If our sons predecease us leaving issue

Savvy_Sue

We're in the process of revising our wills, and while of course we can discuss this with our solicitor, I'd like to get this clear in my own mind.

It's fairly straightforward: first to die leaves it all to the survivor, survivor leaves it all to our offspring (3 boys) in equal shares. The executors are each other and the boys. Doesn't seem to be a hierarchy so I might ask for that to change.

The revised will says that if any of the boys predeceases us leaving issue, then that share goes to the issue, but they have to live until they're 18.

I don't remember our previous will saying this, and I'm not sure it's what I want. Any grandchild who's already lost a parent, to my mind, should get their rightful share of our estate when it might be most needed - via a responsible adult, like their mother or uncles. And doesn't it mean the estate can't then be completely wound up until the grandchild(ren) reach 18?

I'd happily leave the share to their mother directly, but are there simplish ways of leaving money to her for the benefit of our grandchildren? So if they need a bigger house, or music lessons, or ... Whatever.

lincroft1710

No offence to your daughters-in-law, but by leaving the money directly to them, there is no way of ensuring the money is spent for the benefit of the grandchildren

silvercar

It’s a difficult one, consider also that if a son dies with a child still at home, the household has lost an income. This could put the daughter-in-law and therefore grandchildren in financial difficulty. So whereas there are risks with leaving money to the DiL, there are costs to the lives of the grandchildren by setting the money aside until they are adults.

Rodders53

A discretionary Trust could probably work? So that the mother of child could access money to benefit child with Trustee approval (other sons, perhaps as Trustees?).

BUT professional advice from a STEP qualified Solicitor is likely to be essential and to weigh up the benefits and costs of doing such things.

May all be more trouble than it is worth if the Estate is small, then smaller still split 3-ways (and smaller yet again if more than one child per son at date of second death).

{Then what about that unborn child of a pregnant (favourite) wife of the favourite son who dies in the same car accident as you both… }

Minefields but those what-if scenarios are why a proper Will is needed.

p00hsticks

There's a difference between saying

a) that they can't inherit unless they live to 18 - which I think would involve the executors having to retain the inheritance potentially due and not distribute it until they reach that age (and redistributing it to the other beneficiaries if they don't survive that long)

and

b) that they inherit regardless of age but won't necessarily have full access to the money until they are 18. As I understand it any money inherited by minors needs to be put in a trust, and, although I'm no expert, I imagine the trustees could potentially agree to release some money for music lessons etc prior to that age if they agreed - it's something you'd need to check with a solicitor.

So you need to be clear as to which of the above options is being suggested, and which you want.

sheslookinhot

I welcomed my SiL to the family, much as I did with my DiL, as not losing a daughter but gaining a son when I gave the Father of the Bride wedding speech,

poseidon1

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984897#Comment_81984897

Given the complexity and professional costs of administering a discretionary trust, in my view not especially cost effective under £500k.

Trustees with no personal experience of investing or self assessing will find the whole world of trusts daunting, and will be dismayed by the 45% annual trust income tax, and 10 yearly anniversary IHT exposure.

The pool of competent professionals with appropriate experience to assist, has been shrinking and increasingly more expensive as a result.

On the other hand, if there are sufficient funds to justify such a trust, they are an ideal way to provide for unborn grandchildren, those who are profligate and potentially the vulnerable.

Also a method by which accumulated family capital is retained for the benefit of the bloodline and protected from divorces. However can be onerous responsiblilties for non professional trustees.

silvercar

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984927#Comment_81984927

what about the bereaved DiL who may have to donwsize homes or move out of the area because she can’t afford the mortgage on her own?

Keep_pedalling

Anything going to a minor has to be held in trust until they are 18. If they inherit but die before they are 18 it will pass by intestacy to any surviving parent if no surviving parent it will go to their siblings. If that is not what you want then you will need a survivorship clause.

Savvy_Sue

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984984#Comment_81984984

I think this is the closest to what I want, so think I'd be happy to lose the survivorship clause. The under-18 child can't access the money, but it is set aside for them so that the estate can be finalised.

Savvy_Sue

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984863#Comment_81984863

I'm well aware of that, but a) she's lovely and b) I'd be happy to see the money spent for the benefit of the family. If I thought she was likely to go out and spend the lot on designer clothes / manicures / other men then it would be a different matter.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81984868#Comment_81984868

Yes, that is my reasoning also.

BTW, there is only one d-i-l, married to the only son who is likely to produce issue. I know these things can't be guaranteed - if you'd been putting money on which of DH and his brother were likely to marry and have children, the smart money would NOT have been on DH, but here we are. The boys are now quite a bit older than we were when we married, and their opinions are clear …