Timing for distribution of "estate"

xylophone

He was the  favourite child of the person that ran their marriage (ie my mother). 

Bitterness corrodes the soul - it will do you far more harm than it does anybody else.

Think of your parents with as much kindness as you can muster and accept your legacy with a good grace.

A card at Christmas costs little and keeps a connection open - your nieces and nephews may value contact with their aunt.

-taff

If your father died in April it's unlikely his will has been finalised yet unless it was very simple and didn't require probate. Add that to your mothers will if she died in July and you're looking at quite a while. If either of them were on benefits of any kind the DWP will need to be notified and they can take an age. I dout you'll see anything this side of Christmas.

Keep_pedalling

MoneySeeker1 said:

He was the  favourite child of the person that ran their marriage (ie my mother). He is much more similar to my mother and I am much more similar to my father (except I'm a "stronger" person than my father has turned out to have been in the event).

 He also has an excuse he was very prompt in making to my mother - ie that he has children (and I don't). His lifestyle choice is his business and my lifestyle choice is my business and hence I am not happy at literally paying for his lifestyle choice - when I wouldnt have dreamt of asking for him to subsidise my lifestyle choices (but he had no such qualms).

I want him/his family out of my life as soon as possible accordingly.

All things being equal we would always leave our estates equally between our children, but things are not always equal and there are some very good reasons why you might not share your estate equally. In your parents situation I would be thinking about providing financial support for grandchildren as well as children, so depending on the age of grandchildren I might either Give more to the child who has the the expense of bringing children  up or leave the grandchildren part of the estate directly.

I say might because there are many other reasons why you might alter the split. The child with children might have a high paying job, and the one without be a low paid care worker and that might come into the equation as well.

You mother may have made her decision on this sort of thinking, or she may unfairly be punishing you for failing to produce GC or for not sacrificing all to look after her in her old age, but it is not really anything to do with lifestyle choices.

pollypenny

I've just written a long post venting about my aunt's foolish will, but deleted it. I'm grateful for my small legacy and recognise that people can do what they like with their estates. 

luckbox

My Partner used to look after her grandmother, do weekly shopping, constant doctor/hospital trips and general helping out at a drop of a hat. My partner's brother saw the grandmother twice a year, birthday and Christmas. Everyone lived within a few miles, so no long distance excuses. This lasted for years until she eventually died and the will was a straight 50/50 split. I considered that unfair, but that's what the grandmother wished, so no animosity, just live with it and learn for when you consider your own estate.

MoneySeeker1

BooJewels said:

A will, by definition, is the will of the deceased person[s] - how they want their estate distributed.  The fact that you personally find it unfair is neither here nor there.  If your parents chose to leave more to your brother than to you, then you just have to accept it.

Sometimes wills are unbalanced.  My father passed recently and his estate is not equally divided and I'm the party getting the smaller share.  But it was actually my idea, as it didn't feel as though I should get the same as my sister as she did a lot more for both parents at their end and I felt that should be acknowledged.  Ironically, the only person who isn't happy with the arrangement is my sister, I'm completely at peace with it.

Agreed they can sometimes be "unbalanced" - but presumably you were told clearly in advance of this on the one hand (which I wasn't - as we'd both always been told it would be fair - and then both parents got dementia latterly and SIL is a "smooth operator" type). Our parents had even told good friends of theirs it would be fair - and they were surprised/shocked to find it isn't in the event.

It would be possible for your sister to amend equally if she so desires. I have an extremely good friend that was one of two children her parents had. She thoroughly agreed that her sister should have the lions share - but they'd both been told clearly well in advance that this was how it would be (no shock of finding out after the event). It was because her sister had rather worse circumstances (ie was single - whereas my friend was married). But full credit to the pair of them that the sister insisted it be shared out 50/50 and marched my friend off to a solicitor - where they sat down and did an agreed "deed of variation". Lions Share sister wasn't going to accept her sister/my friend getting less than her (even though she'd known and agreed with it).

I had no idea it had been changed to be unfair and it came as total shock/surprise - and I have asked my brother to do a "deed of variation" and his first response was to lie and say it wasn't possible to change things. Followed by it becoming clear he had known it was possible and is refusing to do so.

You can imagine just how rock-solid I'm making sure things are re my own Will - to ensure my brother/his family don't get a single penny come my time and have arranged massive level of opposition if they try to do so and have drafted a letter to send to him about my own Will once this one is settled etc. Not often one hears a solicitor burst out laughing on the phone re what I've been arranging with my own for when My Time comes and they're fully in support and obviously well ready to "lead the Troops" along with the charity I've left it all to.

