Money Moral Dilemma: Should we change our wills following our daughter's death?

audrie57

 Maybe it may be a good idea, to leave everything as it is for now, and then think about it, then your not rushing in to changing it now. Its a very stressful time just now for you and your husband  and the family. So maybe a little time in between will give you peace of mind to do whatever you need to do.

gloriouslyhappy

Pollycat said:

CapeTown said:

My father in law has three sons. He is leaving the majority of his estate to two of them and just giving the third a gesture because he has been a pain in the proverbial. Personally, I think that the third son's money should bypass him and go to his daughter who was never supported by her dad anyway. She has made her way in life without him

But it is your Father's money/property to distribute as he wishes.

Nothing CapeTown said indicates s/he doesn't agree it's the father in law's decision - s/he is just clearly stating a personal opinion. One with which I agree - in those circs, bypass the wayward son and provide for his children instead.

Pollycat

gloriouslyhappy said:

Pollycat said:

CapeTown said:

My father in law has three sons. He is leaving the majority of his estate to two of them and just giving the third a gesture because he has been a pain in the proverbial. Personally, I think that the third son's money should bypass him and go to his daughter who was never supported by her dad anyway. She has made her way in life without him

But it is your Father's money/property to distribute as he wishes.

Nothing CapeTown said indicates s/he doesn't agree it's the father in law's decision - s/he is just clearly stating a personal opinion. One with which I agree - in those circs, bypass the wayward son and provide for his children instead.

Any inheritance doesn't happen until someone dies.
Any opinion regarding how someone else decides to leave their assets is nobody else's business except the person making the will.
It really doesn't matter how you or anyone else thinks what is fair.
It is the wish of the person making the will..
Nobody else's opinion matters.

Spendless

enthusiasticsaver said:

I would always do 50/50 between my two daughters with perhaps the same nominal amount to my grandchildren like £10k each. I never really imagined what I would do if one of them died but I think providing your grandson is looked after by his father I would up the nominal amounts to all three grandchildren and leave the remainder to my surviving daughter. What the nominal amount is depends on their age but all three would get the same. 

There was a comment earlier in this thread from someone who used to write wills and said don't do this (leave a nominal sum rather than a %  to others) that's because if for whatever reason the estate was to get eaten up eg in care home fees, then after  funeral expenses/debts etc the nominal amount stated comes first  so let's say you have 3 grandchildren leaving them £10k each at  the point you die is worth only £40k, you pay funeral costs etc then  the grandkids get £10K each  and your 2 daughter get a 50% split of what is left. 

Malthusian

Pollycat said:

gloriouslyhappy said:

Pollycat said:

CapeTown said:

My father in law has three sons. He is leaving the majority of his estate to two of them and just giving the third a gesture because he has been a pain in the proverbial. Personally, I think that the third son's money should bypass him and go to his daughter who was never supported by her dad anyway. She has made her way in life without him

But it is your Father's money/property to distribute as he wishes.

Nothing CapeTown said indicates s/he doesn't agree it's the father in law's decision - s/he is just clearly stating a personal opinion. One with which I agree - in those circs, bypass the wayward son and provide for his children instead.

Any inheritance doesn't happen until someone dies.
Any opinion regarding how someone else decides to leave their assets is nobody else's business except the person making the will.
It really doesn't matter how you or anyone else thinks what is fair.
It is the wish of the person making the will..
Nobody else's opinion matters.

If we're not allowed to have opinions about things we don't personally control, 99% of the media industry is out of a job. 
It is also worth noting that if CapeTown's spouse (presumably one of the three sons) feels the same way, and can persuade the other dutiful son, they can redistribute the father's money and property accordingly via a Deed of Variation. I.e. give what would have been the prodigal son's third, minus the "gesture", to his daughter.
If he can't persuade the other dutiful son, CapeTown's partner can still give his half of the prodigal son's third to the prodigal son's daughter. 
As the Will stands the two dutiful sons are due to inherit the money (minus the gesture) so they decide what happens to it, nobody else's opinion matters.

