Grandparents and adopted grandchildren

[ChorltonCreamery]

A grandparent has died and their will leaves everything to their grandchildren.

The grandchildren will receive unequal amounts as the estate is divided proportionally e.g. Divided into quarters. So a grandchild without siblings will get a quarter and grandchildren with siblings will share a quarter with their siblings.

The grandchildren are named individually- the named grandchildren are all biological grandchildren.

However one of the deceased’s children has two adopted children with their second wife. One of the adopted grandchildren was initially a step-child and the other grandchild was adopted from abroad.

The adopted grandchildren were not mentioned in the will.

He is pressuring his biological daughter to share with her adopted half-siblings. She refuses. He has now appealed to his nephew and nieces and again they are refusing.

The adopted children are still children.

One of the biological grandchildren is 16 (not the daughter of the son who is annoyed) but the others are all adults.

Can the son challenge the will on behalf of the adopted children who were adopted before the will was made?

In England. Estate is roughly 3 million pounds with the house included.

I hope he did that from his share, or at the very least had the agreement of all the legatees. Otherwise he's in murky water legally.

@Elektra1 Yes. Utterly divisive and avoidable. There should have been something for them.

really?! “no bullying would have happened if you had just done what we wanted”@OhDear111? Is that what you mean?

How they did it has been explained upthread and was all perfectly legal. The disinherited person was never any the wiser and everyone was happy.

@EvangelineTheNightStar We don’t really know what they wanted. However we also don’t know why dc have been adopted. Did a parent die? This is the usual scenario. Adoption rarely happens when two birth parents are still around. So whilst I don’t agree with bullying others when it wasn’t their decision, giving dc nothing has led to bullying other relatives. It might have happened if they had been given a token amount but less reason to feel aggrieved in my view.

That’s appalling, and how can you be “disinherited” if you weren’t actually left anything?

No and frankly he needs to stop pressuring his relatives into giving his kids money.
Is it hurtful? Yes. But they're still just kids, they don't need to really know about it, and it isn't anyone else's responsibility to financially support their siblings / cousins.

If the beneficiaries want to alter what they are to receive, they can do so by a deed of variation. It's only "crap" for the dead person.

It dose seem unfair they weren’t even left a token amount. No he named the children he wanted to gift. They could appeal at own cost but it’s a risk as they were there when Will was written he chose not to include them. He’s not being fair to ask all the grandchildren for money though.

Why was the inheritance not simply passed down to the deceased person’s children ? It’s unusual to skip a generation, and it would have solved this problem. When leaving directly to Grandchildren, it seems strange that they weren’t given equal amounts, as that might be one reason to skip a generation, where all grandchildren equally loved but wide variation in numbers of children in each family. Instead here they have been given the amounts they may have inherited from a parent, so why not just give to the parents ? Is one a gambler/addict/unlikely to pass the money on ?
Did the deceased disapprove of the second marriage ? As that might be another reason.

@EvangelineTheNightStar You are disinherited because you are left nothing! It only matters if you find out about it and it’s grossly wrong. Then you can challenge. There are no grounds in this case though as the DS and adopted grandchildren have been deliberately omitted but they didn’t need to money to live on. It’s still a poor decision though.

In this case it clearly wasn't passed directly to their children as they didn't want the adopted children (and possibly the second wife) to benefit from it.

So from the deceased persons pov it wouldn't have solved a problem - their decision to do things as they have solved the problem they had.

Can you explain where you would use the word "disinherited" correctly? Surely it always involves not being actually left anything

I would assume you would have had to actually inherit first, so have left in a will, then that will changed for you not to inherit. Otherwise could you not say any family who doesn’t leave you money has disinherited you?

If a parent leaves money to all their children bar one then that child has been disinherited. Same if all grandchildren bar one have been included.

They haven’t been disinherited, as there was never a will written for them to inherit to be removed from. They just weren’t included in the first place.

There’s no rules that you have to leave anything to all DC/DGC.

In this particular case, I suspect it’s because the first ‘adopted’ child was probably viewed more as a stepchild, being the second wife’s child from a previous relationship. And the die was cast for the second adopted child.

I have SDC and a substantial inheritance ahead (if nothing else changes). It’s been organised in such a way that SDC won’t receive anything, and that’s absolutely fine. They have their own families to inherit from.

They haven’t been disinherited, as there was never a will written for them to inherit to be removed from. They just weren’t included in the first place.

What I said is effectively the dictionary definition of disinherited.

You don't have to be in a previous will to be disinherited (especially in Scotland as a spouse or child). To be legally excluded where you could reasonably expect to be included - when all other children or grandchildren are included for example - is being disinherited.

Thankfully, outside of Scotland you can leave your money to anyone you wish. No one has the right to expect anything.

Thankfully, outside of Scotland you can leave your money to anyone you wish. No one has the right to expect anything.

Indeed.

And in this case not having the right to expect anything doesn't change the fact the children of the deceased, and the two adopted grandchildren, were indeed disinherited.

No, they were not, they left their money to their grandchildren.

No, they were not, they left their money to their grandchildren.

You best let the people that write the dictionary know, and people who use the word daily as part of their work that you know better 👍

It's literally what it means.

@OnlyMabelInTheBuilding They have been disinherited. Others of a similar standing have inherited, but not them.

So should I, who is in Scotland and my siblings and cousins be pursuing all of my grandparents estates because they left their money to their children, and not grandchildren? Can I sue their estate as I should have inherited?!

No. Your parents could if they didn't, but not grandchildren as you have no automatic right.

In the OP's case the adopted grandchildren are classed as disinherited because all of their generation, except them, have inherited. They have specifically been disinherited.

You don't have to have an automatic right to inherit to be disinherited, that's not what it means.

No explanation has been given for why the will holder's children were passed over.