Inheritance one - what’s morally correct

[Threebear]

My MIL 70 has just inherited 1.85M net. She was given another house when in her twenties which due to where it was in the world ended up having to be abandoned, though means she has never paid rent or mortgage in her life. She did only have 50k to her name previous to this big windfall. She doesn’t have access to a pension (mistakes in her life / living in the wrong places).

She has 2 children, 37M, 43M. The youngest has a 5yr old child (her only GC). Relationship positive with both.

37M owns a property but in reality only owns the mortgage (340k mortgage). He doesn’t struggle but retains 2 jobs at once in order to live a nice life and have a nice property.

43M is mentally ill, has never retained a proper job, cannot access many benefits where he lives and has a wife who comes from a very poor country with no career herself. They live on the breadline if not lower.

MIL has declared that she is going to keep the full inheritance for herself however will gift each child with 50k as a present.

Firstly I’m fully aware there is a huge difference in thinking between the generations. As a millennial I cannot morally understand the decision. I would never in a million years do this to my beautiful child. I’m so aware of the struggles we have had and can only imagine the struggles in his thirties to get on the property ladder. My hope is we can buy him a small property when he’s older so he can be mortgage free from starting point, all of this to be done with our own investments and money.

The moral question has actually nothing to do with money. If she had none no one would care, if she only got 100k and wanted to keep it, it wouldn’t be questionable as she needs it.

However and big however, she’s just been lumped with 1.85M tax free, and it just doesn’t compute that she believes the relationship with her children and GC will continue if she chooses to do this. The decision is hers and hers only but for anyone who believes she’s morally correct, why I ask would you think your children would ever be ok, forgive you or want to spend anytime ever again with you?

It’s hers to make, but it’s selfish without a doubt. Keeping 95% of that money for her to spend Willy nilly seems crazy while thinking she can retain a relationship with the people she has hurt in this equation.

Personally I think she deserves a nice home, a good investment portfolio but that can all be done within 1.5M no problem at all. If she shared just 350k between her 2 children she would change their lives, they would forever be incredibly grateful, and it would promote to showing how much she cares for them and for a very positive relationship until her death.

The question is simply anyone who agrees with her, are you aware of the rupture and consequent lonely rest of life you would live in your million dollar home as your kids will now likely abandon you?

thanks!

Crikey. Take the 50. She will be dead soon anyway and then you can have the rest. 50k for living expenses will buy a number of years.

If her kids will abandon her for £50k, they will abandon her for £350k.

She's 70. The money will still be there in the main when she's dead. Then you can spend it.

Hilarious that you think you have the moral high ground here. I hope she leaves some to your BIL and the rest to the donkey sanctuary.

She’s giving them 50k.

that’s more than most people ever inherit.

there’s no moral obligation to share inheritances equally with all your family.

i personally would be particularly reluctant to hand over large sums of cash to a mentally ill child although I might buy a flat or house for them to live in.

How have you decided that 350k is the ‘right’ amount. Surely it’s as arbitrary as 50k.

just take what you’re given and quit complaining. Don’t forget to say thank you.

Morally I agree that parents should help their children. It is unfathomable to me that I would sit on a huge pile of money and watch my middle aged children struggle (I caveat this by saying that I would be more careful about handling over large sums to younger adults).

I think that generation have waited so long for any inheritance that it can turn their heads. It would have been better for your MIL if whoever passed on the money had done it earlier, as you are advocating she does.

'The moral question has actually nothing to do with money.'

Guessing that you're married to younger son?

I don’t agree. There’s no legal obligation to share. There’s also no moral obligation to help every Tom Dick and Harry. But there is a moral obligation to help your direct descendants if you can, particularly if you end up with wealth that is completely unearned.

This has to be a reverse. Who is so entitled as to dictate what their MIL "deserves" from their inheritance. I would rather be lonely than have company I had to pay for.

The moral question has EVERYTHING to do with the money. You're asking if it is morally okay to cut her from your life because she didn't give you (what you think) is enough of it. I'm confused as to how you can say that it isn't about the money, as, if there was no money, you'd not be asking the question (or considering changing your relationship with her).

Also, if the house had to be abandoned, how does owning it mean that she never paid/pays rent or has a mortgage?

I had a large inheritance. Nothing gave me more pleasure than helping my son to buy his first home and furnishing it for him.

How is it tax free?

She “declared” it, did she?

but she has helped them ?

Unbelievable. Someone’s died and left her money that will secure her future which she needs with no pension provision and you’re planning to cut her off for only giving you 50 grand as a gift. That’s absolutely despicable. I hope she books a fabulous cruise or something, gets herself a handsome toy boy and leaves what’s left to charity.

Quite frankly, I'm appalled at your attitude. The money is HERS. She can do with it whatever she likes, and I'm sure she has already decided how to bequeath her estate when she herself passes on.

Neither of her children are entitled to any of it. They should be pleased that they are to receive the £50k each.

What is morally right? I reckon that what she's doing is exactly right. She is keeping the majority of what she inherited to fund her remaining years. If she's only 70, then that could be another three decades. She's giving each of her sons the same amount of money now, and treating them equally.

Not many people inherit 50k while still in their 30/40s . How ungrateful are you . That sum will make a huge difference to both families. And the woman is only 70 , she can live her life in comfort now.

50k is generous. Let her enjoy her retirement. There is no morally right or wrong about this. If her spoilt offspring cut her off over this I hope she leaves everything to the dogs home

As a Baby Boomer, my first thought is "the entitled millennial strikes again"!

Honestly I wouldn’t look £50k in the mouth. I hope she does get a proper plan for the estate but I think that’s a pretty ok starting position. I wouldn’t say she’s behaving “immorally” by not paying off your mortgage.

Christ take the 50k. My DM inherited loads and gave me nothing, I still cared for her when she got dementia. Her generation see things differently. 50k is nice. She’s probably single now and had no pension. Let her have some security in old age. If you keep up with this entitled attitude she might just disinherit you all and then your dc get nothing.

If I were in your MIL’s position I absolutely would give my adult DC a substantial chunk. However, they absolutely would not be expecting it. We’ve given them house deposits, wedding funds etc in the past and they are genuinely grateful and have always tried to persuade us to keep the money for ourselves. You sound grabby and entitled OP.

£50k is a nice present, I assume you will get a really good inheritance when MIL passes. What makes you think she will blow the rest? I would think she would invest the capital and live off the income which will be a nice amount at say 5% a year. What makes you think you have some moral right to more of her money?