Timing for distribution of "estate"

euronorris

badmemory said:

I think what you are all missing is that the OP had to put up with her mother whinging because HER mother did exactly what she herself went & did in her own will.  Certainly proved that the OP's mother lacked a degree of sensitivity.  Obviously sauce for the grandmother is not sauce for the mother!

And the OP is planning to do the same with her own Will. Not following 'the family norms' as she sees them either. So it seems the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

badmemory

But she is following what has become (or been made) the new family norms for the last couple of generations.

euronorris

badmemory said:

But she is following what has become (or been made) the new family norms for the last couple of generations.

In that case, why is she upset with her Mother for following those norms? She complains on the one hand that her Mother didn't do as she expected. Didn't follow the 'family norms', and then on the other states that she will basically do exactly the same and do as she pleases with her Will (as is her right, and as was her Mother's). It's just very, very, very hypocritical to get so upset about something you have no intention of following yourself.

MoneySeeker1

Not in the slightest - I'd have probably not bothered myself unduly what happened to "all my worldly goods" after I'm gone - if it hadnt been for the fact that I knew my brother had asked my mother if he could have more than me a few years back - on the grounds of him having children. Knowing my brother and mother as I do - I was already prepared to think "Well he can't have it both ways". But, as far as I knew, their Will was still the same as it had always been at that point. I was never told it had been changed.

As soon as my brother made that request to mother (which AFAIK she'd not altered their Will at point) I made out one specially to ensure it was going somewhere other than him/his family (and chose charity accordingly). If he'd not made that request behind my back like that - I'd quite likely not have bothered to make a Will out to this day. It's not a concern of mine what happens to anything I've got once I no longer need it myself basically.

 When it came to it recently and I found their Will had been changed in his favour - at that point I "firmed up" and checked my own Will out thoroughly and made sure it's "registered" nationally that there is one/where it is so that it can't "get lost" and it's "set in stone" now to ensure he/his family get nothing (and it's because of what he did that that is the case).

Anyway shouldn't be much longer before it's finished/as sorted as it can be now - a possible buyer for the house is in the wings and it may all be "done and dusted" before the end of the year hopefully and I'll get on with my life.

Malthusian

euronorris said:

badmemory said:

But she is following what has become (or been made) the new family norms for the last couple of generations.

In that case, why is she upset with her Mother for following those norms?

Because it resulted in her getting less money from the inheritance.

Yeah, I know, "it's not about the money". But if you attempt to discuss the question "why do apples fall from trees" while one person insists "it's not about gravity" and the others studiously avoid mentioning gravity to avoid upsetting their feelings, the conversation is likely to be unproductive.

The reality is that if it was not about the money this thread would be called "Why does society expect women to have children" or similar and would be in Marriage Relationships & Families or a discussion/chat forum. Not in the section of a financial forum that deals with inheritances and called "Timing for distribution of estate".

Gers

The theme of this thread seems to be 'I will do what I want with my money but you can't do what you want with yours' - do I have it right?

There is no 'British norm' - a very strange notion indeed.  In Scotland there's a statutory obligation called 'legal rights' which is not part of this mythical 'British norm' at all.  In England and Wales things are different.

https://www.haroldbenjamin.com/site/blog/harold-be njamin-blog/can-i-disinherit-my-adult-children

The basic rule in English law is that a testator may leave their money and property to whomever they wish. This principle is referred to as “testamentary freedom”.

However, there is an exception to this principle. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the Inheritance Act) allows the children of a deceased testator to make a claim against the estate if they can prove that the testator failed to leave them “reasonable financial provision”.

euronorris

Malthusian said:

euronorris said:

badmemory said:

But she is following what has become (or been made) the new family norms for the last couple of generations.

In that case, why is she upset with her Mother for following those norms?

Because it resulted in her getting less money from the inheritance.

Yeah, I know, "it's not about the money". But if you attempt to discuss the question "why do apples fall from trees" while one person insists "it's not about gravity" and the others studiously avoid mentioning gravity to avoid upsetting their feelings, the conversation is likely to be unproductive.

The reality is that if it was not about the money this thread would be called "Why does society expect women to have children" or similar and would be in Marriage Relationships & Families or a discussion/chat forum. Not in the section of a financial forum that deals with inheritances and called "Timing for distribution of estate".

Indeed. It is clear that it is very much about the money, despite the protests.

thepurplepixie

Aranyani said:

thepurplepixie said:

Aranyani said:

thepurplepixie said:

Aranyani said:

thepurplepixie said:

 Has it occurred to you that people your age made great sacrifices so that you can have doctors, nurses, hairdressers, power workers, sewerage workers.  We subsidised you as you benefit from our children.  I wouldn't normally say that but I think it is very rude of you so I had to reply.

I don't think anybody who has a child does so in order to provide a nurse or sewer worker for future generations, do they?

That might not be their motivation but it is a fact isn't it.  They probably don't have children to get family deals either, which the OP is so resentful of but she doesn't refuse the services of other people's children.

They have children because they want to have children.  No more no less. 

They don't have them to get cheap entry to attractions which the OP objects to, however she benefits from the sacrifices parents have made to bring up the useful young adults who are paying her pension and looking after the infrastructure.  I can't believe how petty and bitter she is.

No need to get personal like that though.  

Its not easy being a woman without children, especially of the OP's generation. 

How about her not getting personal about how she has subsidised other people's children, the children in many cases being the ones providing the money for her pension.  I think she is getting back alot more than she gave.

CRANKY40

I think it's more a parent relationship thing. The OP sees that her parent didn't approve of her lifestyle choices previously. The OP moved to a house which needed a lot of work doing to it and was probably counting on a certain amount of funds eventually to finish the work. As the OP has been left less than expected then it could be seen as her parent continuing to punish the OP for a life that did not fit in with the parent's expectations. I usually disagree with Moneysaver's view of the world but....

For what it's worth, I was the awkward autistic hyperactive child that was hard work. My easy going sister who slept well (I still don't and I'm 53) was my mum's favourite. I heard my mum say this so it's not guesswork. Luckily for my sister and I, despite our late mothers favouritism of sister and marked dislike of me, we are really good friends as well as siblings. In our case, due to my mother's extra marital affair (long story), being the favourite child wasn't actually the privileged position that you'd think but it was only when we were older and compared notes that we realised that we'd both been badly damaged by our mother. 

Also, I never wanted children  - I never felt my biological clock ticking etc. If I started again from scratch I'd probably be gay but I married a man quite late on and he wanted a child. I was widowed when our son was four.....so I'm free to lead my life as I see fit and that doesn't currently include a partner of either gender. I don't feel bad about not qualifying for a family ticket though. Generally people with several children have expenses that saving a few quid on a family ticket to the zoo for instance does not negate. Take a small child shopping for school shoes if you don't believe me. Autism stops me from wanting to be anywhere that crowds of people would be anyway. 

My house is paid for, my car is paid for and although I wasn't expecting it when I married I do have the financial freedom that Moneysaver was always led to believe would be coming their way eventually. As I said I don't usually agree with Moneysaver but in this instance I can see why they feel cheated. If the parents had always said "inheritance will be split 4 ways" then maybe Moneysaver wouldn't have taken on a property which needed so much remedial work. Having said that, inheritance, just like child maintenance should never be counted on because you just never know what will happen. I've probably made a bad guess about some of Moneysaver's choices but a couple of words that you don't see most people use struck a chord here.