Family dispute over Mother-in-law's Will

Grumpy_chap

DairyQueen said:

Hands up all the supporters of OP who don't have children?

Hands up and stretched out high!

The will should be followed as the MIL wished, especially as it is so simple and straightforward.

I am, in effect, the OP's SIL (twice). 

My wife and I have no children but both my brothers have children (3 plus 1).  I have been urging my Mum to make gifts to her grandchildren as it would be very helpful to them.  It maybe helps that my brothers and I have broadly similar financial positions, and broadly "comfortable", so a gift or inheritance would always be very welcome but won't be life-changing.  Whereas, if my 2 nieces and 2 nephews were to receive a gift or inheritance, a relatively small amount will make a massive difference to setting them up for life.

Similarly, my wife's brother has three children, and he is in similar financial level to ourselves.  So, the same applies that we are encouraging FIL to provide support to the nephew and 2 nieces, as the same situation arises again about comparatively small amounts making a large difference to the younger generation that it won't have the same impact for our generation.

Others have asked about the size of the estate.  I don't think that has any bearing.  If the estate is small, everyone gets a small amount and the sum simply does not make it worth arguing over.  If the estate is large, everyone gets a lot and there is simply no need to worry about who got a bit more or a bit less as everyone is fine and dandy.

What might make a difference is the comparative financial position of the siblings.  If two with children are "comfortable" but the one without is on the breadline, a bit more or a bit less inheritance might make a massive difference to that individual, where it is not making the same massive difference to the two that are "comfortable".  That might explain SIL's view point, but still does not mean it is correct to change the will.  In the later situation, the two that are "comfortable" might freely choose to give some extra support to the third sibling, but from the goodness of their hearts rather than deciding the will was unfair (though deed of variation might be the sensible way to achieve that).

Hand still up and still of the view the will is fair and reasonable and should be followed.

thepurplepixie

Grumpy-chap I'm sure your parents are as proud of you as I am of my son.  

I love the way people always say it isn't about the money but they want the money.  If it isn't about the money then what difference will the money make?

Spendless

I'm aware of a will where 1 brother had no children and the other had 2. When the brother's last parent died, the will said split 25% each to both brothers and the 2 grandchildren. This came as a surprise to the childless brother as he'd assummed that 'we are splitting the money equally between you and your brother' meant 50% each. Always best not to presume anything and be grateful for anything received. I agree with sticking to the terms of MIL's will.

Mojisola

DairyQueen said:

I understand why a grandparent would wish to gift to their grandchildren but I believe this is best done during the grandparent's lifetime. Presumably MIL had that option. It is a very different scenario to leaving unequal shares between branches of a family.

I don't understand the logic of this.

If a grandparent did give money to the grandchildren during their lifetime and then left their estate equally between the children, the estate would be reduced by the amount that the grandchildren received and so the different branches of the family would have benefited unequally.

Gers

There's so much guff being spouted - it's like a version of a bare-all TV show.  Too much emotional nonsense.

The will is the wll  - the will of the deceased person which stands in law.  Doesn't matter if it's fair / unfair / not expected / expected or anything else or what anyone else thinks.    Legally it stands.

maman

I think there has been a culture/behaviour change in the last generation. Grandparents are living longer and have often got to know their grandchildren as young adults rather than small children. Also the economic climate often means the grandchildren need financial help more than their parents.

It was different when grandparents left an estate only to their own children as there was an expectation that they would look after their own families, in turn, sometime in the distant future. They might even have more children along the line.

It's an interesting discussion but academic as the grandparent in question expressed her wishes clearly in her will. 

ameliarate

I would hate to think that I had gone to the trouble of making my wishes known via my will only for people to be arguing about it afterwards. Not a problem for me admittedly I have one child and she’ll get everything, but still. 

If someone writes a will then the people left behind should honour their wishes. 

Aranyani

DairyQueen said:

It is difficult for those with children to understand how the childless feel in this situation 

Can you please stop implying that you speak for all child free folk and that we all feel the same way?  

Trotter65

DairyQueen said:

xylophone said:

The Testator had the absolute right to leave her property as she wished.
She has been entirely fair to her three children in leaving each 25% of the estate.
She loved her grandchildren - the OP states

 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. 

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.

An absolute cheek, not to mention barefaced greed?

