Timing for distribution of "estate"

xylophone

Way back - when my brother first did an "Ask" for "some for my children too" that was the words he used (admitted by my own mother - who, at that time, asked me if I'd agree to them specifically having something and the Will being changed - and I said I didn't agree). So, as far as I knew, things were still exactly the same.

The OP's mother had the right to leave her estate as she chose - she did not need the permission of either of her children to do as she wished, even leave it all to her friends, neighbours, church or the local Cats' Home.

And had she done so, either of her children (not being in any way her dependants) would have been on a hiding to nothing in trying to get the will overturned?

As things  stand (as far as I understand it), the mother made bequests to her grandchildren with the residue shared equally between her two adult children.

This does not seem to me to be an unreasonable approach, particularly  if there was some concern about IHT  eventually being due on the estate of the OP (who apparently has no direct descendants).

MoneySeeker1

No IHT is likely to be due on my "estate" come the time - it's only one modest little house.

There most certainly will be due to be a noticeable IHT bill already payable by the grandchildren on their parents estate (ie my brother/his wife's). That being brother/his wife are already worth a noticeable amount of money as far as one can make out. Those grandchildren are not going to be poor - just because of their parents (before this current grabbiness by them).

Malthusian

MoneySeeker1 said:

No IHT is likely to be due on my "estate" come the time - it's only one modest little house.

As you are single and have no direct descendants, your estate will be liable for IHT if it exceeds £325,000 - plenty of "modest" houses would exceed that, especially after a decade or so of house price inflation.

MoneySeeker1

Yep - I know the IHT limits and my "estate" will be nowhere near that.

My brother/his wife's will be well over it - already.

xylophone

That being brother/his wife are already worth a noticeable amount of money as far as one can make out.

Between them, your brother and sister-in-law could bequeath £1mn to their direct descendants before IHT would be due - and in the future ( it seems) there will be some inflation linking.

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/inheritance-tax/

Is it the case that you and your brother have been left equal amounts?

Surely you don't begrudge your nieces and nephews an inheritance which may make all the difference to  them in terms of financing their future education/the purchase of a property?

thepurplepixie

xylophone said:

Surely you don't begrudge your nieces and nephews an inheritance which may make all the difference to  them in terms of financing their future education/the purchase of a property?

Well obviously she does begrudge them an inheritance and she also feels entitled to dictate how other people leave their money/possessions.  She's even entitled enough to demand her brother overrules their parents wishes.  I imagine she would not accept being told how to leave hers.
It is probably best for us all to spend all our money before we die and avoid this sort of nonsense.

DairyQueen

xylophone said:

Surely you don't begrudge your nieces and nephews an inheritance which may make all the difference to  them in terms of financing their future education/the purchase of a property?

I understand your point but I don't see this as being about money per se or that the OP begrudges the GCs. This is about the message OP has received from mum. It's about the relationship between her-and-mum and between her-and-brother. I suspect that the brother and nephews/nieces were the beneficiaries of OP's estate until this situation developed.

Each family has social and cultural norms on which expectations are based. Any deviation from norms as sensitive as inheritance would be expected to create problems and tensions and, therefore, better addressed by OP's mum in person. I doubt OP would be feeling so hurt if she had been a party to mum's decision.

Within my family, we strongly believe in the 'chain of inheritance'. GCs are never monetary beneficiaries of GP's wills unless their parent predeceases the GP. Each of the GP's children may then gift any part of their share to their own children. Some are better-placed financially to do so. Others, less fortunate, are in need of the money and grateful for this last act of love and support from their late parent.

Many families (mine included) provide financial support to children, GCs, nieces/nephews and siblings during their lifetimes. Often these gifts are based on need and unequally distributed. This is rarely a cause of tension but the 'final gift' from a parent is emotionally quite different. There is nothing more guaranteed to cause friction than being on the receiving end of what is perceived to be an unfair distribution of an estate. And that is exactly how OP perceives this. What's more, she believes that her mum knew that's how it would be perceived. This, I believe, is the reason for the pain.

Mum's action has left brother in a difficult position too. I suspect that he understands why OP feels this way as he would have been as well-versed in the family norms as his sister. That he is prepared to sacrifice his relationship with her in order that his children benefit 'out of turn' is another cause of hurt for OP. 

This issue isn't about money, it's about family relationships. In brother's position I would prioritise my relationship with my living sibling over my deceased mum's wishes. I would forego sufficient of my inheritance to ensure that my children received their bequests but that sibling received a full 50% share at my expense. Sibling relationships can be amongst the most supportive and rewarding we ever experience and their loss is simply not worth an extra few quid.

MoneySeeker1

Very much the point basically Dairy Queen.

My brother knows too that there were years when he would probably have been left out of the inheritance totally by my father and all of his would have gone direct straight through to his children or not happened at all. I might have got "the lot".

He also knows that I would have put things right if that had happened and ensured that he got his 50% - whether directly to himself or indirectly (ie going straight through to his children) and I would have ensured "he and his family together" got 50% one way or the other and not been concerned as to how it was shared out between them (that would have been totally up to them to sort out) - but I'd have made sure they got that 50% - even if they'd been left nothing for any of them. I'm no saint - but I would have seen that as fair. It would have "hurt" to write out a cheque of that size (when it would be very nice to have kept it all myself) - but I would have written the cheque out and sent it nevertheless and then thought "Well - I can live with my conscience. I did the Right Thing and I can look anyone straight in the eye".

Mojisola

DairyQueen said:

I understand your point but I don't see this as being about money per se or that the OP begrudges the GCs. This is about the message OP has received from mum.

This issue isn't about money, it's about family relationships.

Like you, I think this is the issue.

There was a tv series some years ago where parents made decisions about their wills and then had family discussions to share the details and explain their reasoning.

Parents were shocked at the messages their children took away from the planned division of the estate and the children reacted emotionally to the wills, rather than being upset about a sibling getting more money than them.   

Legally in England and Wales, people can leave their money to whoever they want but I don't think most parents would want to actively cause distress to any of their children through the distribution of their estate.

My parents left their estate unequally between their children - there was a very good reason for this and we all knew about it, understood their reasoning and agreed with it.  If we hadn't found out until after they had died, I don't know whether we would have been upset but, in the emotional time when we were grieving, we may well have reacted badly.

MoneySeeker1

...and my mother did know exactly how it would be perceived (by all of us) in the circumstances.