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.

I received a fairly large inheritance whilst I was quite young as both my parents died early. One thing I've observed is how much financial help my friends get from their living parents throughout their adult life... financial help with house deposits, buying cars, home improvements, not to mention the money the save from free childcare. I see my inheritance as a kind of compensation for not having that.

I'm sorry you lost your parents early. I lost my mum young and nothing makes up for the loss of loving parents.
However, what I see is that there is a huge divide between people with affluent parents who help them when alive or afterwards, and those who can't, which means that no matter how hard they work, those less fortunate can rarely achieve what others get from an accident of birth.
I understand this is the way of the world but its a bit of a cheek when those who are getting an unearned leg up of any description start arguing about what is fair, when the whole system of inheritance is one of the least fair systems we have.

Yes definitely. But if you are going to legislate against those whose parents are dead receiving anything then it seems quite unfair that those with parents who are alive and wealthy still get to benefit from that. It's something you can't really solve...the accident of birth is one of life's greatest inequalities.

Bollox! She's in her 60's not her 90's, she's not that old. I'm in my 50's and have always known that having a private pension was important.

I'm also not sure why you think the state pension is not what it was. The triple lock has been in place for 15 years for a start. Auto-enrollment has been in for a similar amount of time.

There may be a a perfectly good reason why she doesn't have a decent pension which is why I asked the question. But claiming that people in their 60's have been misled and not generally been able to build a pension is ridiculous.

Mary should also be looking out for her grandchildren who lost their mum shouldn’t she? It’s a big deal losing your parents, but particularly your mother before your time. It never goes away, it influences every little thing and every big decision.
I wonder how old you were OP when your mother died? Or are you 60 something with a 85yr old mother still going strong? That’s a big difference to being a teen or young adult when you lose your mother…

@Meudantte and Jane is probably doing all that's needed for Mary as an elderly lady.
Honestly, the entitlement these days. It's 100% up to Mary and the grandkids should be grateful for anything she leaves them.
If I was Mary I might be tempted to leave it all to Jane with that attitude.

I think there's a difference between a person choosing to spend their own earned money on things for their children while they are alive and can get joy from that, and the grasping entitlement over the assets of the dead that characterises so many of these threads.
Whining about who's getting how much of someone else's money when they die is ugly and a very poor reflection of human nature. Its greedy, reduces the importance of a loved one to a cash cow and is entirely selfish, because is seeks to control the loved ones decisions for gain. Gain that is entirely one way.
I do understand your perspective, but more often these threads are not about people orphaned young. The average life expectancy is in the 80s, so the would be beneficiaries are typically at a life stage where they've had ample time to make their own way and will often have already recieved advantage from their living parents.
I suppose if we did away with inheritance then people could have life assurance to benefit their families in the event of their untimely death.

I agree about the greed and entitlement of some ref inheritance. But I do not agree that 'when you die your money should go to the government'. That is totally wrong. It'd go straight into the ever bulging benefits pot. No thanks.

Why doesn’t Jane have a pension???

if my sister died I would be mortified if my mums will then gave me money to live off over my nieces and nephews.

Yes it is.
The daughters ( Jane/Sarah) get their equal share and divide it out (or spend it all themselves)
As Sarah is RIP her share goes to her children.

Actually... if the GK are the ones kicking off... then they have no right to assume they were getting ANY kind of inheritance.
My parents have split everything between me and my brother.
Anything we decide to give our own children will come out of our share.

She said Sarah's husband would get something so if he got equal share it would be. Wasca bit vague on what he was getting.

Her children are not entitled in the same way though, just like any gc whose parent is still alive. Sarah's children are as their mother is dead.
That's going by the law if Mary didn't have a will.

Yes, and very hard to know everything about the family. Is Jane a widow? Does she have health problems, is she on a 2nd marriage and 2nd husband likely to inherit her half, does Jane do a lot of care for Mary, or will in future. Mary has probably factored in everything she knows to make her choice.