I know we disagree on this @xylophone. I do see the point about fairness inasmuch as the children have all been treated equally. However, I don't believe that greed is always, or even partly, a motivator. This is frequently about the relationships and culture particular to a family. Whether £500 or £5million the emotions are the same. This is about the relationship between the late parent and their children. 

For many families having any estate to leave is a relatively new thing. For my ancestors - ag labs, domestic workers and factory workers to a man and woman - making a Will would have been an anathema. Intestacy prevailed and the rules were specific and (certainly to them and to me) reasonable and fair.

Fast forward to the mid/late 20th century and home ownership and increased life opportunities meant that many families - for the first time - had an estate to distribute. My grandparents' generation had little to leave but what little they had was distributed according to the norms of their parents (i.e the rules of intestacy). Grandchildren neither received, nor expected to receive, anything directly from a grandparent unless their parent had predeceased. I doubt many people of my generation were the beneficiaries of grandparents' Wills and such a change in family norms would break a generations-long tradition.

A child of the deceased has the option to gift part of their legacy to their children if they wish them to benefit from grandparents' Will. There is no reason why OP's children must wait until she and spouse die. OP's spouse could pass on some/all of his share of his mother's estate to his children now if he wished. If he fails to do so, is that also considered 'greed'? But it is considered 'greed' if SIL is upset that part of her legacy is passed to her nephews/nieces by default?

Imagine a different scenario...

MIL's total estate had been equally shared between her three children. SIL had the benefit of her third of parents' legacy during her lifetime simply because she had no direct descendants to consider, unlike her brothers whose lifestyle choices included having children. Possible her nieces/nephews would inherit on her death and/or be recipients of generous gifts in her lifetime. That is certainly the norm within my family.

BIL and OP's spouse also each inherit one third and have the option to share as much/little with their children as they wish. OP's spouse could have passed the equivalent of 8.33% of Mil's estate to each of his children leaving him with a reduced share in favour of his children. BIL, in turn, could have done likewise. The outcome for each of the siblings would have been very different from the division of the estate as it stands. Each grandchild would have received the same 8.33%.  BIL would have received the same 25% but OP's spouse would have received a smaller share (16.67%), but only by virtue of his decision to share with his children. 

As things stand the sibs with children are relieved of the decision to share with their children. I doubt either would begrudge their own children but how would they feel if they were the childless sib?

Do the maths: OP's spouse/children have received 41.67% of MIL's estate. BIL and his child have received the same 33%. But SIL receives 25% as effectively OP's second child's bequest has been received from her share. I expect she loves her nieces/nephews and would feel differently had she been involved in the decision to gift part of parents' estate directly to the children of her sibs. Is she 'greedy' or just upset that she had no part in a decision that benefited OP's children at her expense?

I understand why a grandparent would wish to gift to their grandchildren but I believe this is best done during the grandparent's lifetime. Presumably MIL had that option. It is a very different scenario to leaving unequal shares between branches of a family. 

FWIW, I would prioritise my relationship with my sib over the money and offer her an amount equal to 8.33% from my share. I suspect that she may not accept it but may just wish to have her position recognised and be involved in the decision. She may wish to have the pleasure of 'gifting' some of 'her share' to the children.

It is difficult for those with children to understand how the childless feel in this situation but it is important to make clear to SIL that it could appear that OP's child has benefited at SIL's expense, and that perhaps MIL could have consulted before making this decision.

Empathy is important otherwise it is all about the money. What would OP's spouse rather have? A good relationship with his sister regardless of whether she accepts the offer? Or hold-on to the 8.33% and risk a permanent rift?

Whilst the wishes of the dead should be respected, sometimes those wishes are made without due thought for those that live-on. Children need as many loving relationships in their lives as possible, and that includes their aunts/uncles. Our siblings become the last-port-in-a-storm absent our late parents. Sibling relationships last longer than those we have with our parents and become more important as we age. We disrupt them at our peril.

Is this my SIL?

GaleSF63

Dairyqueen said:
Do the maths: OP's spouse/children have received 41.67% of MIL's estate. BIL and his child have received the same 33%. But SIL receives 25% as effectively OP's second child's bequest has been received from her share.

Why are you lumping the 3 together? They are 3 individuals and OP's spouse isn't getting his childrens' inheritance - they are. He's getting the same as his sister. 

I understand why a grandparent would wish to gift to their grandchildren but I believe this is best done during the grandparent's lifetime. Presumably MIL had that option. It is a very different scenario to leaving unequal shares between branches of a family. 

That would just mean they got the money at a different time.