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!

Well I hope she blows the lot, spend, spend, spend. Business Class flights, cruises, world travel, fancy dinners and wine. I think the OP's morals are questionable not the MiL.

But you don’t like her. So why not just cut all contact and your life will be much easier without having to deal with her? Morally, that is a more honest thing to do, and you should hopefully get no tainted inheritance from her and you’ll be much happier. That seems obvious.

What will that amount of money buy her?

Could it stretch to a house for each of her sons and a comfortable life for the rest of hers, even if that's 20 years and includes care and medicals costs?

Or is she worried about how much the rest of her life may cost her and doesn't want to be left with nothing because she gave it away?

Does she even have a grip on the financially reality of her son's situations, given that she's not had to think about how to pay for a house herself as an adult?

it just doesn’t compute that she believes the relationship with her children and GC will continue if she chooses to do this.
I think anyone who uses their children against their mother-in-law - the children's grandmother - doesn't deserve even 50p from their mother-in-law's wealth, let alone 50K. She's being generous to give you that.

This statement of yours says a lot more about YOU than your mother-in-law. Maybe she doesn't want to share her wealth because she sees right through you - and sees £££ signs.

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?
She's 100% morally correct, and you are unbelievably entitled and transactional. You are basically saying that the only reason you want to be around your mother-in-law and have her in your life is if she gives you the amount of money YOU feel entitled to. This is how your words are coming across. You want payment for being this woman's family memeber.

You either understand that you're not entitled to someone else's wealth, and accept it gracefully by not using your children as pawns - or, you admit to yourself that you're in fact entitled to other people's money and use your kids to throw a tantrum.

She probably has the feel of the family. Her money, she can hold it and decide what to do with it in good time. Shocking entitlement.

I would want to help my children but given the attitude of entitlement over what is my money, I can understand the temptation to make them wait. Maybe she wants to see who disowns her over it so she can leave it to those who are more interested and supportive of her?

What would Shaq do?

He made his kids get 2 degrees before he would count them in his inheritance I believe...is that morally right or wrong?

Yes that money was left to her, whilst she is alive, which she still is.

I am not sure morals come into it as such.

If it was me I wouldn't give them any money. I would BUY each a house - not grand etc, and they would be put into a trust.

Maybe put that to her if its such an issue?

The money was left to your MIL alone. It's hers to spend however she pleases. She's already 70 with no pension of note - let her enjoy however many years she has left and be happy for her.

How did she get £1.85m tax free?

Anyway, it's her money. She does exactly what she wants to do with it. Money makes people greedy and it's very ugly.

honestly I wish I could but it’s not my choice to make it’s my partners. I’m the mother of her only GC, would wip up quite a storm if I by myself said NC forever. My partner is 50/50 if he wants her in his life much but mostly feels a cultural obligation over GC

If she develops dementia and has to live twenty years in a specialist dementia care home all of that money would be eaten up in fees.

Lots of impenetrable word salad there I’m afraid

Put simply: you are beyond unreasonable!

Most people on mumsnet believe you shouldn’t even expect a penny from inheritance otherwise you’re a greedy good for nothing. I come from a family who share! My mum would give me her last £1 if I needed it. I have 2 adult DD’s. If I inherited that amount of money my first priority would be making sure my kids were ok! I wouldn’t have to think about it. My mum would be the same.

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?

The entitlement here is utterly breathtaking.

Bloody hell, people here are being grabby. She waited until she was 70 but everyone else wants it now.

What’s ’morally correct’? Ask one hundred different people, get one hundred different answers.

She doesn’t feel morally obliged to give her children more than what she’s offered, so that’s that.

Her kids are OK, though. They don’t need the money now, they just want it.

Again, while I appreciate and am pleased that most people on here don't expect to have rights over their parents' money, a nearly £2m windfall leaves a parent a hell of a lot of leeway to make a gesture that would benefit the people that, presumably, they love most.

Six months ago I came into £200k from my late mum's property which I had jointly owned with her. I am not wealthy, but I have no mortgage, I can live on my pensions, and have healthy savings which will give me choices should I need care.
There was never a moment where I planned to keep it all. It was shared between my brother, my children and me.

I'm not relating that because I think I'm saintly. I genuinely believe that most people of my age would do similarly. And the idea of keeping £1.85m to myself seems insane.
Apart from anything else, a deed of variation would save 40% of that going to inheritance tax when she dies. Most people I know, of my age, are trying to avoid IHT.

OP is upset for her partner. It's not money that she expects to benefit from. She sees that he feels hurt and unloved, and she's angry for him. I would be too.

None of this matters in the sense that it's out of your hands. It's a shame that you know about the amount of money that she has, and that you'll only be getting a small part of it, as this knowledge has led to hard feelings on your part. The question really then is, can you love someone who isn't giving you a lot of money?

Ultimately it is her money and her choice what she does with it. It would be pretty cruel to stop seeing her because she doesn't just hand over what you think she should.

£50K is a lot and would reduce your mortgage. You could discuss it with her and say that you are very grateful but is there any way that she could advance any more at this time? That is a bit grabby though seeing as it is her money and not yours.

It also sounds like you are not married - you say that you have paid off your half of the house - yet your DP has a mortgage of £340K and works 2 jobs to pay it? Why did you overstretch so much on the house and mortgage, and what does your DP actually want?

We both own a home with a mortgage courtesy of my own windfalls and good investments of which a portion is protected under a prenup type arrangement asked for by my DM.

I think this casts some more light on your opinions. Your parents paid for half your house, and now you believe that it’s every parent’s responsibility to buy half a house for their children?

Back in the real world, most of us buy our own homes.

She not in the U.K. so inheritance tax rules here don’t apply, and the OP has said that by law offspring will inherit everything anyway.

I cannot believe what I am reading. This money is hers and hers alone. If her children are not careful with their decisions and grateful for what they have been given, she may just leave the balance when she dies to her cat.

I get it completely OP - my own father inherited land which he sold for a large sum and did give myself and my siblings a decent sum (maybe 30% in total). He was a poor father in many ways and we had very little as children and teenagers largely due to his laziness. So I happily took that money, felt no guilt about it and would have been unimpressed if nothing had been forthcoming. Money doesn't make up for other parental shortcomings but it certainly makes life easier. The proportion that the mother is giving (1/36th) is about as low as you could go without giving nothing and is a very poor show.

It's her decision. I don't think it is morally wrong for her to want to keep it. She might be thinking about her possible future care costs and not want to be a burden on her children in old age. Or she might want to go on a mind the world cruise. Either way good luck to her.
50k is a lot of money to be given just be grateful most people have no where near that amount