Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

Wwyd? Only one child has an inheritance

42 replies

jonnyc · 13/10/2016 07:13

My mother in law recently passed away and has stated in her will that one of our children will inherit an amount, but not the others, (they are from a previous relationship).
Wwyd? We already save for all of our children, so would you try to save more for the others or just the same for them all. I don't know how to deal with it.

OP posts:
HalloToJasonIsaacs · 13/10/2016 07:17

Do the other children have another father and set of grandparents? (As opposed to the father having literally vanished and there being no contact with GPs). Because if so you might end up with the reverse situation in a few years time.

Palomb · 13/10/2016 07:17

Was your mother in law only related to one of your children?

BigGreenOlives · 13/10/2016 07:18

You just leave it. The others have their own grandparents who may leave them more or less money. The child who has lost their grandmother won't have that adult loving them during the rest of the childhood. I am assuming your children are not adults. The child has also seen their parents separate & at least one parent have subsequent children. If your MIL had wanted her money to go to the others she'd have given them some.

FannyFanakapan · 13/10/2016 07:18

whose children are they - the ones from a previous relationship? If they are yours, and MIL was not related to them except by marriage, then I can understand - she left the money to her biological grandchild. However, if the other children are also her biological grandchildren, she has done a mean thing. But I dont think you should compensate the others for that.

PikachuSayBoo · 13/10/2016 07:43

You follow the wishes of the will. Legally you can't do anything else.

As for saving for the kids personally I would carry on saving equal amounts for them. Otherwise when older the child with the inheritance may feel you've given more to the other kids.

The other kids may inherit from their relatives down the line.

So I would add the inheritance to that childs savings account and not mention it to them until they're 18.

GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER · 13/10/2016 07:52

If you are also a beneficiary and there's enough money, you could make a deed of variation to give the other kids the same out of yours. Or ask the executor to do so, if it's not you.

Dh and his siblings did this after a relative had excluded one of them for reasons that no longer existed (spendaholic ex).
An official D of V does cost a bit, but I don't think it's too much.

Summerisdone · 13/10/2016 07:53

I agree with Pikachu. Keep the inheritance in account accessible only once the child reaches a certain age, but continue to save equal amounts for each. If you don't then it will be like you punished the child A for inheriting the money.
If all your children only have access to the money when they reach an adult age then they will be old enough to understand why child A has more in savings than they do

Original poster
jonnyc · 13/10/2016 08:52

I'm the children's mother. The other children are not her biological grandparents. My older children's grandparents will not have anything to leave them when they die.
I'm not questioning whether to not give it, I understand that has nothing to do with me. I just wondered really how best to deal with this and what others would do?
I think we may just have to explain to them when they are older as some have suggested.

OP posts:
Original poster
jonnyc · 13/10/2016 08:56

Sorry, not her biological grandchildren

OP posts:
Mumoftwoyoungkids · 13/10/2016 09:04

We have a similar situation as ds wasn't born when my gran died. We are just going to replace the money (when we get round to it!) but it was only a small amount so we can do that without it being a big deal.

Somerville · 13/10/2016 09:06

Depends a bit on the amount involved. A small legacy and I would continue to save the same for all of them.
If it were a large legacy I would stop saving for that child and increase it for the the others.
I don't want to put an amount on small and large because I think it is relative to how much you currently can save for them.

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 13/10/2016 09:13

Agree with others. Your late MIL had no connection to your other children and would not be unreasonable to assume that your other children would inherit from their own grandparents.

KeyserSophie · 13/10/2016 09:17

Agree with Somerville- if it's a significant amount- i.e. that child would be able to put a deposit on a house or go to university debt free, then I'd stop saving for that child and divide amongst the other three. If it's just a few grand then I'd leave it.

chunkymum1 · 13/10/2016 09:32

If you think that there is unlikely to be a similar event that evens things up (eg. other inheritance for the others- you mentioned that this is not likely) then I would try to do something for the others if you can afford it.

For various quite complicated reasons I was the only one of 3 who did not inherit when one of my grandparents passed away. The sum was not necessarily life changing but enough for one of my siblings to pay off their mortgage and have change for treats. Growing up we had always known that this would happen and my siblings made promises to share when the time came- but once the cash was real their need was apparently greater than mine. This did make me feel slightly bitter when I was paying off student debt and saving for a deposit whilst they lived debt free.

Original poster
jonnyc · 13/10/2016 10:59

It is quite a significant amount, probably a deposit on a house, around the same amount we will probably have saved for them already by the time they reach 18.

OP posts:
Cabrinha · 13/10/2016 16:16

I would save only for the other children. It's that saying about equitable not meaning equal.
If my child threw a hissy fit aged 18 because I'd saved unequally to even things up, I'd be very disappointed in them.

DorotheaHomeAlone · 14/10/2016 14:53

I would be saving for the others to even it up. That's the fairest way imo and what I'd have wanted my parents to do if I'd inherited and siblings hadn't.

ChocolateWombat · 15/10/2016 14:01

I think they will be able to understand, when they reach the right age, that she was the GP of just one of them and so left money to her GC. They will understand that one of them was 'lucky' to have a more wealthy GP.

Yes, I think that you could save more for the others and less for the one who has inherited from now on. I don't think you need to totally even things up and I don't think you should totally stop saving for the one that has inherited.

I guess, each will receive their pot of money at a particular age. They won't all receive it together, so it will be fine if there are differences.....interest rates will have differed over the course of the different years of saving etc etc. I don't think you will have to explain to the last penny why one has a slightly different amount to the other or need to spell out exactly what you personally saved for each one at different points of saving. You will need to mention that one was left some money and that accounts for the difference......but there is no real need to do that, until they are of an age to understand and be ready to access the money.

At least this isnt a situation where GP has chosen to leave money to one natural GC and not another.....because this does happen and is very difficult to deal with.

BombadierFritz · 15/10/2016 14:14

is your dh happy to not save for one of his children? i'd just leave it. such is the lottery of different parents/grandparents

Floggingmolly · 15/10/2016 14:22

You can feel whatever you feel, but you can't do anything. The money was hers to will away as she wished; and one of your children was not her biological family.
Most people probably wouldn't do it this way, but she did.

MistressMolecules · 15/10/2016 14:32

In that case I would stop saving for the inheriting child and try to ensure all have the same (or as close as ) at a certain point/age - say when each reaches 18

DinosaursRoar · 15/10/2016 14:45

While they are all your children, if only one is her grandchild, then it's reasonable for her to only leave money to that child. In a blended family, the Children have different families, you can't expect everyone to treat children exactly the same when they aren't.

Are you suggesting your DH only saves for his step- children's future, and saves nothing for his biological child to compensate for the fact that his step-children's dad/grandparents don't have any money/haven't died so not left an inheritance to them?

That's not treating all children equally. I'd save equally for all children. You treat your children equally. They don't have the same family backgrounds so you don't try to "fix" that by being unfair to one.

Lweji · 15/10/2016 14:50

It's luck of the draw, basically, but I'd still treat all my children the same.
Do they know about the inheritance?

AndNowItsSeven · 15/10/2016 14:52

So your mil was a grandma to your youngest child but did not take on a grandma role to their siblings.
That's an unusual situation , poor kids.

bakingaddict · 15/10/2016 14:53

I assume the child with the inheritance is your current partner/DH's child and it was his mum that left the inheritance. How does he feel that his biological child may be penalised when it comes to savings because of his mum's legacy. I think you carry on saving equally for all children as in his shoes I'd be uncomfortable with my own child being cut out of future savings