Potential issues with leaving an estate directly to biological grandchildren?

[ChorltonCreamery]

I am driving a neighbour to a solicitor’s appointment next week.

I refused to attend the appointment with her but will sit in the reception while she is in but I have been talking to her about her options though,

She has three children:

One son is divorced and remarried with stepchildren.
One son has a stepchild who has been adopted by him.
One daughter married for nearly three decades.
They all have children.

She wishes to bypass her sons and as a result feels she has to bypass her daughter.

She wants her biological grandchildren to inherit .

She wants to divide assets into thirds so each set of biological grandchildren share a third. So the grandchild who has one sibling would inherit more than the grandchild with two or three siblings.

Are there potential issues with this?

Would the former stepchild who was adopted have any grounds to challenge if the grandchildren are named in the will?

Would her own son be able to challenge on his behalf.

Two of the grandchildren are not yet 18.

She thinks that one son could potentially have more children.

Can anybody think of anything else that needs to be talked about or any potential issues?

The person you replied to was wrong.

In Scotland, any land or property (eg your home) can be left to anybody that you like. So, subject to certain situations, even in Scotland you leave your home to whoever you like.

It is only the "moveable estate", that is everything except land or property, eg bank accounts, investments etc that might have to be left to specific people.

However, for most people, the majority of their wealth is tied up in any property that they own. So this is specifically excluded.

Legally adopted children benefit equally with birth children. She might want to reconsider.

"This woman intention sounds thoroughly despicable. Unless there is a very specific unusual situation any decent parent would want to leave their estate equally among their children"

"...equally among their children"

I'm not too sure that I necessarily agree with this point. For example, one child might receive a lot of financial help during their parent's lifetime, while the other child receives nothing. The parents may then think about balancing this out when it comes to the will.

Alternatively, grandparents do often look to pass an inheritance on to grandchildren. This really is not unusual at all.

My parents are certainly "decent parent[s]" and yet they have left their estate to their grandchildren (my children and nephews/nieces).

I'm sure that you must think that my parents are terrible people for doing this.

For context, my DC are currently late 20s/early 30s, as are my nephews and nieces.

An inheritance from my parents (as and when it comes, my dad has died and my mum is 86) will make a lot more difference to my DC and my nephews and nieces than it will to me and DH.

"Legally adopted children have the same rights and the same standing as biological children "

That is the only the case when there is no will and the intestacy rules apply.

However, in this situation, if the person had died without leaving a will then the estate would have been left to the children, and I don't believe there is a step-child (only step-grandchildren), so the estate would be divided equally between the three children.

If a person wishes to leave their estate to their biological grandchildren then, barring some very specific circumstances, they can do exactly that.

It will cause upset. All DGC should I herit equally including adopted one. As PP said she won't be around for the fallout.

She’s obviously trying to ensure her family dislike her in death … bad enough being so horrible about stepchildren, worse that she’s cutting out her adopted grandchild.

Wow. I can’t believe a gift of a million pounds could be used to cause so many slights.

Three groups of relatives get excluded (the children, step grandchildren and the adopted grandchild). The biological grandchildren mostly get less than their peers. The only winners are the grandchildren who have the fewest siblings but even they may just feel uncomfortable and awkward with the situation. There is also a possibility of family feuds and bitterness towards OPs friend.

If this lady is as nice as OP thinks she is then may be she’s just not able to see how it might land with her relatives.

"imo this lady needs to relinquish control."

Why? (Serious question). It's her money and she is free to do with it as she likes.

She could just as well leave everything to the local cat's home charity or some young lover, or gigolo, that she's taken on.

In that case, neither the grandchildren nor the children would see a penny.

But, she has chosen to leave her money (that is, money belonging to her) to her own grandchildren. Really, what is wrong with doing that?

"One of the grandchildren might die before her( or just after) , without children their portion would likely be split between both their parents..."

No, it wouldn't. The will, will state what happens to a failed gift. If one of the grandchildren has children of their own then the gift will (unless the will says otherwise) pass to their children if they die before the grandparent does.

Otherwise, it is normal for a failed gift to pass to the residuary estate. Typically, in this situation, this will mean that it is distributed to the other grandchildren.

Safe bet is probably to leave a token amount to the step children and adopted ones and more to the biological ones. That way it’s crystal clear you didn’t forget them you just explicitly wanted to leave them just a small amount like 500 quid each.

Obviously I don’t know what your relationship is. If the step grandkids are new on the scene and so on. I do know that it doesn’t sound like you will be remembered fondly after this! You should leave it in equal share to each of your own children and trust them to do the right thing for them with it.

If the adopted grandchild is now 12 or 13 years old and has been part of the family for five years then by the time this will actually comes into effect he could be late 20s and have been part of the family for 20 years. If the inheritance went to the DC at that point then it could be 25 or 30 years more before the adopted grandchild inherited. By this time he could be in his fifties and have been part of the family since he was 7 years old. Surely it’s ok for him to inherit family money in this scenario. No need for measures to be taken to prevent it.

| agree that it does sound messy. But, effectively, that is the grandmother saying "I leave everything equally to my children, but I insist that they give the money to their biological children."

Of course, you can't do that in a will. So this is a means of putting that into effect.

