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 hate inheritance threads. For starters it could all go on care home fees.

The main thing is all dgc benefit, equally. If only 2 were getting something 3 weren't that would be unfair but they're all getting the same. Yes your dh and bil miss out but they don't really because all their dc will benefit.

True It's the children's money , not a family pot Say for example there was 5 grandchildren and 500k to split between them It seems obvious they should get 100k each.

It's irrelevant that 3 might be from one family and 2 from the other.

I think it's controlling - they want to be ones to help the younger generation rather than allowing the parents the joy of helping their own kids.

We stand to inherit and intend to pass most on to our kids - we have are doing OK but are still far behind where our parents were at our age.

Giving money to your kids is your last act of love and it's always been that way for centuries. Cutting out your children makes a statement about your love/trust for them - and not a good one.

This isn’t a case of how your sister saw it - it’s what actually happened. Whether she was justified in feeling unhappy about it is a matter of opinion.

You remind me of my SIL who is seriously invested in how much my brother will inherit when our dad dies, and whether I want to hang on to my share or let them have it. Because they have frittered away money and have nothing, and I’m comfortable. It’s disgusting.

I agree . My parents are talking about changing their will to leave to the GC, I have three and the others have one each so it feels unfair to me .

OP, you say youself that the "kids" are comfortable. They don't NEED it.

It's very hard to be a young person these days, with the cost of real estate etc. An early inhertitance would be life changing.

In your parent's situation, I would do the same.

Parents know their children the best grandparents have got a glorified view of them. if they’re in their 20s just the wrong time to give them loads of money.

Maybe they can see how hard it is for young people today. If they are not particularly elderly and in reasonable health it could be years before the inheritance is passed on so better to skip a generation so they can get the benefit of the money to help with their future. Could be set in trust so they access it at 25, rather blow it all at 18.

Can you look into whether there’s a way of them putting it in trust for them? So for example they can have part at 18 or to use towards education for example and the rest when they are 25 to use towards a house deposit?

I could understand your upset if you were the family in need of inheritance to pay off your mortgage and retire. It is slightly uncomfortable that your family get a larger proportion of the inheritance.
However, it’s the grandparents money and they’ve decided they want to help the younger generation now. It is often the case that people who inherit save the money rather than pass it down in their lifetime so it’s less useful for mortgage deposits etc.

Generally leaving money directly to GC has been done in more wealthy circles where the estate is very large and ample to leave large amounts to DC and also reasonably generous amounts to GC, the faithful butler and housekeeper etc. it may also be done if the DC are very wealthy and may even have requested it go directly to GC as they don’t need it. If neither of these apply, I would assume the person making that will just doesn’t like their DC for some reason.

FIL's will was that the estate should be divided equally between his sons and that each grandchild would get a fixed sum. Fortunately by the time he died the DGC were old enough not to spend it on sweets and he was wise enough to add it as a codicile so could be updated.

This is actually normal in both DHs family and mine, I think it because the grandparents live quite a long time, so passing an inheritance to someone in their 60s versus in their 30s - obviously it is a much bigger help to the person in their 30s. We're all better off longer term as it allows me much better mortgage rates, for example.

The idea you want to give them things and someone else doing so ruins this for you is very childish and contradictory when you are also suggesting they'd be ruined by getting money (okay if from you). Especially if you would be giving money you inherited, a whole dollop of extra tax for your ego.

It's nice of them, they obviously think you are doing well both for yourselves and bringing you DCs up to be sensible around money. It's also, obviously, not your place to interfere or try to change their mind, especially not when you want to change it to you getting more money.

Looking on the bright side, you can spend all your money on yourselves and not have to worry about gifting your kids. Enjoy!

This happened to my friend but it wasn’t the parent who seemingly made the decision, it was her estranged brother and his act of revenge convincing his mother to leave everything to the grandkids - it was a desperately upsetting situation not only because my friend felt the sting of parental rejection but the genuine concern that her ds was incapable of holding onto money - he’s an enormously generous kids but my god can he spend on absolute shite - there will be nothing left and there was nothing she could do to change that.

