Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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

Grandchild not included in will

245 replies

RogueApostrophe · 29/08/2018 08:33

Hi everyone, I'll try and keep it brief. The inlaws' will was written in 2006, my daughter was born in 2008. When the father-in-law passed away in 2007, she did not receive any inheritance which seems fair enough.
However her grandmother has recently passed away when she was aged 9 and she is still not included on the will, so the Executors (the three siblings, one of which is my husband) have still not thought to allocate any money to her along with the 6 other grandchildren.

What are my options here? I know a Deed of Variation is possible if all beneficiaries agree to her being included. Should I go straight to the probate solicitor for the mother in law, or do I instruct my own which will obviously be costly but perhaps better to fight the corner of my daughter. For what it's worth, my husband didn't think she should get anything because she wasn't in the will - he's very black and white about things which makes it difficult to speak to him about it. He also doesn't have a great relationship with his brother and won't want to rock the boat by mentioning this situation.

However World War 3 has kicked off at home so he's now open to reconsidering this. It's his brother that is the Mastermind of the three siblings so I feel it's worth bypassing my husband and going directly to his brother but I feel it would be better done via a solicitor.

Thanks!

OP posts:
worridmum · 29/08/2018 11:23

Btw the exetors legally cannot give a deed of vairance if it disadvantages their under 18 people mentioned in the will as by law they must manage these on behalf of the minors and cannot be gifting money away (aka reduce their share) but there is nothing stopping your Husband reducing his share to pass on to your DD

Ginger1982 · 29/08/2018 11:23

I find it odd grandkids would be named specifically. Usually you would just leave to kids and they would provide to their own kids. Think you're wise to let it go but I would be pissed off at DH.

Original poster
RogueApostrophe · 29/08/2018 11:23

@frogpond I'll leave it to my DH to sort from his inheritance if he chooses to do so, but I won't pursue it any further.

@OzymandiasFanClub Yes the will hasn't been updated since 2006 (2 years before she was born). I imagine it's an oversight, I don't suspect anything sinister in their motives but I did expect them to rectify it at probate. I've been told that's not a realistic expectation though.

OP posts:
Tiredmum100 · 29/08/2018 11:23

Both myself and my sister were not included in our grandparents will. My mother and our two cousins were. My cousins mother (my aunt) had died before her mother (my grandmother), therefore my cousins inherited what would have been their mothers share and my mother had the rest. I wouldn't have been expected to have been included in the will to be honest. It would have been nice to have something personal from her that she had wanted me to have had but that would have been it. Were the other grandchildren in the will? Really it is up to your husband to give her some of his share.

MrsSnootyPants2018 · 29/08/2018 11:25

If the mil named people specifically then she should have kept her will up to date!

Maybe this should be a lesson to people that keeping an up to date will is vital.

Original poster
RogueApostrophe · 29/08/2018 11:26

@Tiredmum100 Yes all other 6 grandchildren named in the will.

@Ginger1982 Yes I am pissed off at DH which seems to be seen as not being supportive in his time of grieving. I don't know at what time it would be appropriate to mention it as I was only made aware of it yesterday.

OP posts:
FrancisCrawford · 29/08/2018 11:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

sycamore54321 · 29/08/2018 11:28

@Frogpond have you read the thread at all? The OP cannot "take" money from the three other siblings - two of whom are adults, none of whom are related to the OP. It is their money. The only money choices the OP might have some kind of 'moral' influence over is her husband's. She could encourage him to pay a portion from his share. She can't "take" money from anybody. And why should the siblings be the ones to have their share reduced, not the generation above?

Original poster
RogueApostrophe · 29/08/2018 11:30

Agreed that the other siblings and grandchildren shouldn't have to share their inheritance. I do however think the Executors (including DH) should have flagged it up at the time of reading the will. On reflection, this seems the thing that annoys me the most that nobody thought of our daughter who had a good relationship with the grandmother.

OP posts:
worridmum · 29/08/2018 11:38

I was a probate lawyer you CANNOT reduce someone share of a will (without their agreement) or DEPRIVE a minor of the amount set by the will because as a trustee you HAVE to use it for the best intentions and or benefit of the person it is held in trust for otherwise you can go to prison.

Ask yourself does gifting money from said minor's share directly benefit them? Because if they go to court to recoup the lost amount you will need to pass this very simply bar for the court because if not you can be found in breach of trust and that is a serious crime.

Original poster
RogueApostrophe · 29/08/2018 11:38

If anything, this whole situation may motivate DH to write a will and keep it up to date but I won't hold my breath.