If she leaves her estate equally to her three children she can rest in her grave easily knowing that any tricky decisions are out of her cold dead hands,

I think it should be split equally between the children, not the grandchildren. Because the grandchildren all have another set of grandparents. Some may inherit from them and others may not. For example, my dsis's dh has very wealthy parents. My dh's parents have nothing.

@Pettifogg But the person making the will should treat everyone equally in their estate. The other people might give it all away. Never ever make a will based on what others might get. They might not. Treat your own fairly.

This thread is getting nasty just because it doesn't follow MN's gold standard.

I see her logic.
Each of her three children's families benefiting the same way, but skipping her children for their children.
If it is worded that way, people should understand the different amounts. In a way, it is fairer than equal split between grandchildren.

I understand she doesn't want to include the stepchildren in this, they have their own family to inherit from. And here it gets tricky as one of the stepchildren got adopted.

I suppose it depends on the type of relationship she has with the adopted GC. In our family's case a similar situation was solved with not-equal, but still relevant proportion. It worked well for everyone.

I think it's horrible, I'd be so hurt if I were her daughter. And she'll be dead actually, so why would she care what her children do with what she has left them? Such obsessing over potential decisions by her children on how they might treat children they have decided to love.

This all day long. When you adopt a child they are as good as your blood and they are utterly reliant on their adoptive family treating them in that way. I could never forgive my parents if they did this even if it was my sisters adoptive child and not mine. The relationship would be dead.

At least with step children there is still a reasonable chance they will inherit from other grandparents etc unless you know that's not going to happen but even still.

How deeply hurtful to those kids to know you see them as 'other' and not 'real' family.

She sounds like an awful woman I'm sorry. I know it's her money to do with as she wishes but in my mind she should be thinking about the impact on her family's legacy when they hear this while still being freshly grieving her. That's the type of arrangement that ruins relationships and I wouldn't want that to be my legacy.

And also this is the bit that gets me, I'd be so proud to raise children who would be willing to open their hearts and rear kids like their own where its needed. Imagine punishing them and the children for that. Unbelievable mindset.

What a narrow minded and selfish way to behave - why are you helping her?

What a mess. I think equal is the only fair way to leave an inheritance across the same generation. But i can’t understand why she’s bypassing her own kids. If it’s messy with step grandchildren then their parents can sort that out when it’s their turn to leave a will. Being so obsessed with the money finding its way to biological descendants into a second generation is very strange.

How ridiculous.. if she left it equally to her 3 children, yes the step gc might eventually get something but equally it may go on care for her actual children in their old age? How sad to be so controlling so far into the future.

My father’s will left an equal amount to each of his grandchildren and the remainder shared between his children. None to his children’s stepchildren. In reality, he had less money than he did when he wrote his will so after the grandchildren had their share there was nothing left for the children.
None of us complained, we all loved that our own DC received a small amount from their grandfather. The stepchildren didn’t expect anything.

She wants to decide not only who gets her money initially when she dies, but control the future - who "counts" as someone worthwhile to pass it on to later on. So she doesn't trust her own children, as they won't keep the money in the "bloodline" but will dilute it by giving it to unworthy step children or filthy adoptees.

She sounds an utterly reprehensible woman.

This is some Game of Thrones type shit, and laughably pompous about bloodlines for a poxy inheritance of about a quarter of a small London townhouse each. A few hundred k is good to have but she's hardly a billionaire leaving life changing amounts or a lord having to split up the huge country house estate. Not that the amounts should matter, but the small beer of this makes her cruelty even more difficult to explain.

Where does it end? You can't control what happens after you die.

You could leave your money to your spouse thinking they will leave it to your four children. They could get a new partner and leave a big lump sum to them, thinking they are more wealthy than they really are, and the kids get the residue which is sadly nothing (and probably the children still have to be executors... this happened to me, cheers Dad!).

You could split it carefully between six grandchildren and cut out the adopted one (yuck) and then three more grandchildren are born. So they get nothing and your plan is frustrated. You could leave it to your two grandsons equally and they could both simply gamble it all away.

The only fair and pure way to do it is to first make provision for any vulnerable direct dependents, and then after that leave it equally between your own direct children, or those you have cared for in a parental role who relied on you and have nobody else, or then to your other NOK if you have no children.

Another consideration is that 5% of the population do not have the parentage they think they have, according to genetic counsellors and researchers. Dear Grandmamma may herself have inherited money from members of the family who were from the wrong side of the blanket. She herself might even not really be her own father's natural child!! Her children might not all be her husbands, after all she is suspiciously bothered about it all... Who cares about blood???

Love is the answer, you should leave your money to those you love so that they can leave it to those they love - whoever those other people are.

It's absolutely fine and relatively common to skip children (especially financially settled children) in favour of grandchildren.
I also agree with not including stepchilden - their biological grandparents should be the ones leaving bequests in their wills - if step-grandparents leave bequests too they would get more than the biological grandchildren which seems unfair.
Where I do disagree is with the adopted child. It's highly unlikely that the adopted child will receive any inheritance from their biological grandparents, although if you know that they will then perhaps it would be reasonable to exclude them - but do include a statement in the will explaining this reasoning. Otherwise I would definitely include the adopted grandchild as though they were biological.

Good plan to bypass the kids so that it doesn't go on care needs. The grandchildren will have plenty of time to use the money usefully before they get to that stage.