Family dispute over Mother-in-law's Will

Keep_pedalling

Trotter65 said:

naedanger said:

Trotter65 said:

My MIL has recently died. She had 3 children and 3 grandchildren.  She has split her will into 4 with each of her children being given 25% each and the remaining 25% is to be split between her 3 grandchildren. All sounds like a fair distribution of her estate. However my SIL does not have children, my husband and I have 2 aged 21 and 24 and the other brother has 1 child aged 18. My SIL believes that she should receive 'her' third of the estate and wants my husband to give up 8.333% of his share as we are the ones with 2 children.
On top of this the brother didn't speak to my MIL for the 6 years before her death and my SIL wouldn't speak to her for 4 years but did get back in contact with her 18 months ago.  We are the ones who kept her going throughtout this time and it has always been her and my FIL's wish to leave a decent sum to their 3 grandchildren to help them at this stage of their life rather than waiting until we die to inherit. 
What do you think? Is she right? Our view is that the Will is the Will and who are we to decide that her decision to split her will as she did is wrong.

You are right to say the will is the will. 

Does your husband wish to go with his late mother's wishes or his sister's wishes. It is his choice and there is not (in general in my view) a right answer.

Personally I think your MIL's distribution was very fair in the sense that she treated her children equally and her grandchildren equally. To me it would seem unfair to your children had they got only half what their cousin got, and it would be unfair to your husband if he got less than his siblings because he had more children. It also seems sensible to leave money to grandchildren for the reason your FIL gave. All that said, your sister-in-law obviously feels different and so you/your husband need to consider to what extent you wish to placate her.  

On one hand we don't want to fall out with SIL  but on the other hand why should the Son who never fell out with his Mother and was always there for her end up with less than his siblings! Tricky situation. We have considered making her an offer of say 4.165% rather than the amount she is demanding of 8.33% in order to keep the peace. But then we think why should we?

I think you would be very foolish to even consider making any concessions on such an unreasonable demand. Just tell her you just want to honour her mother’s wishes and that you are not prepared  to discuss it further. 

Trotter65

elsien said:

I am your SIL, effectively. I have no children but my siblings do. 
Whether my parent chooses to spilt the estate between her children or give a share to the grandchildren is entirely up to her.
It’s not a numbers game, there’s no entitlement, if she wants to leave the lot to the dogs home, it’s up to her. I wouldn’t challenge or feel aggrieved if I get less because the grandkids are getting a bit.
SIL is out of order, and I’d execute the will as it stands. 

Thank you for that - it is causing my husband and I a lot of stress and upset. 

MoneySeeker1

We are only getting one side of this though - which may or may not be the case.

There is an element to bear in mind here of the "long game" - ie whether relationships are going to be broken off for ever and everything quite deliberately left to charity by the person on the downside of "not having enough children".

There is some logic on the one hand of treating grandchildren as "people in own right". On the other hand it is a very old-fashioned view to think siblings with fewer children count for less on the other hand.

People can slant things to say "I was there for loads the last couple of years" on the one hand and ignore the fact that another sibling was there (to whatever extent) for many years previously doing-whatever-needed-to-be-done and giving the "peace of mind" of knowing there was someone there if-need-be.

Trotter65

Keep_pedalling said:

Trotter65 said:

naedanger said:

Trotter65 said:

My MIL has recently died. She had 3 children and 3 grandchildren.  She has split her will into 4 with each of her children being given 25% each and the remaining 25% is to be split between her 3 grandchildren. All sounds like a fair distribution of her estate. However my SIL does not have children, my husband and I have 2 aged 21 and 24 and the other brother has 1 child aged 18. My SIL believes that she should receive 'her' third of the estate and wants my husband to give up 8.333% of his share as we are the ones with 2 children.
On top of this the brother didn't speak to my MIL for the 6 years before her death and my SIL wouldn't speak to her for 4 years but did get back in contact with her 18 months ago.  We are the ones who kept her going throughtout this time and it has always been her and my FIL's wish to leave a decent sum to their 3 grandchildren to help them at this stage of their life rather than waiting until we die to inherit. 
What do you think? Is she right? Our view is that the Will is the Will and who are we to decide that her decision to split her will as she did is wrong.

You are right to say the will is the will. 

Does your husband wish to go with his late mother's wishes or his sister's wishes. It is his choice and there is not (in general in my view) a right answer.