OP posts:
Jaxhog · 29/08/2018 11:42

Of course it feels unfair, but that's what her GM wanted. Your DD has no claim that I'm aware of, unless she was already supporting her GD. Unless you're talking about millions, I wouldn't make a fuss, as it will create a rift in the family. Although it would be nice if your DH made a gesture for his own DD e.g. put half of his inheritance into a trust for her education.

postcardsfrom · 29/08/2018 11:43

frogsoup - t's not millions though is it? The OP isn't in penury either I assume from the thread. Trying to grab some of this inheritance from cousins doesn't change the fact her DD wasn't included. If the thing that's stinging is the injustice, then OP should think about WHY she wasn;t included - an oversight surely - so then DG does love her DGC's all the same and money is irrelevant. Unless you start a family feud over money. NOT worth it. Speaking from experience.

postcardsfrom · 29/08/2018 11:44

OP - you NEED a will asap, both of you need mirror wills. You should have one to state your wishes re: who will look after your DD if something should happen to both of you at the very least.

Original poster
RogueApostrophe · 29/08/2018 11:47

@postcardsfrom I have a will, I only wrote it this year as I tried to a couple of times since she was born to get him to write a joint will and he refused but then I decided it was too important to leave it unwritten as I need to know who will look after her should I pass away before she is 18.

OP posts:
LightastheBreeze · 29/08/2018 11:49

Once the person is dead it is pretty much too late, did your DH not have a copy of the will as he was going to be the Executor before she died. DH has a copy of his DM's will (she is still alive) and I had copy of my DM's will so knew what was in it before she died, in fact DM went through the will with me and told me if it had been updated. It could have been mentioned then in case it was an oversight.

Perhaps our family is unusual in this respect of know what is in the will beforehand.

Original poster
RogueApostrophe · 29/08/2018 11:52

@LightastheBreeze He had seen the will as it was a mirror will of the one written by both parents in 2006. I didn't think to mention that our daughter should be included in it - perhaps because I thought that WOULD seem grabby. I actually hadn't given this any thought until yesterday, despite her passing away in May. I suppose I just thought they'd include her in it somehow as that seems like the right thing to do as all other grandchildren are beneficiaries.

OP posts:
Tiredmum100 · 29/08/2018 11:54

Sorry just read the other 6 were included in the will. If that's the case then yes I would think it's unfair. Would your husband split the amount his 3 children were to receive between 4? I'm sure the others wouldn't want their sister to go without. 4-5 k is a fair amount, especially if it's put into some form of investment for her for the future.

Original poster
RogueApostrophe · 29/08/2018 11:54

@Tiredmum100 He can't split their amount as that it legally binding but he can split his inheritance which would be invested for the next 16 years which would hopefully be a meaningful sum for her when she turns 25.

OP posts:
Original poster
RogueApostrophe · 29/08/2018 11:55

This thread has been useful to put it all in perspective so thank you to everyone that has commented.

OP posts:
FrancisCrawford · 29/08/2018 13:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DeadGood · 29/08/2018 13:23

“She is entitled to whatever her grandparents decided to leave her.”

The entire point is that the most recent grandchild has been left out of the will by neglect, not intention, surely that is obvious.

VanGoghsDog · 29/08/2018 13:26

You don't know it was neglect at all. The DGM may well have considered the issue and decided not to redo her will to include the child. This DC seems to be offspring of a second marriage, maybe the DGM didn't approve of the divorce or of the new relationship. Up to her, her money, her choice.

CurlyhairedAssassin · 29/08/2018 13:28

In my experience as an executor (and residual beneficiary) I would want to follow the deceased’s wishes. If it was her intention To give all grandchildren a small equal sum but the wording if the will doesn’t reflect that for the reasons discussed, And I thought it was just an accidental oversight then I would be having that discussion with the other executors and approaching all the residual beneficiaries (as the extra would have to come out of the residue of the estate after the other grandchildren hD been paid) to get their opinion.

In this case, that may or may not have been done, it isn’t clear. The other grandchildren don’t get a say, it is the RESIDUAL beneficiaries who woukd get to decide and all would need to agree.

Depending on how many people the residual estate is being shared between, this would be a minimal amount for each person to forgo. I would think it highly mean for any of them to say “no I don’t want to give up £1k out of my £80k share (or whatever) so that your DD gets the same £4K that all that other grandkids are getting”

whatever happens, OP, someone is going to feel hurt if everyone isn’t on the same page. You might end up having to just suck it up though.

DeadGood · 29/08/2018 13:31

VanGogh The OP said they have a good relationship. Why is everyone clinging so desperately to the idea that the grandmother intentionally singled out this child to be excluded? We all know that people are often behind on paperwork, put it off, feel overwhelmed by it.
I really don’t think it would have been THAT difficult for the family to discuss it and, is appropriate, agree to redistribute the funds slightly so that everyone is treated equitably. That is all the OP wanted.