Inheritance to grandchildren bypassing children

[mucky123]

I just wondered if someone could shed some light on why I feel the way I do. It is absolutely none of my business. I freely admit any thoughts about it are unreasonable. If anyone should have anything to say its my bil/sil.

My dh and I are quite comfortable, not interested in an inheritance. We have 3 dc. My Bil not so comfortable but alright. Think they might have a tougher retirement than we do. They have 2 kids.

My ILs. Have some money not loads but are comfortable and very likely to leave readonable inheritance. They intend to leave everything between 5 grandkids. So my kids will get more of the pot than bils. I'm really irritated by this on every front (1) haven't discussed it with their sons, feels like a kick in the teeth for them, (2) gc will be inheriting fairly young. Will this discourage them ftom working, will they piss it up the wall or lose half on an unsuitable marriage, (3) it's like the parents aren't trusted to send the money on to their kids, and (4) it's unfair between brothers as our kids get a bigger slice of pot. That seems unkind to lovely bils family.
Partly also I'd like to be the one to give my kids a house deposit, pay for their wedding etc and this has all gone as they will now have a reasonable inheritance quite early.
I know I'm being unreasonable,

I think it depends on family need.

I've seen situations where you have

the grandparents (90s)
the parents generation (60s) - retired, no mortgage, living a good life
the grandchildren generation (20s-30s) struggling, trying to buy houses, afford cost of living etc.

In that circumstance, I would argue skipping a generation makes perfect sense.

However, equally I've known families where the parents generation are struggling.. health issues, still have mortgage to pay, caring responsibilities etc. in which case it would wrong to bypass them to help a younger more flexible generation.

That being said, it shouldn't really matter, in a reasonable family, if the parents are well off and the children are struggling, I would expect money given by the grandparents to be passed down to the children via the parents (even if just partially) anyway. I can't imagine good parents, inheriting a lot of money and enjoying it while they watch their kids struggle.

As for the sums. I think they are right. If you are splitting at a grandchild level then divided equally by 5 is the fairest way.

I agree that it's not good for children to inherit a large sum when they are young.

Aside from the fact that they might blow it on silly things, it makes them vulnerable to people who might seek to take advantage of them.

I would much prefer it goes to their parents who can then pass it on as and when it seems right.

What do their parents pay for? What are their jobs?

YANBU

Seems to me that if BIL inherited half, along with your DH, his whole family will benefit.

I think I can see the logic of the PIL but I dont agree with it at all. Has DH tried to persuade them, even to the point of "leave 50% shared between my kids and the other 50% to BIL" so its clear he isnt after their money for himself?

What lovely kind grandparents. I think both situations - splitting equally between grandchildren, or splitting equally between children and then subdivide those pots by the number of children each has - are fair.

You don’t need to be upset you won’t be the ones to give your kids a deposit for their first house. You can be the ones to give them a deposit for their second house for investment - that’s a fantastic situation for your children to be in and you should all be grateful.

Don’t waste your energy being offended on other people’s behalves over this.

Do you know for a fact how the inheritance wull be split between the gc? Maybe your BILs kids , will get 25% each and yours 16.6%

How do you know the GC will get an inheritance young? Their grandparents could live until they're 90 or the money could get swallowed in care home fees. My mum's parents left all their money to their GC. They're thinking was all their children had brought homes and none of them were struggling so they gave it to the next generation.
I'm pretty sure my parents have left everything to us (their children) although I suspect they will leave a certain amount for the GC.

@filofaxdouble That's how I'd view it as well, that the GC are likely to have a higher standard of living at an earlier age than they otherwise would have, and that's great.

In this instance, I don't think the BIL needs to be compensated for having fewer children tbh. The five grandchildren are separate individuals who'll each inherit 20% of the estate, so they'll each receive the same financial "boost."

I do agree with posters saying that inheriting money very young can be tricky. If I were doing this, I'd add the stipulation that each GC will receive their share when they're 25 or older.

I'm in a similar position where my children have inherited from my parents but we are in a tough position ourselves. The inheritance could have changed our lives but my parents gave it to their GC. It stings a bit to be honest, knowing that we could be debt free and life could have been that bit easier. I’m also worried about our DC pissing their money up the wall when they get it. I didn’t inherit from either of my grandparents who didn’t have much when they passed.

Unlike the poster above, who inherited at 62, my parents were that age when they died meaning I, at 36, could have used that money to live more comfortably and given my children a better childhood, knowing they’ll inherit when I pass.

However, I also know that it wasn’t my decision to make and while I don’t understand fully why they made that decision, it isn’t for me to say so. It’s nice that my children will have an inheritance and we’ll encourage good use of it.

Wonder how they would've felt if their parents had skipped them and left you all their assets instead. Think I can guess their reaction! They probably inherited a nice pot of savings or maybe a property, went to university for free, benefitted from low rents and housing costs in relation to salaries, and now they'll be all faux-offended that you feel entitled to THEIR money after they brought you into the world. So typical.

They won't be able to afford to give them a house deposit. Wasn't that the OP's point?

I can see a couple of ways in which this might trigger feelings of disappointment, but it does seem unusual that you feel so strongly even though you're aware it's unreasonable, you say you aren't interested in an inheritance, you can't do anything about it etc. The difference between splitting between the pot equally between the grandchildren and according to how many each brother had seems like small beans. Both are reasonable approaches. I have my favourite but I don't think it's particularly more ethical than the other. Is there something in particular that grates about this? Do you think PiL are more generally unfair to your BiL? Is there a golden child thing going on?

