to be disappointed/upset about £ left in will?

[carocaro]

Got a cheque today £3,500 from my Grandma.

Estate was over £250,000.

Her son's, my Uncles I presume were left the most, the same Uncles who did not speak to her for decades at a time when they fell out. PLus a few other friends, no other grandchildren, as out of the 11 she had me and my sister were the only one's who ever saw her.

My Dad died ten years ago and she always stated that me and my sister would get my Dad's share. Apparently not. Why I don't know and never will.

I am upset because it seems as is my Dad meant nothing, despite the fact that he was the only one who ever did anything for her and the only son she ever liked - that from her own mouth!

I am disappointed at the small amount, of course I am grateful and £ should not reflect someone's level of love, but it just seems very harsh and unfair.

But it was her decision and there is nothing I can do about it. Must suck it up and move on.

YANBU to be disappointed.

It must have hurt to have your help and assistance that you gave over years apparently disregarded.

And that your father has been ignored.

For those of you who have flamed the OP, I suggest you go back and reread her opening post.

She states clearly that it is not the amount of money, but what it represents that she is upset by.

But Sassy much as I admire your priorities, your example is completely different. You WERE treated fairly. Your mother recognised that you hadn't received the same help as your siblings and sought to rectify it in her will.

The fact that you chose to walk away from that rather than anger your sisters is laudible - but utterly different from a situation in which a parent has penalised a child. You walk away secure that your mother loved you, recognised that you'd made sacrifices, and wanted to rectify that.

For the OP this isn't about the money, it's about the fact that her grandparent seems not to have recognised her father's existence in her will - she's angry not on her own behalf but because of the perceived slight to her father.

Completely different to your example.

Lots of people will leave the larger portion to the children who are less well off or not married, regardless of how much they 'care' for the parent.
My brother has never married and has never had a job and he is in his 40's but my parents said they will give him the house when they go as I've already got one with my DH.
Which is fair enough.

Hmm, tricky one. You know in your heart YABU but I understand why you are miffed.

MY FIL had an aunt who was widowed twice,had no children and he was her only nephew - in fact for the last 15 years her only living relative. She was a difficult cow all her life and fell out with just about everyone who knew her, including all her second husband's family. My FIL remained loyal to her his whole life, regularly driving long distances to visit her, latterly in her care home, even though in the last two years or so she didn't even know he was there half the time. When she eventually died aged 96 with an estate of around £500,000 she did not live him one single penny. She left some to her gardener/handyman and the rest to animal charities! She didn't even leave him a personal memento. I have never heard him complain once, he's too much of a decent gentleman, but I thought it was a really poor show.

when my Nan died, it turned out that she had left all the grandchildren something in her will. It was not a fortune,( under £200), but to her, it was a lot. Her estate was worth far more, but most of that was her house and in her mind it didn't count at all because it was money she couldn't see. I can't tell you how much it meant to have that gift from her. I went out and bought a small keepsake that I know she would have approved of. Although my aunt inherited everything else, she did give all the great grandchildren something as the will had been made before they were born and I made my two buy something they could keep to remember her by, since they knew her well, unlike the other GGC who were all babies when she died. I suppose I could have got bitter about all the times I visited her in hospital and how 'little' I got back. But do you know what? I had had a lifetime of love and fun and memories from her that are worth more than all the money in the world, because once money is spent it's gone, but memories are always there.

And equally, when my Dad died, I got a watch whilst my half brother got everything else. But what I had with my Dad was more precious than a rusting car or an old house that probably needed more work than it was worth.

Don't try and place a monetary value on your relationship with your Gran, the times you had together are worth more than that aren't they?

YANBU - totally understand where you are coming from as I have a friend who is in a similar position. Did the cheque come with an accompanying letter and, if so, did it not give any detail as to how this figure came about? If it was from a firm of Solicitors can you not phone them and enquire as to the contents of the Will?

YANBU - I can understand how this situation must be making you feel sad about your Dad and your gran. Wills can stir up all kinds of family tensions and cause unhappiness, which is usually about relationships, and rarely about money. Some people seem to think that money is money and any upset regarding its distribution is in some way selfish. Actually family money and property is loaded with emotion.

"It is understandable that her children take precedence over grandchildren"

True, but if properly worded, as someone else has pointed out, then it's not uncommon for the child's share to be split for any living grandchildren if child pre-deceases the parent whose will is being settled, so the 1/3 share could easily have been split between OP and her siblings, not just split between the grandparent's live children.

