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.

Not much at all

Disagree completely, in the old way none of the grandkids got more than the others - no way would I leave 2/4 of my grandkids more no matter what the circumstances. It’s now an unfair distribution, Sarah’s kids were never getting it nor were likely to inherit it from her so why get it now? Awful their mum died but the reality is there’s one daughter and 4 grandkids and the woman just wants it to be shared equally

If Jane needs the money more than the grand kids give her share to Jane and Sarah's share to Sarah's kids. Jane's children will inherit Jane's share.

This doesn't make sense. Jane gets 50% in either scenario - in the first scenario she gets 50% and the same in the second scenario? It is Sarah's share that is being halved, half to her children and half to Jane's children.

But they won't because Jane will use her share as a pension

A sensible reply.

The level of entitlement in inheritance threads is often staggering.

Well if Jane hasn’t got a pension then her kids wouldn’t get any “share”, so it seems fair to me the grandchildren each get an equal split as otherwise Janes children would suffer due to their mums lack of pension.

That said it’s beyond grubby to start dividing up the proceeds before someone has died. It’s their money to do what they want with.

Yes people seem to be treating the inheritance as some sort of compensation for the fact Sarah not here as if that is Mary's fault. Rather than something that should be decided based on everyone's circumstances.

I'm not Jane btw, I'm a friend of the family, Mary, Jane mostly so a bit biased perhaps. I see everything Jane does for Mary also, and fact that Sarah's children aren't in touch that often. Yet people on here think Mary should still give them 50% regardless

if my daughter died before us her share when the surviving souse has died would go to the grandchildren, as my sil will inherit from his father.

Yeah totally unfair to Sarah’s kids they should have what would of been there mothers share

Anyone who tells anyone other than their solicitor the contents of their Will is.... daft (that's the kindest thing I can say about them)

This. The woman isn't even dead and the vultures are circling. It is her money to do exactly as she chooses whether the family perceive it to be fair or not really isn't up to them.

Poor Mary!

It sounds like it's not a huge amount? How much roughly? And did Sarah's kids inherit anything from her.

If it's a small amount - under 200k then Mary is probably right, but if it's a life changing larger amount I'm not sure.

If I were to predecease DM I would hope she would take over that "motherly" role, obviously Mary hasnt, maybe she and Sarah didnt get on?

Also how many DC on each side?
A 50/40/10 split would be fairer,

If she doesn't want to cause rifts then she needs to be fair.

Jane can leave her pension pot to her DC, I believe. So it isn’t necessarily gone. Unless the plan is that Jane lives off her inheritance rather than adding it to her pension.

Mary probably doesn't divide her GC into Sarah's children and Jane's children. To Mary they are all her equal GC and it's understandable that she would want to treat them equally. Her surviving child gets what she would always have recieved and her GC each get equal shares the remainder.
I think when people quibble like this they fail to take into account that fair is in the eyes of the person making the bequest and their perception of relationships with the beneficiaries rather than their own ideas of 'sides' of the family. To Mary there aren't sides, they're all her family.

You've summed it up perfectly.

Why shouldn't Mary leave everything to Jane? She is her daughter, and it's quite usual for inheritance to go to the next generation. Grandchildren often don't get anything at all, as their own parents will leave them what they can.

Sarah's children will inherit from their father, and potentially from a wife if he remarries.

Clearly different people see different things as fair or unfair, but the reality is that whatever Mary wants to do is fair.

I think Sarah’s share should be divided between her two kids.
I don’t think Sarah’s husband should get anything.
Jane has the other 50%

People seem to have very black and white thinking when it comes to inheritance and that certain rules should be followed no matter what. It's too rigid for me, I prefer to be more practical and pragmatic

I don't know the exact amounts but let's say it's 500k after tax,you think Jane should get 250k for her pension, then Sarah's kids get £125k each. How is that fair on Jane's kids?

Jane will burn through a lot of the 250k as it's to live off.

In current plan, Jane gets £250k and each GC gets £50k

Sorry bad maths 250k divided by 4 £62.5k

Whatever Mary does there will be upset amongst some.

My Mum's will would give 50% to Jane and 50% to Sarah's children. (+ all sorts of random charity donations)

Not modified to 50% + (4 x 12.5%).

We siblings are fine with this (In reality none of us are dead!)

How is a 50/5o split not equal shares?

That is what most solicitors advise, it’s normal
practice! I’ve know the contents of my mums will, I get a third but should I die before her my son will get my third! No one in my family is arguing about this! The other grandchildren sound greedy and money grabbing! If this was my family my mum would change her will and leave everything to charity!