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.

That's how it usually works. My estate, if my DH doesn't get it all due to his death, gets divided equally four ways. If one of my four children isn't alive, their children get their share divided among them. That's the normal order of things.

Mmmm. I have a friend whose neices saud tgey would stop contact if she didn't them money left my their grandmother (to their 2 Aunts). They would have got the lot (and much more) in the end as well as massive amounts from father. Blackmailing little sods!

Is the money tied up in property?

Knowing that money causes lots of family arguments and resentment, surely it would be better for Mary to give Jane the money she wants her to have now, then in her will leave what's left equally to everyone (not sure about Sarah's partner, would depend on the relationship). That way she has done what she wanted to support her only child but also been neutral and fair to all the grandchildren with nothing to argue about.

She is being fair to the grandchildren. The inheritance is following the normal lines of succession. At least Jane's kids have their mother.

Mary is that you?

We had a kind of similar situation in our family. There's 3 of us in my family (DB,DS & me), 3 cousins in one part, and 4 in another. My Dad had 4 siblings, and only he, and his child-free sister outlived their father. My grandfather had long been widowed. The will stated that the estate was to be split equally between the 5 kids (dad's generation), and if any of them pre-deceased their father, then their share would go to their kids (my generation.) As my dad's other 3 siblings pre-deceased their father, 1/5 went to each set of cousins. My siblings and I didn't inherit anything. I know my mum was a bit annoyed that this felt like my siblings and I missed out. We are not really in need of the money - it's always a nice treat, but we're all in secure jobs, and on the housing ladder. My DB quite rightly said that we have the benefit of having both parents though. So, maybe your family could see it that way? I thought it was very philosophocal of my DB to say that.
This happened about 6 or 7 years ago. My cousins got their parent's share, and we still have our parents. I have no idea if my folks have spent all of that (it was about £25k, I think), or they have plans to pass it to us/their grandkids.

And she is absolutely allowed to decide that and everyone else should shut up about it.

But they are not getting less - unless the idea is that when their mother died she immediately set aside her inheritance in a trust and left it to her children and not had the benefit of it herself? But she wouldn't, would she? She’s have spent some, used it for her pension, used some for her old age care. She might have spent the lot. Her children would not have received 25% of Mary’s estate. Just what was left after Sarah had benefited from it.

Sarah's husband would probably have got it indirectly first anyway. If my DH dies before me and has inherited, it's all marital property and becomes mine. The children get whatever I have on my death then. Of course I use it to benefit them meanwhile.

If he died before he inherited, then his share would go directly to the children instead of the marital pot.

I think Sarah's kids should get her 50%. They lost their Mum and now they are being penalised by their Gran because Jane didnt save for her pension and they are seemingly doing alright for themselves?! Sarah's kids have their Mother for x number of extra years which is better than a large inheritance. Surely Jane and Sarah always expected to get 50/50 and it would be reasonable that when Sarah was dying she would be assuming that her estate+her 50% would all be left to her kids?

I have 2 siblings. My parents will leaves everything 3 ways. In the event of one of us predeceasing our parents, the unclaimed share will go directly to the kids of the sibling that died - it wouldnt redistribute amongst the living siblings.

If i was one of Sarah's kids, i would be deeply hurt by my gran doing this and id consider Jane and her kids to be effectively stealing from my dead mother. I think this is appalling.

Mary should 50% to her living daughter, just as she would have if her other daughter was still alive. The contentious part is the other 50%. I think that it should only to Sarah’s children. It’s the normal way to do things. Do you think Jane has tried to influence her mother to get her to leave some money directly to her own children? If my Mum had suggested that to me I’d have told her not to.

Bear in mind Jane's age.

She was at the tail end of the Boomer Gen. They were all safe in the knowledge that a state pension was theirs by right. Except that now it isnt.

I am GenX and we were also sold the same dream, but for those of us that are at the older end, we were already well into our lives when getting a private pension wasnt a nice thing to do, but started to become apparent as a necessity. A lot of us were already paying mortgages at higher interest rates that are being paid now, and had had kids etc. So finding the money for private pensions (which were not legally required to be offered by employers at that time) was often a struggle, and we trusted the system!

Its easy to slag off Youngest Boomers/Gen X for not being prepared but the fact is that we didnt know we had to be! We were brought up on "jobs for life" except they weren't and "state pensions for all" except that they werent, or at least not to the level we were sold.

I disagree. At least you get the opportunity to say it’s unfair if it needs saying rather than the deceased leaving a great deal of hurt behind them without ever have their actions be called-out.

Inheritance is way more than just receiving money. It should be given fairly. Unfairness to a particular party speaks volumes of how the deceased truly valued them.

Fairness is a must when dividing your assets, unless you deliberately want to hurt/punish that person.

But nothing needs "calling out" when it's someone elses estate. They can do what they like and to hell with the consequences because they will be dead, thats kind of the whole point. I would say that the mistake is giving anyone to have a opportunity to voice anything at all before that person has died.

I would rather know way before they died if they didn’t value me (think it’s okay to treat me unfairly) rather than have no idea and they benefit from all my love and support until their dying day. That’s kinda selfish of them to take what they need and stick two fingers up at me on their way out. Where do you direct that hurt and anger?

I’d rather know beforehand if it’s an option.

Well given that, in this case, the people complaining have given little to no support, I am not sure that this stacks up.

OP has said that her N&N barely keep in touch, so they can't claim that Granny was using them as carers and then leaving them nothing.

Jane and her lack of pension seem to be a red herring - Jane is getting 50% regardless. The question is therefore the GCs - it would seem fair that Sarah’s children get ‘her’ share as is standard’ and respects her memory. Whether Jane’s children ever see any of this is anyone’s guess - Jane could die a week after inheriting or 30 years after but that was the case in the original Will anyway. Seeing as this does not change Jane’s position or her children’s previous position it seems like a deliberate attempt to be punitive to Sarah’s children who have lost their mother and I think would be rightfully upset in the circumstances. I do not see how practical or pragmatic comes into it - it seems impractical and cruel. Jane’s children could end up with the vast majority if she dies close to inheriting.

Fair enough!

That would be the normal way. Is it possible Sarah had life insurance that is now in trust for her children? That might influence things.

Nothing to do with this thread but every time I see your user name I sing the entire fucking advert in my head!

I can understand that Mary is trying to be fair to the grandchildren by giving them the same amount but it isn't actually fair. In my country she wouldn't be able to do this as the law demands fairness which means equal distribution between children, and if a child dies before their parent their share goes to their children (if no children then it gets split between surviving inheritors)

But her will change changes nothing for that daughter - still getting 50%

I think what Mary is proposing is fair.

Well yes, normal people would be horrified at depriving a dead sibling's children. Not Jane. By the sounds of it she's bitching that her N&Ns think it's unfair.

Completely agree. Inheritance is a major cause of wealth inequality as it is. No one should be getting a chunk of unearned money in a 'fair' society.
The argument against assets of a dead person who has no further use for them reverting to the state, is always that would be 'unfair' to them, the deceased worked hard for it, so its theirs to do with as they wish.
Yet apparantly their wishes only extend as far as making sure those with the stickiest fingers are getting enough for free.
Never do you see such a flexible and self serving definition of the word 'fair' as on inheritance threads.