Hope it is as mumblechum has explained, and there could well be a subsequent distribution. Maybe there's the sale of house and other investments to sort out too. Without seeing the will, it's unclear whether provision had been made for grandchildren to receive anything, and one possible problem is that if someone found older wills (which didn't include situation where grandchildren were catered for), then 'loss' of more recent will(s) can be considered fraudulent but it'd be difficult to get proof of that deception having taken place.

sayithowitis re actual figures... it just goes to show that for splitting an estate it is best to work on percentages so that as a house or investments grow, the will showing someone means for A to get 10%, B to get 20%, C to get 30% and D to get 40% means that they do get whatever there is, suitably split

So what might have been written as "500 pounds" (and seemed like a major amount when the house cost 1500) could become 40,000 if the house sold for 170,000 {less other costs like funeral, estate agent fees and solicitor fees for sale}. Still around 25% but not written in will as "500 pounds" any more.

My gran left each of her grandchildren bits of furniture - she didn't have much. She wrote down each piece on a bit of paper and each of the grandchildren got to pick two of them. I got two random bits of furniture that meant nothing. One of my sisters got a fire screen that my gran had made - it was basically a small tapestry. My sister didn't like it and left it in her garage where it got nibbled by mice and ruined by damp so she chucked it out. I am still angry about that 15 years later. If she didn't want it, she should have given it to someone who did. Wills are horrible things

Wills are what the deceased wants you to have, not what you want to have. There's often no logic behind why x recieved this and y receved something else. You can get a copy of the will, when I am fully awake I will research how and post this for you, if there's something untoward with how it was distributed then it needs looking into, generally speaking the executors can not benefit from the will unless it's just expenses. If your nephews were the executors of the will then they are not allowed to recieve part of the estate.
I am truly sorry for your loss, it sounds like you loved her so very much.

For all those who have been nasty/evil/rude to the OP shame on you! This poor woman has lost someone who she deeply loved. Grief manifests itself in many different ways so who the hell are you to judge? You should hang your heads down in shame.

Belle I think executors can be beneficiaries too? I've seen it at work and the executors of my own will are also secondary beneficiaries if DH, DS and I all perish together.

But you are right executors should not take significant expenses from the estate for sorting it out.

I'll have to look at that manicmummy, it's been a few years since I've done any wills and probate so I'm rather rusty. I will look at this in the morning

The same sort of thing happened in our family. Relatives who had spent perhaps 2 weeks total with the deceased person got the same as those who were extremely close on a day to day basis.

I think the deceased person did not want to appear to be 'playing favourites' so split things 'equally' in her will. it was painful and baffling to those who were close, but eventually they came to understand that though they didn't receive more money, they had received far more in terms of shared experiences and love.

But it is upsetting to accept that an especially close relationship is often not reflected in the splitting of assets.

Justanothermanicmummy is right, of course executors can be beneficiaries. The majority of the time the testator/trix (person making the will) will want to appoint close family members as their executor/trix and they will usuallly be the ones that will receive the lionshare of the estate after any gifts are made.
Myself and my two siblings are executors of my mum's will and we are currently dealing with the probate and once her house is sold the entire proceeds of sale will be divided equally between us.

I think perhaps you are getting confused with the rule that witnesses cannot be beneficiaries?

Earlybird said -
But it is upsetting to accept that an especially close relationship is often not reflected in the splitting of assets.

In my experience this is usually the case. My mum has just changed her will to give my brother double what everyone else gets (not huge amounts) because ' he needs it most', this is a single divorcee whilst no increase for my married sister struggling to get her kids through uni. I'm the one who does most for her.

It will cause bad feeling between siblings when she dies. Brother feels uncomfortable that he is getting more. Others will feel that they weren't as loved. Writing this I realise it is made me a little less sympathetic to my mother as I am annoyed she hs done this.

I think you should check the will.

In our family there was a situation where the executors held stuff back and we only found out when we got a copy of the will.

Beneficiaries can be executors, DH is my executor and vice versa.

Executors can be beneficiaries, beneficiaries cannot (or rather should not) act as witnesses to the will as this will invalidate gifts to them. I had a supervising partner whose clients would quite often try to leave him small monetary gifts in their wills, and he would make a point of acting as a witness so that the gift to him would fail (without telling the client) as he didn't think it was appropriate to take money from a client's estate.

