Money Moral Dilemma: Is it fair for my parents to penalise me for not having children?

Pollycat

brizzie_2 said:

My parents left a set amount of £1000 to each grandchild, 7 of them, including 2 "honorary" (granddaughter's half brothers). No-one objected although I have no kids. The balance was split 3 ways to 3 sons. Didn't occur to me to moan. When I shuffle off, my estate is split 8 ways between 5 nephews and nieces and 3 honorary nephews and nieces. There's a bit of discrimination in there as 1 brother has 1 child and the other has 4, and 3 are not blood but see me as a spare dad. Point is it's up to me and me alone. If anyone argues they are automatically excluded from inheritance.

It's up to the asset owners to decide what is and isn't fair to them. No-one is entitled to anything and I'm quite determined myself that anyone who thinks they are entitled by right to a particular share of my estate gets zilch 

Precisely this.
I think it's very presumptuous for a potential beneficiary to argue about what somebody puts in their will.

brizzie_2

The legal position in respect of how things are split where there is no will is interesting. I had a great uncle that died 2 years ago, single, no kids. Most of his nephews and nieces pre-deceased him so virtually all beneficiaries were Gt nieces and nephews. Very complicated. The pot was initially divided equally by siblings, so nominally my grandmother got £6000. She had 2 children so her £6000 was split £3000 to my late father, £3000 to my still living aunt. My father's £3000 was split 3 ways to his sons. One of my Gt aunts had 4 kids, and this worked out that some on the same tree level as me got £300 each. Another ended up, the only child of an only child, with the full £6000. It's the only way the law can do it but it's not fair - I hadn't seen Uncle Les in 50 years and I wish he had made a will and left it to those that meant something to him.

Lindagreenacre

There is no indication of the age of the parents, children or grandchildren.  Several people are suggesting that more children may come into the equation, but it could be that that ship has sailed. It could be that both children are well set up and the grandchildren are at an age where they are setting up home.   In the end, it is the grandparent's money and they are entitled to make their wills exactly as they wish.  Nobody is entitled.

Lindagreenacre

John_Gray said:

You should disown your parents immediately - or remind them, in the words of the old saying, that "you will be choosing their care home"...

I am glad that my child is nothing like you.  That is a disgusting post.

jimpwarsop

Despite other comments you are right to be upset OP.   My two kids will inherit 50% of my estate each, what they do with it is up to them.

nowt you can do about your situation though, let it go.

Desimesi

My parents just left everything to my brother because he has taken their surname and will continue the family name. Me and my sister respect the decision it is not fair, feels dull, nun the less and thankfully god has given us more then enough when it comes to financial property.

1Ato26Z

Parents leave and spread their assets to their children equally by a will.
Those granparents have no need to make 4 portions, because they only have 2 sons.
When the time is right the children of those granparents will write a will for their children (grandchildren here), if any, to inherit what they had.
Comments about having total freedom to do whatever with your money... Yes, it's true. But nobody wants that their heirs experience miseries or anyone else steals their heirs' inheritance.
Only wealthy people split a portion for good causes or when there's no will and found no heirs or when they make a will with no heirs/offspring.

Pollycat

1Ato26Z said:

Parents leave and spread their assets to their children equally by a will.
Those granparents have no need to make 4 portions, because they only have 2 sons.
When the time is right the children of those granparents will write a will for their children (grandchildren here), if any, to inherit what they had.
Comments about having total freedom to do whatever with your money... Yes, it's true. But nobody wants that their heirs experience miseries or anyone else steals their heirs' inheritance.
Only wealthy people split a portion for good causes or when there's no will and found no heirs or when they make a will with no heirs/offspring.

Clearly that isn't the opinion of the parents of the author of this MMD.
There is no inheritance until someone dies.

I will leave my property/assets as I see fit.
Relationships will not come into it.
My money, my choice what happens to it when I'm dead.

Mungo68

The subject of inheritance is always interesting. I tend to look at it as a consequence of someone's passing rather than something I might have been entitled to or was counting on while a parent (or whomever) is still alive. 
The assets of their estate are theirs to use, spend or give away as they choose and if a beneficiary receives something then so be it. I personally do not think it is wise to dwell on the assets of others (family or not), but best to build your own.   

Lindagreenacre

Matilda542 said:

Although it's the parents right to do what they want with it, I think when it comes to their children, they should treat them equally. I do think it is unfair to give one more than the other just because one of them has children. I would definitely mention it, doesn't need to end up in an argument. In my will, I have left my estate equally between my son & daughter and haven't included my grandchildren. I take the view that it's up to my children if they want to pass some onto their children

The children are being treated equally.  The person who is peeved will inherit exactly the same as his/her brother.  We have no idea of the ages of those concerned and granny and grandpa may be thinking that a boost in finances for their grandchildren will help them as they become or are already adults looking to get on the property ladder for example.