the grandchildren it's entirely up to them.