I think you can't underestimate how much older people value money. To an elderly client, £3,500 is a phenomenal sum. Very often elderly clients have no concept of how much their estate is worth and are shocked when you work it out for them. And as others have said, she may have made this will some years ago when £3,500 was a relatively much larger sum. I have seen lots of elderly cliens leave gifts of £500 to grandchildren and think that that is a huge sum of money.

I think to treat siblings differently on account of one needing it more than another is monumentaully unfair and destined to cause horrendous ill-feeling. There will always be one child that does better than another for any number of reasons and but to expect them to understand the rationale behind this is wrong. The money should always be split equally irrespective of their personal financial circumstances. Besides which, people's fortunes and cicumstances change throughout life. Just beacuse one sibling may appear to be doing better now doesn't mean it will alwatys be so.

JosieZ if all beneficiaries agree you can change the will when your mother dies. You have to all sign a deed of variation but you can change it.

Obviously when it comes to it your brother may not want to give up his extra share... but it's all academic at the moment and your mother might change her will again.

I would just like to add a bit about my delightful FIL.

He married MIL when she was 19 an pg. He gave her 4 children in 5 years (including DH, who was born 9.5 months after his elder bro - men of a certain type wouldn't let a little thing like perinatal stitching get in the way of a good time in those days). He spent the next 18 years shagging anything with a pulse while MIL worked 2 jobs to raise her boys. They finally separated (never divorced) after she rumbled an affair with a local (much younger) woman.
He lived with this woman until he died suddenly in his fifties.
When his will was read, it was on an A5 piece of paper, typewritten with his signature on the bottom. He stipulated that EVERYTHING he had (which we were reliably informed was well in excess of £100k cash) would go to this woman, should she survive him by more than 14 days. If she did not survive him, it was to be divided equally between his sons - they were listed in a random order, not birth order which led them to believe that he had not written it himself.
He had four sons and 5 gc, not to mention a legal (albeit estranged) wife, not one of whom was given any consideration in his will. They did pay for his funeral, though. The fact that they were practically ignored in his will is what upset his sons, nothing to do with money. Had he bequeathed them each a memento they would have been happy to have been thought of, but as it was he issued just another rejection of his family as he had done just about all his life. Wills are very sensitive subjects and about so much more than money - to those included they represent an indication as to how much each person was valued and can cause a huge amount of hurt and bewilderment.
BTW, FIL's girlfriend now has barely any contact with the family and has spent his money on far-flung holidays, a new apartment and a major image overhaul. We don't even get christmas cards any more.

Grumpy for many years I worked in banking and dealt with the closure of accounts for deceased customers. I saw wills, grant of probate documents and other associated paperwork. I saw several documents we did not believe the deceased had written, but had signed. There were often bits of note paper (usually A5) witnessed by hospital staff and not written in the deceased's hand.

It was galling to be handing over money to people who had blatently just befriended elderly people to pick up the cash when they died but if the probate office has granted probate there's nothing you can do.

I felt physically sick once signing over £80,000 to a man who I believed had preyed on his elderly neighbour but he had the grant of probate so I had to do it.

On the deed of variation thing, can I ask a question?

If all parties are in agreement that they want to change the terms of the will after the fact, can they not just accept the money they've been given, then write a cheque to whoever they have decided to give it to?

So if I was to inherit a large sum and my sister got nothing, we could both just accept it in legal terms, but then I could give my sister half of the money later on as a private transaction?

I've often heard people grumbling about stuff like this and wondered why they don't just give the money over themselves if they feel it wasn't fair.

You can MorrisZapp but often people use deeds of variation for tax planning purposes - especially if large amounts are involved. If you re-jig the estate via a deed then all the 'new' beneficiaries are treated as having received the gift from the estate rather than the beneficiary who has given up/reduced their entitlement. This can be useful if there are tax reasons why the beneficiary under the will or on intestacy doesn't want to make the gift themselves.

An executor can be (and often is) a beneficiary.

An executor is often entitled to a 'fee' (usually a % of the value of the estate) in addition to their beneficiary share in exchange for their executor's duties. Or, if a professional is the executor, they can charge their normal hourly rate for duties performed.

I suppose the thinking is that it can be alot of work to be an executor, and the estate would pay a great deal (probably more) for a bank trust department or a solicitor to perform executor duties. Having a family member do it, can be more economical.