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!

OP this is one of the most obnoxious threads I've ever read- your entitlement is astounding!
Wealth passes from generation to generation over time it's the norm. I didn't expect my parents to give me fortunes from their money while they were alive- it's important to make your own way in the world. Your MIL is likely to pass more along as she ages to avoid IHT.
I inherited a significant amount in cash and business assets. My DD also received £50k which she used for a house deposit. Additionally over the past 5 years I bought her a £20k car and a rolex and gave her about another £20k to help her with wedding costs and to take a year's mat leave. I had to twist her arm to take that much as she and SIL are good with money and save well. She recognises that she's very lucky and will inherit significantly one day but has no expectations in the here and now. I'd be so horribly disappointed if she behaved like you ( and your husband?).

When I turn 70 I'll start to reduce the size of my estate and give her more but for now she's making here own way with a reasonable amount of help.

I was trying to make the point that OP has one set of standards for her not-even-MIL, and has imperiously decreed exactly how much the woman should live on, and a different set of standards for herself. The OP has repeatedly said a mother should do everything possible for their children.

She's a hypocrite.

It doesn't matter if the not-even-MIL lives in a fecking castle, no-one is entitled to a penny of her money, legally OR morally.

The OP could make MORE sacrifices and live more frugally but chooses not to. That makes her a hypocrite when she's insisting that someone else makes sacrifices and lives more frugally.

IT ISN'T YOUR MONEY. How many ways can we say it? I hope the woman takes the £50k back from her ungrateful son and partner.

Much more entertaining, thank you!

So you inherited significantly and you passed that onto your daughter...but you're berating OP for saying she wishes the same for her husband? Had to twist your daughter's arm to take the money, yeah right! She took it all the same, but OP's husband shouldn't be looking for anything? Rules for thee, but not for me comes to mind.

If I inherited a similar amount now, I'd give the kids half a mil each, stop work, and they'd know it wouldn't be too long until they got the rest because of my health.

Whatever culture you’re from that you seem to feel is superior - it’s not sounding very palatable. People “having” to live with a mother they dislike (so they can live in a £4M house?). Obligations but poor parenting, resentment and waiting for inheritances. The whole set up sounds designed to structurally support controlling parents dictate children’s lives and children live in thrall being obligated to invite and spend time with people they resent and don’t like.

if I inherited £1.85M at 70 I’d be investing a fair amount of it in my children though, if I had no pension nor any other assets to speak of, it wouldn’t be the better part of it. Life at 70+ can require significant support and they’ll get what’s left when I’m dead. But I don’t think that’s a matter of morality. It would be just as moral to give it to charity. It’s a lot of money - far, far more than most people have in assets. There’s no moral obligation to make your children richer than most people.