MoneySeeker1

xylophone said:

He was the  favourite child of the person that ran their marriage (ie my mother). 

Bitterness corrodes the soul - it will do you far more harm than it does anybody else.

Think of your parents with as much kindness as you can muster and accept your legacy with a good grace.

A card at Christmas costs little and keeps a connection open - your nieces and nephews may value contact with their aunt.

I get your point - and hence why the "very firm" letter breaking off relations and telling them just how much opposition there will be if they try and contest my own Will come the time will be sent "after the event" - and then I will just forget them totally and leave karma to deal with the situation (rather than myself) iyswim and get on with my life with no contact whatsoever.

The daft thing is I would say they are probably better off than me ...and yet are still doing this..

BooJewels

@MoneySeeker1 - I can't be bothered to try and selectively quote you, with the new format forum, it's too tedious.

Yes, my sister could vary things and wanted to, but I've dissuaded her and we hit a modest informal mid-way non-monetary compromise that she's happier with.    And yes, I did know about the disparity, as mentioned, it was my own idea and I voiced it, saying that I didn't want comment or to know what was done, when my Dad re-wrote his will when my Mum passed (he told me what it would say, just before he went to the solicitor to sign it).  As it happens he had been contemplating how to be fairest and was very happy that I enabled that without him needing to feel any guilt - it's worth it to me for the comfort that decision brought him.  He specifically requested that it be me that told my sister, when the time came, as he wanted me to explain how it came about. That was scuppered somewhat by a well meaning family member knowing only some of the tale, letting the cat out a bit early, just before lockdown, thinking that I'd be the one to be upset when I found out.

But none of us have any entitlement to a legacy - it isn't a right.  So if you've been expecting a 'fair' will and found it to differ from your expectations, that perhaps says more about you than your family members.   If your brother has a wife and children, it is perhaps a fair balance for the different circumstances.  Either way, it was never your decision to make - you have to respect the decisions your parents made, for whatever reason - maybe your interpretation of 'fair' simply differs from theirs.

So I'm not sure how you consolidate the twin ideas, that it's quite okay to take excessive measures yourself to ensure that your brother is totally excluded from any benefit from your own estate, yet are unhappy when someone else has exercised the exact same right.  I think xylophone expressed it better than me already at the top of page 3 - I think if you continue thinking in this manner, it will only harm your own peace of mind.

thepurplepixie

Savvy_Sue said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

...and you are wrong - as my brother is also the other end of the country.

There's a lesson not to jump to conclusions for you.

My apologies: from your 'funeral' threads I gained the mistaken impression that he was more local. Nevertheless, he was perhaps able to present himself as a more caring and dutiful child - whether that was true or not. 

Yes that was definitely the impression in the funeral threads, brother going to the funeral with the mother as he was more local but OP couldn't attend as so far away.  Either way it was the parents money to do with as they wished.  Strangely enough we have been looking at wills today, we intend to leave more to two of our GC for what I consider are perfectly justifiable reasons but at the end of the day I don't need to justify it, my children will inherit equally but the GC won't.  C'est la vie.

MoneySeeker1

Nearer than me and with a car (unlike me). Took him about 2 hours to drive to their place in his car. Took me about 8 hours to their place by public transport. So neither of us remotely "local".

Good to see your children are being treated equally and not "We'll give less to any of them that don't have children - but more to those with children". That sort of thing means that, if grandchildren get given money directly and there are adult "children" that are childless - those childless children are "paying" for other peoples children in effect (whereas the ones that are parents themselves aren't paying for anything for the childless ones).

Hence why it's the norm in our society (and the laws of intestacy decree it) to split money equally between adult children and not count grandchildren. If the parents of those grandchildren want them to have anything - it is our norm that it is given from their own share (rather than penalising childless siblings for having made a different lifestyle choice).

Hence my good friend that was going to accept an unfair will by her parents - but her sister amended it to fair - told me "I'm not going to let the fact one of my children has 2 children of their own and the other one of my children has 4 children of their own mean the one with fewer children gets less. The money goes directly - to my 2 children and only my 2 children and, if they decide to split it in 2 ways in one of those families and 4 ways in the other one of those families AFTER they have it - that's their choice. But I've split it 50/50 to them - rather than penalising the one with fewer children. I brought them up to know people should be treated equally - and I'm not going against that now". Hence I couldnt tell you to this day if either of those "children" is her favourite - as she is scrupulous in treating them equally.

Our norms are very fair in this country. Our laws of intestacy are very fair in this country. So obviously anyone that knows about both those things and has been told everything will be in accordance with our norms and then finds out afterwards there'd been a change they had not been informed about is clearly not going to be very happy (British understatement).