Options to put in my will

getmore4less

Read up on the status of unborn children, from what you have written you my not understand how they get treated with certain wording.

allconnected

You need to think about all the possible permutations if trying to specify percentages.

I’m dealing with a situation where a grandparent has one child and three grandchildren.

They are leaving 60% to their child and 30% directly to the oldest grandchild, a half sibling to the younger two grandchildren.

I’m sure they thought this was totally fair and the 60% will pass down to the two younger grandchildren eventually, which is almost certainly true if child lives to inherit.

However if child predeceases Grandparent, then I don’t think they have considered the oldest grandchild will get the 30% they are directly bequeathed plus a third of child’s 60% share - so 50% to child 1, but only 20% to child 2 and 3. Absolutely fine if that was the intended outcome, not so fine if the will was intended to share assets equally between grandchildren. And too late to change now.

All connected.

DigForVictory

While having every sympathy with wanting to be fair, Wills can be amended, so if you want a grandchild to inherit, stick their name in.
Adopted children can be named and added. Unborn folk can either be included on arrival or plain unlucky and that is life.

Plus the delights of getting everyone lined up & agreeing to a deed of variation - plan a cutoff point & cut! You can only do so much & anyway you’ve a Ferrari to exercise.

If you want grandchildren to inherit at 18, you may do better keeping it in a bank if you ensure they inherit stock, bonds etc rather than de facto cash. Whatever age you pick, nail it somehow & if that means a more complicated & expensive solicitor either so be it, or scrap the grandchildren & focus on the children.
The fewer people the better the odds of a successful deed of variation anyway.
Plus the young are painfully hazy on death after life - be very clear the pool only pays out to those with a pulse. How you prevent a determined axe murderer from improving their odds is not your problem. If a young ‘un dies but donates you may wish to reward any partner or offspring for that altruism but your solicitor may whimper not.
Very best of luck with a very ticklish area.

JGB1955

We've just written new wills. Originally I thought I would like to leave money to each of my four grandchildren but.... in the future there may be divorces, new grandchildren, blended families etc etc, so we have opted for leaving everything to our two children and explaining to them that it's up to them how they deal with it (deed of variation).

bouicca21

Mine is equally between my children and if one dies before me their share goes to child/ren.


I think it is easier that way as there may be grandchildren born after my death, perhaps many years after if there is a divorce, remarriage, new family. By leaving it to my children I am effectively saying that I trust them to do what is right by their own children - and it will be their dilemma as to whether to include step children, not mine.


When DD did work experience at a solicitor's firm there was a case of a will maker who specifically excluded adopted grandchildren. She was horrified. That was a long time ago; not sure you can still do that, but presumably some people are deeply into the bloodline idea.


It's tempting to leave something direct to the grandchildren but unless it's a token amount it could be unfair to grandchildren yet unborn, especially in the divorce/remarriage scenario. Does grandchildren include illegitimate ones? And I clearly read too much crime fiction because part of me is saying, gosh, leaving a sum to be divided amongst survivors at a certain age is a bit like a tontine, cue homicidal grandchild ...

Savvy_Sue

bouicca21 wrote: »

When DD did work experience at a solicitor's firm there was a case of a will maker who specifically excluded adopted grandchildren. She was horrified. That was a long time ago; not sure you can still do that, but presumably some people are deeply into the bloodline idea.

You can exclude whoever you like, simply by leaving to some but not others, or indeed specifically excluding some.

But if you say 'grandchildren' then I believe the default assumption is those directly descended from YOU (therefore excluding STEPs), PLUS those who have been adopted by those directly descended from YOU (therefore potentially excluding spouse's adopted descendants).

But IANAL and the possible ramifications are way beyond me.

FWIW, my parents specifically EXCLUDED their grandchildren from inheriting, if any of their children had pre-deceased them. If they hadn't put a specific clause in, then grandchildren would have inherited a deceased parent's share by default. None of us were happy with that, but it wasn't worth discussing with them - their wills, their decision! However my co-executor and I were of one mind: IF the situation had arisen, the bereaved children weren't going to be left out, at our own cost if necessary. Although I'm fairly sure there'd have been no objection to a DOV from all parties.

I know some people would say you shouldn't agree to execute a will knowing that you will not comply with the testator's wishes, but there you go. Actually my co-executor felt so strongly that Dad (who died first) would have wanted his grandchildren to have something, that he sent each of them a cheque out of his own pot. And again, I know some would say that in that case, Dad should have left them something in his will, but it would not have been worth the disagreement it would have caused with Mum.

bouicca21 wrote: »

Does grandchildren include illegitimate ones?

Yes, if all that is said is 'my grandchildren' without specifically naming them, but they may have to 'prove' their descent, obviously easier if descent is via Mum rather than Dad, or if Dad is named on birth certificate and has always acknowledged them.

complicated, hence the advice to KISS (Keep it Simple, Stoopid!) and to NAME your beneficiaries.

chesky

I've gone the opposite route. I have a son and a daughter and three grandchildren. My son and daughter are generally OK - they both inherited from their father a couple of years ago and from a distant relative years ago which helped them start on the propert ladder.

The future for my grandchildren doesn't look quite so rosy though, with property prices escalating through the roof so that buying your own place is becoming tougher.

So I'm simply leaving the five of them - kids and grandkids - equal shares. I should add that I'm not talking about toddlers - the youngest is 17 - and there won't be any more. They all know and are in agreement with the plan.

Boleyn19

I agree with many of those above. Leaving the money to the children might be best and each can make a DOV on their part of the nest after funds have been disbursed. If under 18s are beneficiaries a DOV cannot be made until the funds have been disbursed as minors cannot sign.

It saves the parents having to set up trusts for their children, saves worrying about the unborn, the illegitimate, stepGC, 18 year old inheriting when their parents think they are incapable of managing the money.

crv1963

A friend of mine inherited several thousand pounds back in 1980. Held in Trust until age 25 to prevent wasteful spending from a grandparent. He went to court- was there half an hour, convinced the judge at age 17 and having passed his driving test he needed the money for a car.

Was driving his XR2 for week before he totaled it!!!

I'd leave the money to your children, and if there is a lot of it for them leave or give them an expression of wish that you hope when the time comes that they pass some of the money you are leaving them to their children for something useful.

Having said the above my grandmother left her entire estate to be split evenly between us grandchildren, having previously helped her children in her lifetime.

Alternatively you could just give x amount to the GC as they grow up, so you see them enjoy it and appreciate their grumpy old grandad?

Having in the past week to help deal with a close relatives death, there is more then enough to sort out without additional task of sorting GC trusts out.

You could leave a % to be split but for future unborn GC? What if one of your children has a child born after they and their spouse thought possible in their late 40s/ early 50s? Mind blowing, stick with the known and living if leaving to GC and if they don't make it to 18 it is for a charity- so all get an equal share of your estate?

Just a few thoughts, we too are seeing a solicitor to sort wills out- simple for us me to her, her to me, then equal shares to sons and nieces. If they pre-decease us the others share increases- no GC or great nieces/ nephews yet, but I expect that may need to be covered in the discussion with our Solicitor!

AnotherJoe

Thanks all. I think I'm moving towards leaving nearly everything to my children with a note or whatever that they pass on to GC what they deem appropriate at an age they feel appropriate, avoids all the trusts and extra complications as others have pointed out.
And then a smaller sum* directly to all GC and GGC alive at my death which parents can invest/save for them in children's name.

*expressed as a percentage, perhaps 1% with a total limit across all of perhaps 5-10% (TBD by Wednesday!) to be split pro-rata should there be more than 10