Your concern about not paying for their weddings or their house deposits seems a bit like you're making up problems. I'm sure they'll be happy to accept money for their weddings even if they have a big inheritance, why wouldn't they? And a deposit can always be bigger, cutting down the mortgage or increasing their purchasing power. Or you could, instead, provide a uni fund for their children when they have them, or some other great gift. There are lots of opportunities to be generous. Your DC aren't going to change their appreciation or love for you because you aren't the hand on the purse strings as they build their adult lives - in fact it may lessen any sense of resentment about how much they need you in adulthood and give them the space to appreciate you simply as people they love. So why does this upset you? How are you imagining your relationship with your children when they are older? Do you have fears about that?

But I also wonder, what is your own family experience with inheritance and wealth, OP? Could that have any bearing on why you feel so strongly about this?

We have a similar situation. DM is leaving her estate split equally between her DGCs in a trust fund. I am angry about it.

I am angry because she didnt talk to all of us, her DCs. One of my DBs knew and I suspect talked her into it. Other DB knew nothing about it and is deeply hurt.

DM has end stage dementia. Her estate was never big and is being eaten up by care home fees. DBs and I are soon going to be stuck unravelling the trust fund which will be worth sweet FA.

It is fine to skip a generation but at least have the decency to talk to the people who are being skipped especially if you are leaving them all the work and none of the benefit.

My sons paternal grandparents left everything to him as their only grandchild

He inherited a few years ago and bought a house with his partner ( he protected his deposit )

he also inherited from my late parents which I was happy with and actually ask my late parents to leave it to him rather than me

it’s basically set him up for life in a forever type home at the age of 30 with his partner

he has a small mortgage with his partner as he didn’t want to blow all the money

bought a newish car outright

they had a holiday of a lifetime in Asia for 4 weeks

he still has plenty of money in the bank as well for emergencies

he has been very sensible with the money but I did give him lots of advice especially with regards to protecting his deposit and he listened to me

I think this is a good idea. It stops paying double inheritance tax and it means the grandchildren get the money at an age when it is likely to be most useful to them (when they need it for house deposits etc). I would be encouraging my parents to do the same, except that my brother is child free so it would not be fair in our case as my DC would get 100% of the money.

Mixed feelings. On one hand, I don't mind the idea. On the other, I'd be worried if my children's grandparents did this.

My children are in their 20s. I have one child who receives means tested disability support. Not in the UK. I have worked really, really hard to get these supports in place, and I still fund a good portion of their needs myself. I don't mind that, so it's not a complaint. If a grandparent left my child money, they would lose these hard won supports. That's not a problem if they are left enough that they are taken care of for life. It's a problem if they leave them enough to tie them over for a few years or even a decade or two. Then those hard won supports have to be fought for again. It would be a disadvantage for them.

Better to leave it to me and trust I will use it to the benefit of the grandchild instead, which I will.

Your kids aren't getting more, all of them are getting the same. They are all equally related to their grandparents, there's no DS1s kids and DS2s kids, they're just the grandkids. Why should grandkids with more siblings get less of a share when they're already getting less of a share generally by being from a larger family.

I get their decision, why give all your money to older adults who have had their whole lives already just so it can be frittered away on retirement and care homes , when you could pass it to someone just at the start of adulthood so they can have a home and security for their whole lives and provide for their children easier.

YANBU. It's not the natural way for things to happen. Personally I think it's very selfish for them to bypass their own children (your husband and his brother).

This could lead to a lot of resentment for all sorts of reasons and I agree it's not healthy for children to receive money this way either.

I don’t understand your take on this. You say you don’t need the money, so just pass it on to your children.

I agree with you, I don't think it's right to do that. Unless there is a major reason not to, then the money should go to their children and then they decide how to distribute it.

We were caught up in a relative leaving 'a legacy for future generations'.
It was not untypical for her and divide and rule. It also got endlessly updated due to death bed situation. The very end result was 10k for me and a 15k trust for my at the time new born eldest. My no contact brother as trustee. We were absolutely skint at the time, bought a house, no money for repairs, literally patching it up. Its potentially been as complicated as could be for a relatively small sum and the rather random amounts distributed to siblings, babies but not older kids and not future siblings was absolutely done to divide and rule from beyond the grave.

You could always get your parents to split it 50 percent to your brother and what would be your half go to your kids direct

a few of my friends parents have done this

Your parents could always leave you’re daughters money in a disabled persons trust
with you as the trustee

this would mean she would still be able to still get her benefits and have access to the trust via the trustees

I've also got an in-law situation. PIL aren't actually aware of everyone's full story and don't ask questions or talk about anything let along circumstances or other people's feelings.
3 siblings, 6 gcs, all at the cusp of change - health, retirement, school, uni, 20 something.
They are also going down a crappy trust route for relatively small sums overseen by uncles with no input to family life.
It like they watched too much Downton abbey but forget it's a semi handy for Croydon.

I have seen a GC get inheritance when they were in their early 20s and it’s now gone. They lived off it, stopped them looking for work and have in reality lost confidence to go out into the adult world.
could you suggest that the money gets put in a trust if received before the children are of a certain age.