It's another inheritance one...

[Meudantte]

Mary is in her 80s. Her DH died 15 years ago.

Two children
Jane in her 60s with two grown up children.
Sarah who died a decade ago in her 50s. Left a widower and two grown up children.

Before Sarah's death Mary's will basically divided the estate 50/50 between 2 daughters with a small amount for each grandchild eg £5-10k

Since Sarah's death, Mary has made changes. 50% will now go to Jane, the remaining 50% will be divided equally between the grandchildren. Sarah's husband will also like get something too.

Sarah's children have somehow found out about this (not sure how) and aren't happy. They feel like they're not being treated fairly as the original 50% for Sarah is no longer coming to that part of the family, but a smaller share, while Jane still gets 50%.

Jane will be using her share as an extra pension as she's not got a great one. Sarah would have likely done the same so these sums were never going to be passed directly to grandchildren but obviously they would benefit indirectly.

Obviously Mary can do what she likes with her money but this is causing friction and interested in perspectives. Inheritance seems to always cause feuds.

Yes this is how Mary sees it from what she's told me. She rethought things based on various circumstances

Sounds fair that the grandchildren get the same amount. Jane could spend it all and not leave any to her children.

I think the will should basically remain the same as it was before Sarah's death. i.e. the grandchildren receive their £5k to £10k and their parents (Jane and Sarah's spouse in this case) receive half each of the rest. Having said that it's up to Mary and the GC should quit moaning

It could have gone two other ways: 50% to Jane and 50% to Sarah's DC, or leaving it all to the surviving child.
I think she's trying to bridge the gap between these two options - I can see why she wants to help her surviving child and ease the money worries in retirement tbh. I can also see why Sarah's GC are a bit disgruntled, but if I was one of those GC I would be holding my peace. Nothing worse than people grasping for inheritance.
It's not a bad way to do it tbh - all the GC get an equal share on their grandmother's death, and Jane's DC have no guarantee of a sum on Jane's death, as it might all go on pension/living expenses/care home fees.

I would do 25% to Jane, 12.5% to each of Jane’s children.
Sarah’s widower and children would then get 17% each.

Or Jane and her DC could get 17% each.

I find these inheritance threads fascinating. People have such black and white views about what is the correct way to do these things!

This is presumably not a huge estate, and Mary is assuming that the money Jane inherits will be needed to live off, and therefore she won’t be passing any of Mary’s money on to her children. Therefore Mary wants to ensure that all the grandchildren get some inheritance, and also provides for her own daughter.

I think this is a perfectly reasonable way of going about this, and generally people should learn to respect the wishes of the person whose money it was.

Be annoyed about it in private, sure, you are human, but keep it to yourself and don’t suggest you had any right to demand different.

If the grandchildren are being greedy, then 50% to Jane and 50% to the cats’ home.

Poor Mary - I sense she is trying to do what feels right to get and sees it as all the GC getting the same. I would just reassure her that it is her decision. Nobody is entitled to an inheritance and views on how things are done are always subjective so there is no absolutely correct answer.

I think this is the fair approach. Also acknowledges that those gc have been without their mother for some time, which must be difficult.

I suspect the issue is that everyone was informed of the previous will and therefore some people are now aware that with the changes they will get less than they would have previously while others will get more.

my parents did similar - made wills, explained why, then totally changed their mind. It does set up expectations which are then changed and it’s hard to avoid the idea that the person/people doesn’t like you.

If Jane died before Mary would the inheritance be split equally between the grandchildren?

So say it’s 100k. Originally it would have been-

£5k each for gc
£40k each for Jae and Sarah

Now it’s-
£50k for jane
£12.5k for gc

So grandchildren are actually getting more than they would have if their mother was still alive?

If she had left her will as it was Sarah’s DC would have received their mum’s 50% under most standard wills. I inherited twice this way as my mum died young.

Mary has affectively halved what Sarah’s DC will receive. I think you need to think very carefully if you deviate from the standard as it can come across as spiteful, even if it can be framed as fair at first glance. It goes beyond the monetary value, it somehow erases Sarah - even if it wasn’t mean that way.

Sarah’s share should be split between her children. I feel bad for her children, they’ve lost their mum and now also have less money going to their side of the family as a result

I think maybe a little fairer would be 20% each to daughter and GC - as if daughter spends it all, her children might not get any of it?

Agreed, if one of my beneficiaries so much as questioned my will I'd cut them out - easiest way to resolve!

I think this is exactly right. This is what my parents have put in their will and told me and my 2 siblings. We all think this is fair.

My parents are very open about wills as they have seen too many people fall out about such things.

My in laws are the opposite and my husband doesn’t even know where their will is held or who the executor is 🙈.

Yes

But Sarah isn't here and doesn't have to plan for retirement. Jane does and has a poor pension. Why shouldn't Mary try and help her only living child? The grandchildren all have good jobs and plenty of years to save for retirement. All the grandchildren will also inherit from other sources in future too.

Interesting comments. I think people are very black and white on this topic and just Sticking to the standard approach to inheritance at all costs, regardless of the financial circumstances of the parties inheriting

I think it's fair as quite often the only surviving child is sole beneficiary. This was my situation. My brother's wife and his step children are fine with this. Admittedly, the step children were grown up by the time my brother and SIL married. I have one DC, he wasn't an adult when my parents passed away. I've invested part of my inheritance for him.

How interesting. After your first post, OP, I thought it was wrong that just because their mother died (!), Sarah’s children shouldn’t have salt rubbed in the wound by inheriting less. But reading Mary’s reasoning…clearly she sees her duty as being to her children, and wanting to leave a token something to grandchildren. Seeing as she now only has one child left, she wants to do as best as she can by her remaining child. After all, she might be thinking, the grandchildren are young and have their whole lives to earn more.

I see the point, and it’s actually a very valid one imo. Is Mary very close to or fond of her grandchildren?

Sarah is deceased, she doesn't have a share.

This is the correct way to do it.

Well obviously it’s Mary’s to do with as she choosing. I agree arguing over someone’s estate when they’re still alive is horrible.

I don’t really think it’s that unfair.

The surviving dd (Jane?) will likely spend the money during her retirement it seems? So this way, the grandchildren all benefit to the same amount. As the deceased daughter (S) was likely to have done the same, her children wouldn’t have have any inheritance from grandma if S had lived.

So this way, all the grandchildren get something. And it’s something that wouldn’t ordinarily have expected to have.

The other way isn’t unfair as such either, but clearly Mary wants to give some to all of her grandchildren, not just half of them. As pps have said, she could have left it all to her surviving daughter.