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.

Because Jane’s family will get less each because there are 3 of them and 2 of Janes children ?

I’m firmly in this camp too. To do otherwise feels as if her deceased daughter and her family didn’t really count for much.

If both daughters were still alive this would have been the case. If this was me I would ensure my sisters children received what I perceive to be fair.

They should be grateful they’re getting 50k if this was the true scenario! £250k will last 30 years if well invested! I’m guessing you’re Jane and if you were my child I’d change my will leaving you zilch as you’re nothing but money grabbing!

My mum has done something similar in that it gets split three ways (to me and my siblings) but if one of us dies before my mum, that third goes to the children of the sibling instead. If the sibling with no children dies first that third stays in the pot so the remaining two get half each.

The trouble with wills is that most people could nit pick and find something that doesn't seem fair but I agree with an early poster who said that ultimately its not your money until you actually get it.

Honestly the more of these grasping entitled threads I read the more I think that when you die your money should just go to the government. So just be absorbed as death tax. Once you’re dead, the money’s gone.

That way there’s 0 unfairness. No cases of someone inheriting millions while those who didn’t achieve wealth having nothing. And more importantly, none of this grasping entitled behaviour from people just eyeing up the cash before the person’s dead.

That way maybe people would actually spend their money, live some, enjoy their lives, instead of feeling some obligation to work themselves into the ground and go without so their entitled children can inherit.

The way people feel they’re entitled to other people’s money before they’re even dead is disgraceful.

I think it’s incredibly harsh to say it’s like her daughter didn’t count for much because she’s changing her will to reflect she’s no longer there. You have absolutely no idea what support, love, devotion, anything she gave her daughter in her life or how her death impacted her. She could cry morning moon and night for her but it still doesn’t have anything to do with her will, and honestly anyone who equates her will to her not loving or caring about her deceased daughter is absolutely insulting

The black and white thinkers are viewing the shares/figures as though Jane’s kids will inherit all of Jane’s share as well as their own grandparent share - but Jane will be using her 50% share to live on - so there’s the possibility that there will be 0 left.

In that case of Sarah’s kids got to split a 50% share they would end up with far more than the other grandkids.

Of course Jane could die a week after she inherits so then her kids will get a bigger share.

There’s no way to be perfectly fair.

Happened to DH, his mum died and the house was left to solely his aunt rather than passing down 50% to him.

Not caused friction yet, but he definitely is hurt by it. His cousin will inherit that when really it could have been split between the two of them.

Poor Mary.

I think Sarah's children are pretty cheeky. I'd leave it all to Jane.

I imagine that from Mary’s perspective, any money coming to the GC now is worth a lot more than money when Sarah dies. The GC can use it to pay down their mortgage which will save them thousands in interest now or put it on their pension and earn interest.

And obviously she is also taking into account Sarah’s lack of pension.

If I were Mary I’d write a letter explaining my thinking, stating that I love them all and want them all to have happy worry free lives and that while I understand that others may have different perspectives and that nothing in life is certain, to me based on the information I now have this is fairest.

Yes, I had to double check, but poor Mary is still alive.

I can imagine if my child did not have a good pension I would want my child to be comfortable - adult grandchildren have more time to prepare for their pension.

I’m assuming that both daughters gave equal love, care, respect to their mother before she died and that family relationships were good. In this case I still politely disagree with you. I totally agree that money isn’t what matters in a relationship but in this case we are discussing how is fairest to split the will so I stand by my comment.

If they are so annoyed with this than mary should revert back to each gchild getting a "small token" and jane getting the rest

You’re obviously very team Jane.

That's what happened in our family

I know. Next we'll be hearing Sarah/her kids poison cats or are neo-Nazis to even more blatantly sway the opinions. 🙄

Perhaps I’m reading it wrong but…… two “children” Jane and Sarah. Both had two children. Sarah sadly has already died. But a 50/50 split would be 50% to Jane’s family and 50% to Sarah’s. The details are in the first lines of the OP.
That seems fair to me.

I get what you’re saying but I still politely disagree, no matter what way my nana split her will I would never for a second think that my mother or we dont count to her… maybe it’s a phrasing thing but saying they think they don’t count as a result of a will change is mercenary… if anything it’s like they think they count more than her other grandkids. there’s one daughter and four grandchildren so things are just different now, you can’t leave money to someone who’s not there and I definitely wouldn’t split my money so unequally between my grandchildren

Why is Jane's pension so bad? If there's a legitimate reason, (e.g. unable to work due to disability, low paid because incapable of earning more) then I can sort of understand it. But if she's chosen not to work, chosen to be a SAHM or happily stayed in low paid/part time roles and just not made any effort to build a pension then I think it's unfair on Sarah's kids. Why should they lose out because Jane has been too stupid/naive to prepare for retirement?

But all grandchildren are getting much more than they otherwise would have on Mary's death. Obviously its very sad for Sarah's children that their mother died but grabbing for her share of the inheritance while their grandmother is still alive (who also lost her daughter) is frankly disgusting

It feels like insult added to injury for the bereaved grandchildren.

I agree, the poor lady lost her daughter fgs and all people can do is scrabble around for her money. Grubby.

Because it’s Mary’s money. None of the grandkids are entitled to any of it.

I hope she lives to 100, uses most of it for her own care so that she can have a high quality, dignified final few decades and leaves the residue to Jane. Ie that the grandkids get nothing.

If Jane died soon after Mary then her children would inherit twice as much as their cousins.
I think that dividing between your children is correct. If your children are dead then obviously it goes to their children.
If I had 2 children I don’t think there are any circumstances that I would leave them different amounts of money in my will. It would only cause resentment later on.