Pollycat

Malthusian said:

Pollycat said:

gloriouslyhappy said:

Pollycat said:

CapeTown said:

My father in law has three sons. He is leaving the majority of his estate to two of them and just giving the third a gesture because he has been a pain in the proverbial. Personally, I think that the third son's money should bypass him and go to his daughter who was never supported by her dad anyway. She has made her way in life without him

But it is your Father's money/property to distribute as he wishes.

Nothing CapeTown said indicates s/he doesn't agree it's the father in law's decision - s/he is just clearly stating a personal opinion. One with which I agree - in those circs, bypass the wayward son and provide for his children instead.

Any inheritance doesn't happen until someone dies.
Any opinion regarding how someone else decides to leave their assets is nobody else's business except the person making the will.
It really doesn't matter how you or anyone else thinks what is fair.
It is the wish of the person making the will..
Nobody else's opinion matters.

If we're not allowed to have opinions about things we don't personally control, 99% of the media industry is out of a job. 
It is also worth noting that if CapeTown's spouse (presumably one of the three sons) feels the same way, and can persuade the other dutiful son, they can redistribute the father's money and property accordingly via a Deed of Variation. I.e. give what would have been the prodigal son's third, minus the "gesture", to his daughter.
If he can't persuade the other dutiful son, CapeTown's partner can still give his half of the prodigal son's third to the prodigal son's daughter. 
As the Will stands the two dutiful sons are due to inherit the money (minus the gesture) so they decide what happens to it, nobody else's opinion matters.

I'm not talking about opinions on social media.
I'm talking about real life.

My point was that whoever writes the will decides where the assets go.
Not what any other relative personally thinks is the right way.

Of course beneficiaries can then distribute their share as they wish once they receive their inheritance without any agreement needed from any other beneficiary.
But that doesn't alter what the will says.

Or I'll put it this way:
I cannot understand why a potential beneficiary feels they have the right to say what they think should be in a will.

PrincessP_2

Don't change your will. 50% to each child regardless of relationship status or how many offspring is 'fairest'. I have no children (not for want of trying) and my sibling has had four. I'd have been very sad if our parents had left more to them. The two of us were happy with 50/50 inheritance, it would have been a surprise if our parents had decided anything else... it would probably have caused a rift. If I've anything to leave it will most likely go to my nephews and nieces anyway!

Badger_Lady

A similar situation in my family sadly caused a permanent rift :-(

My great-grandparents had three children, and each of those children had families of their own. Nanny and Pamps split their will equally, one-third to each child.

Sadly their eldest child died young, so they edited their will - £1000 to each grandchild, with the remainder split equally between their two surviving children.

The grandchildren of the deceased child felt very hard done by when they found out. Pamps died leaving almost his entire estate (a 2-bed terraced house) to Child 2 and Child 3, while the offspring of Child 1 got a token £1000 each. Their view was that, if their father had died later, they would have stood to inherit a full third of the estate. So why should they be effectively cut out, just because they had sadly lost their father early?
 
Child 3 also happens to be disabled and living on benefits, so immediately passed her share of the inheritence down to her sole child. This seemed incredibly unfair to the cousins who saw their peer become instantly much better off than them. Sadly, they then severed ties with everyone else in the family and we haven't seen them since - they didn't show up to my Mum's 60th birthday party and we now consider them estranged.

Djandylion

25% each to your daughter and 3 Grandsons. 

Littledaler

You have two daughters so you split the inheritance 50/50.  Then life happens {or death, in this case, sorry if that sounds harsh}.  It matters not how many children your daughters choose to have.  Your daughters pass on their inheritance to their own children in whatever proportion they decide.  Equal shares to your children is the only fair way.  Unless, of course, there are mitigating circumstances in which a grandchild needs protection.