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.

I think it should go 50% to Jane and the other 50% should be split between the kids of the sister who died. In my view anything else is unfair. But it’s not my money and only Mary can decide!

Unless circumstances are very extreme, I think the standard is best. Circumstances can change a lot after money is distributed. The emotional impact can be significant (especially on top so losing a parent early).
Jane’s retirement shouldn’t be planned around an inheritance. Mary could live another twenty+ years and the actual inheritance could end up being tiny.

It’s hard though. From the PoV of Sarah’s dc, it’s as though Jane’s benefitting from their mum’s death.
I think it’s really sensitive, because inheritance isn’t about money it’s about value. For various reasons DH won’t be inheriting from his parents, and so neither will our DC. It feels like despite being good loving family members for decades, it doesn’t matter. Someone else is more important. Worse, we’ve been paying into a pension for the other person, recognising their need, and would have had no hesitation in making sure he was ok. It feels as though we can’t be relied on, aren’t valued, and aren’t as much family as the other. DH is sanguine but I begrudge it a bit!

Difficult one. Had Sarah lived she would likely have spent a significant portion of her inheritance (pension top up, social care, cruises etc) so her children would likely have only have got the equivalent of 1/8, as they are now. They may have got less.

There is a chance that Jane may not spend much of her share and her DC will get a a further portion of her inheritance eventually - or she may live to 85 and all of it get eaten up in social care.

If Mary’s plan is a) to ensure Jane is looked after in her old age [and is hoping she will have a lovely, longer life as a result of that money supporting her] and b) aims to treat the GC all equally, then her will as it stands is perfectly fair as it ensures all 4 DGCs get a set sum now. Under the old will (50/50 Jane and Sarah) had Sarah lived, they could have got absolutely nothing at all once the mothers had spent their way through it.

This is exactly it. She wants her only living child to be secure in retirement. She'd have wanted the same for Sarah if she was still here.

The grandchildren are younger, all homeowners with jobs so what she gives them now is more of a token although it will be more than 5k. She's always tried to treat them equally and in the will she is essential giving them all same amount at same time.

Perhaps Sarah's share could be split three ways between her husband and two children. That wouldn't really be fair on Jane's children though.
Another idea would be to split it 6 ways, with each child, Jane and Sarah's husband each getting a share.
Or stick to the original plan, but Sarah's husband gets her share and each grandchild gets a few thousand each. They could hardly say that wasn't fair as that was the original plan. If Sarah's husband chooses to give the money to their children, that's up to him.

Alternatively Mary could just decide the money grabbers among them are getting nothing and leave their share to charity.

I was in the 50/50 to the grandchildren camp until you explained Mary’s logic

she’s thought about it wants her money to help her remaining living child. That’s perfectly valid. Her logic that GCs have had a good start and have a long time to save for retirement is also valid. She wants to die knowing her daughter is taken care of. The GCs need to back off and not make her twilight years difficult.

I think if Mary had no will it would all go to Jane? So in many ways, that’s the “standard” / starting point.

The husband isn't great with money. If he got his hands on a larger share I'm not sure the grandchildren would ever benefit from it. He'll get something though

Mary is correct. Sarah could of ended spending the lot and her dc ended up with nothing anyway! Sarahs dc are being greedy.

That’s how my father’s will was arranged and my mother’s is the same. I will sadly probably predecease her and she made it clear that any estate would be divided equally between my sibling/their descendants and me/my descendants.

Of course it’s nobody else’s business but it does seem the fairest way to do it. Losing your mother is bad enough as it is.

The usual way to do it is to leave the 50% to Sarah’s children.

Or they could always just be grateful they are potentially getting anything and remember the person they're possibly going to be benefitting from isnt even dead yet.

Mary is a very practical person. In her eyes Jane has a greater need and is her only child so that's where largest share goes.

This is just another example of why people should never discuss their Will with anyone (except their solicitor). It just brings out vile behaviour from the relatives.

If I were Mary, I'd be changing my Will and leaving the whole lot to the donkey sanctuary (other charities are available).

Yes exactly. And considering they got £12k already off Mary's sister not long ago, who they weren't even close to...

I think she's tempted to be honest. Money brings out worst in everyone.

This is fourth family feud I've seen over inheritance. It's been the same every time an older relative dies, someone not happy and kicks off

Surely Jane’s children will also benefit from Jane’s estate when she passes on, but potentially Sarah’s children won’t. For fairness I’d have continued with the original split in the Will. I imagine Sarah would be very upset with how things have turned out now that she’s not here to look after her own children, who now will be navigating their young adult lives without their mother.

I think not discussing is the biggest mistake - at lease your reasoning can be explained.

I have actually changed my mind in the process of reading this thread. At first I thought Sarah's half should go directly to her DC, but infact, it is very likely that Jane's DC won't see anything of their mother's half.

Maybe a fair way would be for Jane receive the 50% so that she gets a better retirement, her children get 10% each as there is no guarantee they will receive any inheritance from their mother, and Sarah's DC receive 15% each.

Maybe?

In my family my DGM had 3 children and 12 grandchildren. When her DD died, her third was split between her 4DC plus their own share. I thought that was fair.

Yes given Jane's half will be a pension top up, I don't think they will see much of it Jane's is likely to live to 80s/ 90s

Probably best to keep his share to a minimum then. Maybe he and the grandchildren should all get £5-£10k and the rest go to Jane for her financial security in retirement.

Is Jane doing a lot of caring for her Mum...that would make a difference I think. I'd want to give thanks for that in my will. I think it's usual for GC to get a lesser amount but unusual for that amount to be unequal. Is there more contact with some and not others ?

Same. My DH died after his dad and before his mum. The original will shared it equally between DH and his siblings. When his mum died his brother and sister got 1/3 each and DH 1/3 was shared between our kids.

100% the correct decision in my opinion and I would do exactly the same in that position

Jane does everything for Mary. Checks in almost daily, weekly invites round for dinner, mini breaks together, all Christmas and Easter. Sarah's children - one keeps in touch more regularly, the other much less so and rarely do meals/ Christmas together