Family dispute over Mother-in-law's Will

maman

I agree. Just because Deeds of Variation are possible, it seems ust academic to bring them up in this situation. The deceased's intentions seem clear and the Executor shouldn't need to feel he's in the wrong carrying them out. 

getmore4less

Savvy_Sue said:

getmore4less said:

I would push back and tell the SIL you are asking the wrong person to give up part of their share.
Stop bothering me its the grandkids that got it ask them to give up what they got.

I wouldn't encourage anyone to speak to the grandchildren: I don't think that's fair, BUT they would need to give their consent to a Deed of Variation. 

Only if they give up part of their share.
Someone needs to talk to them if that is going to happen. 

Flugelhorn

MIL has made her intentions very clear and they should be honoured, would be much more difficult if she had always said "I want to leave something to the grandchildren" but never actually did - the scrap now would be even worse. 
If SIL carries on bleating, just continue with "the estate is being divided as per the will" - SIL is not being totally cut out and would have no argument about not being financially supported. 

-taff

Dox said:

What does all this theorising count for? The will reflected the wishes of the person making it, so why the huge debate?

Because the poster recently found themselves on the wrong end of a will themselves...

Gers

Dox said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

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).

What does all this theorising count for? The will reflected the wishes of the person making it, so why the huge debate?

Probably because she's in exactly the same position and has been arguing for her brother's children to be denied monies. See her thread in this board. 

Malthusian

-taff said:

Dox said:

What does all this theorising count for? The will reflected the wishes of the person making it, so why the huge debate?

Because the poster recently found themselves on the wrong end of a will themselves...

"Wrong end" suggests they were cut out. MoneySeeker wasn't on the wrong end; she received a "very sizable" amount from the Will but wanted some of the deceased's grandchildren's share as well.

Gers

Gers said:

Dox said:

MoneySeeker1 said:

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).

What does all this theorising count for? The will reflected the wishes of the person making it, so why the huge debate?

Probably because she's in exactly the same position and has been arguing for her brother's children to be denied monies. See her thread in this board. 

Here's the thread - it starts off on one topic though very quickly moves to her wanting her brother to redistribute his children's monies to be shared with her as they are not individuals and the shares should be be 'households'!

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6184641/timing-for-distribution-of-estate/p1

Savvy_Sue

getmore4less said:

Savvy_Sue said:

getmore4less said:

I would push back and tell the SIL you are asking the wrong person to give up part of their share.
Stop bothering me its the grandkids that got it ask them to give up what they got.

I wouldn't encourage anyone to speak to the grandchildren: I don't think that's fair, BUT they would need to give their consent to a Deed of Variation. 

Only if they give up part of their share.
Someone needs to talk to them if that is going to happen. 

Yes, apologies, I should have made that clear. Point is, the will cannot be varied to take money from the grandchildren to give to SIL unless they agree to do so - and I know at least 2 are over 18, but are they all over 18? If not, their share can't be reduced. 

gettingtheresometime

MoneySeeker1 said:

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.

Sorry but you're wrong on so many levels.
it was the MIL's money and it was up to her how she bequeathed her money.
End of story.

Spendless

Savvy_Sue said:

getmore4less said:

Savvy_Sue said:

getmore4less said:

I would push back and tell the SIL you are asking the wrong person to give up part of their share.
Stop bothering me its the grandkids that got it ask them to give up what they got.

I wouldn't encourage anyone to speak to the grandchildren: I don't think that's fair, BUT they would need to give their consent to a Deed of Variation. 

Only if they give up part of their share.
Someone needs to talk to them if that is going to happen. 

Yes, apologies, I should have made that clear. Point is, the will cannot be varied to take money from the grandchildren to give to SIL unless they agree to do so - and I know at least 2 are over 18, but are they all over 18? If not, their share can't be reduced. 

Yes, brother's child is 18 (it's in their opening post). so all 3 grandchildren are legally adults.