Unfortunately a lot of the insurance schemes that were sold in the 80s and early 90s were not very good, and many folded due to underperformance. Finance investment companies went bust. Most were based on the high interest rates and when interest rates fell it was a disaster. Hopefully the schemes around now are more realistic and the next generations don't get left highland dry.

In the "being fair on Janes kids"... Its not Sarah's kids fault (unless a big drip feed that Jane gave up work to bring them up or something) that Jane hasn't made better pension provision.

I've changed my mind throughout reading this thread, and I think what the actual problem is is a lack of communication, not whether its 10% or 15% here or there, its explaining things. My dad died before my nan, we inherited his "share" (not a lot). I would have been heartbroken to have been cut out of the will though, like we meant nothing to my nan without my dad being alive? With a bit of communication- you can see it in a very different light. Why we British are so decretive and cagey about money I do not know.

Another pov is Jane lost her only sibling. Who knows how hard that was for her. Maybe she stepped in and did a lot of childcare for Sarah's children which would have been quite likely if she was a SAHM.

It is standard for children to inherit their deceased parent's share so that is probably why the children are aware and expecting it. We don't know how big Mary's estate will be anyway. May end up with very little anyway.

♥️ that is fair.

Lucky old you - @PyongyangKipperbang is spot on and I would add that for many such women there was no access to company pension schemes (either due to lower grades or part time status), “managing out” for maternity was even more widespread than now and sex discrimination was the norm in most jobs, especially when it came to promotions. The idea that legislative changes made material change to the job market in this age group's peak earning years is for the birds. Especially for the 95% of women who did not have access to higher education (paid or free).

As other PP point out - many of the private schemes which became available in the 80s and 90s performed shockingly. If you remember the importance of a private pension you presumably also remember the multiple mis-selling scandals both on pensions and endowment policies through this period which left people struggling to pay their bills.

Interesting that PPs think SAHMs and part timers should be punished financially as not contributing. The patriarchy is alive and well when it comes to women’s unpaid labour.

I agree with the OP - the occasional contact DGC have no right to anything. I would prioritise the child who is in need now and who has a poor financial outlook (whilst aiding me considerably) and leave small gifts to the DGC. Jane will need the money in old age, the DGC who are financially secure have more time to sort themselves out. Plus of course they all have paternal grandparents who may be better placed financially.

I would not have wanted one of my parents to go short in order to benefit my financially secure self. A gift would be nice, more than that for the DGC is only appropriate where the DC are secure and don’t need the money.

Standard on MN where the sense of entitlement over inheritance is often staggering and you can see exactly the kind of families where this feuding happens. Not something I’ve seen so much in RL.

There is no right to an inheritance. If all in the family are financially secure and relationships are similar then fine - split it evenly. However if one of my children were in need and the others were not I would want to help that child. Especially if that child was also the one providing all the help and support. Why on earth would I prioritise DGC who I scarcely saw and who were secure financially?

I imagine the thinking is as follows:

Jane will use up the 50% she gets living the remainder of her life (frugally or otherwise) and have next to zero to pass on to her DC.

All GC will then get 12.5% on Mary's death and are thus treated fairly.

Seems fair to me and probably fairly efficient tax-wise.

If Jane does have a large surplus then I'm sure she'll give Sarah's DC some of it in her will.

I am presuming this inheritance is not £millions.

I lost my daughter in 2023, she had 2 daughters.. I have two other children. Me and husband have left a will splitting it 3 ways. so my 2 grandaughters get a third between them. I think it's the fairest thing to do. It's bad enough they lost their mum without them being penalised further. Some people are such money grabbers!

That's 30 to 40 years ago. 'Jane' is only in her 60's, she will have had 30 to 40 years to think about her pension. There may be a perfectly good reason why she doesn't have a pension but that isn't it.

The OP seems to have disappeared so this was probably all made up/AI/click bait stuff anyway.

The money grabbers if they objected would be the four financially secure adults, who rarely see their DGM whining about a “mere” 12.5% of the estate at the expense of their financially struggling aunt/DM who has provided the care and support for the DGM.

That is the definition of entitlement. Nobody is being “penalised” - all the DGC are being treated the same.