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.

So Sarah's children not only lost their mother while they were still fairly young, but now they're also losing her share of their grandparents' inheritance on her side.

Pretty shit, frankly.

It's not possible to make changes when the person's died though! Jane's children seem to be getting more than Sarah's children, they're ultimately getting Jane's share and half of Sarah's share which is grossly unfair. Someone needs to talk to Mary and ask her why she is disadvantaging the children who have lost their mother, it's almost like she's punishing them. I wonder if this was Jane's influence on her mother?

I was in this exact situation although I was the grandchild who had lost a parent just before my grandparents died. My remaining grandparent changed their will to look after surviving children - one who wasnt very well but also vile. My dead parents ‘third’ was given to my remaining uncles so they directly benefitted from my parents untimely death. All grandchildren got a token amount but my cousins still had both their parents who then passed that money on to them. They also got use of a flat in a seaside location which my dead parents ‘share ‘ bought them. I am on good terms with them still and have never raised it but it was highly upsetting

They're not losing 'her share'. Her share was never theirs. Her share, was hers. And now she's dead so the mother (GM) has left more to her remaining child, to look after her in Her older age, whilst giving the GC decent sized equal shares.. Perfectly reasonable.

Exactly. People should read whole thread before commenting. Also the fact that one of Sarah's children barely in touch with Mary and makes little effort vs Jane who does everything for her. This is why wills exist so people can decide what they do with their own money not just have it determined by a standard

My MIL has told me that her and FIL’s wills are set up that only their own children will inherit. If any of their children pre-decease them, the other children’s share will increase. She says it is her job to look after her children not her grandchildren.

Why are you asking for opinions only to get cross when someone disagrees with you?

That's a bit harsh not to leave GC anything at all in that circumstance.

What share? It’s their grandmother’s money. Had their mother lived and inherited she may have spent the lot on old age care, cruises or a toyboy lover. It was never THEIR money or their right. They are lucky to be getting anything at all.

In that situation in my parents will, if I died before my mother, my brother would get 50% and my 3 children would get my share. My mother would be within her rights to change it if she felt my kids were financially sound and my brother wasn’t, they are not entitled to anything. I find rows over inheritance pretty grim, they are extremely rude to be annoyed they are not getting what they assumed.

But from your explanation Jane’s share is unchanged. It is her children that are benefiting to the detriment of their cousins.

If Mary's in her 80s then, even if Mary was a teen mum, her child would probably have been only in her 60s when she died. When my parents were in their 60s I was 22-32. I think if I'd lost my mum that young, and then my grandparents had effectively lessened my inheritance from them because my mum had died, I'd have been pissed off too. Also if Mary's child died young they may have missed out on certain other money which would have benefited their children. For example, my dad gave me a chunk of his retirement lump sum towards my first house, which my son also benefits from. If I'd died before dad retired and so never got that, my child wouldn't have benefited from it either.

Doesn't mean that Mary is wrong, she isn't because it's her money, but I don't think it's unreasonable that the grandchildren feel upset by her actions. If Mary would have shared her money equally between her children had both children been alive, her sole child would be no worse off than if her sibling hadn't died.

In our wills if my daughter pre deceased us her share will be divided between her two children. If my son pre deceased us his share will go to my daughter or her children if she died first ( he has no children)

I find it hard to believe you're not Jane tbh, you seem incredibly biased. If Mary is so concerned about Jane's retirement than it should be 50% Jane, 50% Sarah's kids. Leave out Jane's kids. Is Jane going to change her will so it's split between her kids and her nephews/nieces if she gets the majority of the inheritance? Of course not. It seems like poor Sarah's kids inherit a dead mother and a cut in the amount they were due to receive because of Jane's poor financial management.

I was about to post that too - it’s a gift not an entitlement,

How much effort do Jane's children make?

Yep !

If I die before my parents, my equal ‘share’ of the inheritance from my parents will go to my spouse instead. That is the fairest way I think

In a similar situation within our extended family, originally the will was that everything was to be split 3 ways (3 grown up children of the person writing the will) 1 of the adult children died, leaving 2 grown up siblings and 2 children.
The will was altered so that the estate was still split 3 ways with the 3rd portion of the estates divided equally between the deceased child’s minor children, to be held in trust until they were 21.
This seems a pretty fair way to do it and pretty logical, and it’s how I would set mine up if they were adults with children.
However people have right to leave their money how they like and if it’s being discussed before the will writer has died, then it’s pretty mercenary….

Sorry I disagree with so much of this- I think Sarah’s kids have an awful neck to be annoyed about not getting their mother’s inheritance automatically. Things have changed completely with her death, of course you’d reassess - I don’t see why those 2 grandkids should get more than the other 2 because of (obviously very sad) circumstance. The reality of it is there’s now one daughter and 4 grandkids so I honestly don’t see how a new split - in whatever way the person chooses - isn’t more appropriate

I agree with this.

Also - is there a reason why Jane doesn’t have a good pension provision?

I think Mary should spend all her money before she dies and leave all the greedy fuckers nothing.

After reading all the updates, I'd advise her to leave the lot to Jane.

This. It’s quite clear Mary is thinking that as Jane isn’t doing well for retirement her dc are unlikely to get anything so is trying to be helpful to them as well. Life and circumstances aren’t linear unfortunately.

The problem with wills/inheritance is that it isnt just as simple as leaving your money to someone.

Its why being cut out of a will is so painful, its not about not getting money its about being told "I dont love you enough to leave you anything". Love is given a monetary value and in this case they are hearing that Mary loves them less because their mother died.

A lot of anger and arguments over inheritances arent really about the money at all. If my parents left my sister more because objectively she needs it more than I do right now I would be gutted. Not because I feel entitled to their money but because I would feel that they loved her more than me.