Family dispute over Mother-in-law's Will

Savvy_Sue

ameliarate said:

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. 

Which it was why it was good to know that my co-executor and I were on the same page re: our parents' wills, and I was fairly confident that had any of us pre-deceased our parents then the survivors would have agreed with our proposal. And, if they had not, then a deed of variation would have been done between those who DID agree, and we'd have done our best not to fall out with those who did NOT agree. 

And we had a couple of sticky moments in the process of executing mum's will, when one sibling wondered whether we should have accepted the first offer made on the house, which had been made VERY quickly, but then took a long time to progress to exchange and completion. I smiled sweetly and asked if they wanted to take over re-marketing a house which we had expected to have difficulty selling, which they didn't ... 

I know we, as executors, had a duty to realise the assets, and yes, if we had not marketed very quickly after the second death then we might have marketed at a higher price. But I also know that house prices go up and down, so that's a 'might' rather than a 'would definitely have'. And it was an odd house to sell. And fortunately we ALL valued our relationship as siblings enough to not fall out over the money ... 

naedanger

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.

Just because something has been a tradition does not mean it shouldn't change if circumstances change. (And the fact that people are living much longer makes it more sensible in my view for money to be passed to more that one generation if the next generation are themselves financially comfortable.)

And perhaps it is the sister who wishes to take more money for herself at the expense of the brother who is the one disrupting the sibling relationship. She wants 33% for herself knowing that her brother (with two children) would then only get 16.33% himself. Perhaps she should be considering his feelings. And has she considered that this request could cause friction within his family. 

Also the grandparents probably didn't want to gift the grandchildren's inheritance during their own lifetime for the same reasons they didn't gift the other parts of their inheritance during their lifetime.

And you don't need to have children to realise that grandchildren are people in their own right.

thepurplepixie

ameliarate said:

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. 

Exactly, it was the MILs money and she had a right to leave it where she wanted.  I think with my children they have been housed, clothes, fed and educated throughout their childhoods.  They had help with uni and with weddings and gifts for babies and I don't think they have any right to assume that everything will be left to them let alone demand a specific share.  

*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.*  Why shouldn't the sibling prioritise her relationship with the OPs husband more than the money?  Is it all one way?  She got the same as her brother and that is all she needs to think of.

I wonder if you can put a clause in a will that if anyone moans, complains or demands extra they get nothing?

Mojisola

thepurplepixie said

I wonder if you can put a clause in a will that if anyone moans, complains or demands extra they get nothing?

I know people who have this but they are still alive so the clause hasn't been tested yet. 

naedanger

thepurplepixie said:

I wonder if you can put a clause in a will that if anyone moans, complains or demands extra they get nothing?

You can I believe add a "no contest" clause so that if anyone makes an unsuccessful legal challenge they will be disinherited to the extent allowed by law.  See the following link:
https://www.wilsonbrowne.co.uk/news/personal/how-can-you-stop-someone-contesting-a-will/

However that would not necessarily prevent moans, complaints and demands. It would just make it harder for someone to take legal action based on those moans, complaints and demands. To actually disinherit just based on moans, complaints or demands would, I think, be difficult to do in practice, and could result in more disputes e.g. beneficiary A might allege that beneficiary B had been moaning - which might be true or might just be a ruse to get beneficiary B disinherited.

And of course such a clause will only be a deterent to those who are being left a significant enough bequest in the first place.  

Robert_McGeddon

How did this topic get so long and involved? Surely it's quite straightforward.

1 As xylophone said "The Testator had the absolute right to leave her property as she wished." That's MiL sorted.

2 OP's husband, as Executor, distributes the Estate according to the Will. He has no discretion on this - it is his legal duty. That's Executor sorted.

3 Residual beneficiaries can, as an option, vary their inheritances in favour of other(s) via a DoV - but are under no legal obligation to do so. That's RBs sorted.

This system/process has been in place for a number of years. It is generally well understood and works well.. Yes, issues can arise:

- Will may be out of date by time of death (as posters have said, it may be possible to raise this with the testator prior to death and have the Will updated).

- As here, one or more person or group gets less than they fell entitled to. If they can negotiate an uplift from the nominated benificiaries well and good, but a feeling of entitlement has no legal standing.

At the end of the day it was MiL's money/property. The whole point about making a Will is to direct your assets to people of your choosing.  If those folk subsequently choose to vary the will then no problem (and you won't be around to worry about it). In the absence of such agreement the Will takes precedence and must be executed as written.

getmore4less

We don't have the numbers but a DOV are often a waste of time and money.

They are just gifts with a potential IHT benefit for the donor if they already have an estate that will impacted by loss of some nill rate band.

elsien

Robert_McGeddon said:

How did this topic get so long and involved? Surely it's quite straightforward.

It's an internet forum. T'is the nature of the beast. 

naedanger

Robert_McGeddon said:

How did this topic get so long and involved? Surely it's quite straightforward.

1 As xylophone said "The Testator had the absolute right to leave her property as she wished." That's MiL sorted.

2 OP's husband, as Executor, distributes the Estate according to the Will. He has no discretion on this - it is his legal duty. That's Executor sorted.

3 Residual beneficiaries can, as an option, vary their inheritances in favour of other(s) via a DoV - but are under no legal obligation to do so. That's RBs sorted.

This system/process has been in place for a number of years. It is generally well understood and works well.. Yes, issues can arise:

- Will may be out of date by time of death (as posters have said, it may be possible to raise this with the testator prior to death and have the Will updated).

- As here, one or more person or group gets less than they fell entitled to. If they can negotiate an uplift from the nominated benificiaries well and good, but a feeling of entitlement has no legal standing.

At the end of the day it was MiL's money/property. The whole point about making a Will is to direct your assets to people of your choosing.  If those folk subsequently choose to vary the will then no problem (and you won't be around to worry about it). In the absence of such agreement the Will takes precedence and must be executed as written.

Because the original question was not what is the legal position or the process. . 

The op was asking people for their views on whether her sister in law was right to believe she should receive more. I don't think the op meant "right" in the legal sense, but more a moral sense. And there is no single answer to that type of question, and so many people gave their own personal views, which is what I believe the op was seeking. So there is no issue with their being many differing views.

sammyjammy

Grumpy_chap said:

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.

No I'm Sparticus
My Nan died earlier in the year aged 94, she had five children and 13 grandchildren, all grandchildren between 40 and 52.  In her will she left equal shares to her children and a sixth share between all of her grandchildren, one of the children has no children, everyone respects that my Nan and Grandad wrote their will as they wished it to be.

My parents have 3 children and 4 grandchildren, their will leaves 25% each child and 25% to be shared between grandchildren, same as the OPs.  All the children are my brothers, my sister and I are both single and neither us have any issue with this arrangement, if i did I would never speak it out loud before or after their deaths.  Best case scenario is the leftovers from this months pension in the bank as far as i am concerned, I want them to enjoy every penny of their money.