Personally I think your MIL's distribution was very fair in the sense that she treated her children equally and her grandchildren equally. To me it would seem unfair to your children had they got only half what their cousin got, and it would be unfair to your husband if he got less than his siblings because he had more children. It also seems sensible to leave money to grandchildren for the reason your FIL gave. All that said, your sister-in-law obviously feels different and so you/your husband need to consider to what extent you wish to placate her.  

On one hand we don't want to fall out with SIL  but on the other hand why should the Son who never fell out with his Mother and was always there for her end up with less than his siblings! Tricky situation. We have considered making her an offer of say 4.165% rather than the amount she is demanding of 8.33% in order to keep the peace. But then we think why should we?

I think you would be very foolish to even consider making any concessions on such an unreasonable demand. Just tell her you just want to honour her mother’s wishes and that you are not prepared  to discuss it further. 

Yes I suppose any offer of payment is conceding that we agree with her - which we don't!

ZaSa1418

Your Sil Trotter65 said:

elsien said:

I am your SIL, effectively. I have no children but my siblings do. 
Whether my parent chooses to spilt the estate between her children or give a share to the grandchildren is entirely up to her.
It’s not a numbers game, there’s no entitlement, if she wants to leave the lot to the dogs home, it’s up to her. I wouldn’t challenge or feel aggrieved if I get less because the grandkids are getting a bit.
SIL is out of order, and I’d execute the will as it stands. 

Thank you for that - it is causing my husband and I a lot of stress and upset. 

Don't offer her any. She is acting horribly. If Mil had left your husband more than her because of children then i get why she would be upset but she hasn't and she is acting like an entitled brat. 

naedanger

MoneySeeker1 said:

There is some logic on the one hand of treating grandchildren as "people in own right". On the other hand it is a very old-fashioned view to think siblings with fewer children count for less on the other hand.

I actually think what the op's mother-in-law has willed is the more modern approach. 

It is not a case of saying the siblings with fewer children count for less. They count equally. The op's husband is not going to get his children's share. They are adults. So the op's husband was willed the same share as his siblings.

I also think it is more forward thinking to recognise that as people are living much longer it is actually the second generation who are likely to get best use/need of money. Young adults are more likely to have greater need. In any event the second generation are only getting to share one quarter of the estate, so it is nothing too radically different from just sharing between the children.

elsien

MoneySeeker1 said:

We are only getting one side of this though - which may or may not be the case.

Doesn't matter - the will is MIL's wishes and there is no clear reason to change unless all parties are happy to do so without feeling coerced. 

Dox

Life isn't fair, so no reason death should be! Follow the will and make it clear that your husband feels a moral imperative to do so - the occasional bit of getting on a high horse can save a lot of horse trading.

Aranyani

I agree, follow the will to the letter, its a very fair distribution and its what the deceased wanted.

What kind of person wants to take money out of the hands of their own young nieces and nephews?

MoneySeeker1

naedanger said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

There is some logic on the one hand of treating grandchildren as "people in own right". On the other hand it is a very old-fashioned view to think siblings with fewer children count for less on the other hand.

I actually think what the op's mother-in-law has willed is the more modern approach. 

It is not a case of saying the siblings with fewer children count for less. They count equally. The op's husband is not going to get his children's share. They are adults. So the op's husband was willed the same share as his siblings.

I also think it is more forward thinking to recognise that as people are living much longer it is actually the second generation who are likely to get best use/need of money. Young adults are more likely to have greater need. In any event the second generation are only getting to share one quarter of the estate, so it is nothing too radically different from just sharing between the children.

Disagree - as the generations that are currently middle-aged to late middle-aged are the first generation where "marriage was expected - and then subsequent divorce is commonplace". Add all the other stuff impacting on various members of that generation and the chances are they've been left little (if anything) by their own grandparent generation and it puts a different slant on things.

A younger person will be much more likely usually to "blow the lot" and do something like taking off for a gap year round the World or the like - whereas a middle-aged person would be more likely to be an age where they "should" be financially straight but divorce/job loss/you name it meant that they weren't and they were at or getting an age where retirement was looming and they absolutely had to be "financially straight" or, for instance, retirement might land up getting postponed or a home-owner chucked into rented accommodation by divorce couldn't manage to get a home of their own again. Upsetting for someone at "should be financially straight/retirement looming or here" age to watch a younger person just "blowing" it (as many will - and it isn't the case they would all be financially prudent and think "Right - there's my deposit to buy my first house" for instance).