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.

But Mary isn’t dead yet… she could live for another 15 years and, after social care etc, there could be bugger all to inherit anyway. What is fair? Fairest thing would be for her to leave it to cancer research and they all get nothing.

Well it’s too late to do anything about it when the person dies so rather than leave a fractured family forever resentful and feeling ‘less’ than the person who unfairly benefited-then surely it’s better to discuss and sort it while there’s time to rectify things??

Yes you are reading it wrong.

i will be splitting my money fairly according to my relationship with each person. I strongly disagree with this standard that a child who is close to their parent and provides support and care in their later years should be treated the same as a child who cannot be arsed with their parent. You get out of relationships what you put in and this is no exception.

Firstly, Mary can do whatever she likes with her assets.

Secondly, arguing over who gets what inheritance is grim at the best of times but really beyond the fucking pale when the individual is still alive.

Lastly, it makes absolute sense for Jane to still receive the 50% she would have received had Sarah not died. It also makes absolute sense for Mary to then redistribute the other 50% amongst her remaining relatives as she so wishes

Sarah's children do not have any claim to assets Sarah's did not own or inherit.

Our will is split three ways for our 3 children. If god forbid any of them die before us then the money goes straight to the grandchildren of the deceased child.Luckily I have very reasonable children who all look out for each other and will ensure that no one is left out financially. Am so glad that our family are straightforward .

Has Mary thought about leaving the will as it was originally and giving Mary some money now?

OP, where there’s a will, there’s a family row, but I think it’s very natural for a mother to want to ensure the future of her own child, particularly when her DGC are all housed and settled. From Mary’s POV, I can see completely what she is doing- taking care of her daughter, and being equally fair to all her DGC. Someone needs to point out to Sarah’s DC that had their mother lived, she might well have got through the inheritance herself - it’s certainly not theirs by right. I think Mary is actually doing the right thing - taking care of the future needs of her living daughter who is looking after her, while also taking account of her DGC.

...and if it all disappears in care home fees nobody gets much anyway.

You seem to know an awful lot about this OP for someone who is a friend of these people…

Not fair, but life's not fair and Mary can do what the f**k she likes with her money, cos er... it's her money. This should never have been discussed. Also... what's Sarah's husband getting?... that will surely be passed down to his kids? Assuming he doesn't blow it on hookers and drugs?

But in my eyes it is treating grandchildren very unequally. Sadly we have no idea whether the remaining daughter will live for 1 month, 1 year, or 10 years. By leaving more to that daughter, her children benefit disproportionately so they are favoured over the other grandchildren. Yes, you can hope it is used for the daughter’s retirement but sadly life isn’t predictable so no one knows that to be the case.

I wonder if you are Mary or her advisor?

I'm a bit confused by how it is that Mary thinks she is prioritising Jane to make sure that she is looked after. After all, whether Mary leaves 50% to Jane, and divides the rest between Sarah's kids, or leaves 50% to Jane and divides the rest between all the grandchildren, Jane still has her 50% regardless. So it's less about what happens to Jane, and much more about how Mary is dividing Sarah's original half.

At the end of the day, it's up to Mary. IMO, it's most usual to leave 50% to each child, but with the share passing to the grandchildren on that side of the family if a child predeceases the parents. That's how it would legally be if there was no will, and most people I know have written their will this way. I know my parents did, my in-laws have, and I have. All very normal.

So while it is up to Mary, I can understand that Sarah's kids might feel a bit hard done by. But there's nothing really that they can do about it anyway.

Same here.

Mary has every right to want to look after Jane as well she can.
Pity they found out.

The normal thing to do is to split the share that would have gone to the parent amongst their children.

It should remain in her family line though, i.e go to her children instead.

So my dad died when I was 6. My Nan died when I was 27. Nan had two sons and a daughter. Two months after Nan dies her daughter died. So in the will my uncle got 50% and my aunts share went to her two sons my cousins. I was never even considered in the will it’s like she had forgot my Dad had ever existed. Honestly I have never gotten over as for it was a life changing amount of money 40k I no longer have any contact with my Dads side of the family. She can do what she wants with her money but it will cause real issues.

Personally, I think it would depend on how long ago Sarah passed away and whether she left an inheritance, given that Sarah’s children’s father seems to not be good with money and presumably won’t leave them anything. I would also consider whether Jane owns property and if her children are likely to inherit from Jane’s estate.

There should be no expectation of inheritance but I do think it can cause rifts if things are deemed to have been done fairly. Losing a parent at an early stage of life, is pretty tough and if Sarah’s children weren’t left an inheritance when Jane’s will be, I think it would be unfair to split Sarah’s between the others.

I’d also consider whether Jane is any good with money, given that she hasn’t saved for her own pension. That generation have had better opportunities than today’s generation and I think the grandchildren would actually benefit from help to save for their future. If Jane’s pension is topped up by inheritance, will this prevent her from having to downsize or similar, thus leaving her children a bigger inheritance?

Theres no right and wrong but if it were me, I’d look at the bigger picture and consider everyone’s financial position both now and for their future. I’d try to make things fair. This is usually where deceased person’s share would automatically be passed to their kids and I’d want a good reason to deviate from this.

I honestly don’t understand how! Overlooking issues such as the behaviour of Sarah’s children.
Jane and Sarah. Jane has two children, Sarah had two children.

50/50 makes sense.

This sounds normal to me. The assets are still being split 50/50 among the two children, one didn't live to see her share, so her 50% gets split among her children/the grandchildren. This is probably better for Sarah's children anyway. If Sarah had inherited then died, her DH would have inherited it all.

It is usual for a share that 'fails' (i.e., recipient is dead) to have that share divided among their surviving children instead.

This. It's really not fair on them - they're getting less because their poor mum died. But if Mary wants to be unfair there's not much they can do tbh, it's her money

You're obviously Jane in this scenario.

I think the will should be split 50:50 between Jane, and Sarah's children. This is fair in my view.

I know that my parents' wills have the money split equally between my brother and I, apart from some small bequests. Were my brother to predecease them, I would be horrified if it all came to me: I would expect my brother's share to go to his now adult child.