Plainly, anybody who thinks they have any say whatsoever in how another person gives away their assets is unreasonable.

There is no "should". Its theirs to do with what they like.

It isn't unfair either. Your husband and his brother don't factor in at all, so it less to your BILs family, it is equally distributed amongst 5 individuals who have relationships in their own right with their grandparents.

I would love for a fairy godmother to appear and bestow my daughter and her cousins with something they will help them in life whether that's to get a home or piss about traveling for a year. It's the fucking dream.

There's no one right answer here, everyone's circumstances are different. In our case my husband's grandparents are skipping a generation so he, his siblings and cousins will inherit and their parents will not. This was done for various reasons:

1. My husband's mother is an awful troublemaker who has caused many family problems and would cause more no matter how any will were to be split between her and her brother. Effectively cutting her out without actually doing so seemed to the grandparents the only way to shut this down.
2. My MIL and her brother are in their sixties. Comfortable enough but not rich. The inheritance would have given them a luxurious retirement but without it they have everything they need if not everything they want. The grandchildren are all in their 30s/40s with children of their own and arguably need the money more at a practical level.
3. The above means that skipping a generation avoids the grandparents' money paying IHT twice and it's less likely to be spent on care homes.

In my husband's family it all makes sense.

In my family my parents have mostly already disposed of their money between my brother and me, which again avoids IHT and care home fees. I got far more than my brother but that's because I'm taking care of them. He's no help whatsoever and it's going to get a lot worse for me over the next few years due to their health problems. It's not so much the case that I deserve it more but that it allows me to adjust my lifestyle to do this, which I couldn't without the help of that money. My brother is absolutely fine with this, admits he would have blown any money he received by snorting it through a rolled up note, he's had more from my parents in the past and to be honest, my mother ends up giving him a significant proportion of her hefty pension every month anyway because he's so shit at running his life. Depending how long she lasts he'll probably have caught up with my share before she dies anyway. We're both fine with all of that.

These arrangements work for us and everyone except my MIL is happy with them (but nothing else would make her happy either, that's just her). However I could see a number of obstacles - if my husband, his siblings and cousins were much younger for example and might not be mature enough to handle the money. If my MIL and her brother were struggling and really needed the inheritance to live on.

There are too many details in people's lives to be able to say any one system works for everyone. What your in laws have arranged sounds like quite a good idea to me but that doesn't matter because neither you nor I get to decide how they arrange their inheritance. If your BIL would really struggle without it then it's up to him to discuss it with his parents and see if they want to arrange things differently. Your husband could also do that but if you, @mucky123, bring it up it's not going to look good.

Ditto for most of my friends and family. One friend however is being placed under pressure to bypass her children and leave everything split equally among the grandchildren, it's 'only fair' according to one of her children. However she has three children and their families are 5 children, 2 children and no children, guess which of her children is pressing her to leave just to her grandchildren!

I do think it would be better to put most of the money in trust until GC turn 25. I feel a bit torn as I got inheritance that really I would have benefited from much smaller gifts when we was starting out. But I have also seen inheritance skip children and go to GC who are at uni completely pissed up the wall.

I presume the deceased might feel galled to know that a lifetime of inherited wealth was spent in three years with no car, deposit or any asset to show for it

But each grandchild will be getting the same amount! It’s being divided 5 ways, so not sure why you’re looking at it that your DCs will be getting more!

Jesus wept. Be grateful. They are dividing it equally between grandchildren. You have more children so that explains it. Each child gets the same amount, literally the epitome of fair.

Surely it’s better to inherit money in your twenties to set you up. Having a small mortgage from the start, for example, will give you greater wealth over the course of your life.

I’ve always thought inheriting large sums when you’re in your sixties is a waste as you’ve already lived most of your life.

My DM is doing the same, direct to DGC’s. She wants to ensure that her money goes to her DGC, where she intends.

Poor relationships within our family and lack of trust mean that by leaving it to her DC’s some of the DGC may get nothing.