Ungrateful nieces querying grandfather's will

When we had our wills drawn up we decided to split everything between our children, and leave them to pass on anything they have left at the end of their own lives to their own families as they see fit. Obviously they can choose to gift as much or as little as they like to their own children at any time.

We could see pros and cons with doing this and with specifying provision for grandchildren, so it was a tricky decision. If (heaven forfend) we are predeceased by one of our children we may revisit the wills, but as things stand we think the way we’ve done is better.

Whatever we’d decided I would be furious to think that any of them were arguing over the ‘fairness’ or otherwise of how we have split our money (if we have any left when the time comes).

LOUISA1523. I’ve reported your post. I’m not a serial reporter but I’ll be surprised if you haven’t breached guidance.
Disagree with others as strongly as you want but unwarranted personal attacks like yours are as unnecessary as they are offensive.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

I would if I was you luckygirl

You really can't always depend on people to do the right thing.

I've seen the most unlikely families fall out over wills.

I am hopeful that if one of my AC were to die, the remaining would make sure that this AC's children got her share on my death. But maybe I should examine my will to make quite sure this happens.

After my mother died my grandmother changed her will. We discovered, after getting a copy of the will following grandmother’s death, that she had left £50 to each of the grandchildren, offspring of her four children. The will stated that the remainder of her estate was to be divided equally between her three children, (named) , and should they pre decease her, that share should go to their offspring. It did not mention my mother or that her ‘share’ should pass to her children, of which there were four. Nothing we could do, but it did cause hurt. Were we loved less? Certainly there was no back story around the relationship between my mother and grandmother and I really don’t think there was any malice intended. We will never know grandmother’s reasoning.

mokryna

Dickens I am not criticizing you but these were his granddaughters who had lost their father, his son, not nieces nor cousins.

They were the OPs nieces.

Under English law, you are not obliged to leave an estate in any particular way or to any particular person. He was happy to leave the amount he decided to his son. Once his son had died he appears to have wanted to leave very little to his granddaughters. He was entitled to make that decision.

We know, actually know, nothing more.

It sounds like some very avaricious people in the world - although I suppose that's a given.

Do you not understand the irony of your post?
?

I would want my nieces to have my brother's share of the inheritance and would feel guilty keeping 60% of it for myself plus 20% for my children.

But I can see that most on this thread would not feel the same.

Dickens I am not criticizing you but these were his granddaughters who had lost their father, his son, not nieces nor cousins.

I hope the ungrateful nieces arent on here either.

I think we may have been reeled in.

Not surprised really.

People have pretty much said she’s acted criminally.

I’m sure her father would be distraught at the way his intention to reward his daughter for her care has been perceived.

I do wish people would stop using the dementia card
Why?
It's a valid point.
Coercion happens with elderly people who may seem lucid but do not quite understand the implications of what they are doing.
The brother can't speak up for his daughters.

Well, the OP (a new poster) hasn't been back.

Callistemon21

SueDonim

Will your brother’s daughters not also inherit what would have been his share of the inheritance? That’s assuming it had previously been divided equally between you and your brother, of course.

My sister died three years ago so her children will inherit the 25% of my mother’s estate that she’d have received had she lived.

I don’t think anything can be done, though, apart from abiding by your dad’s will.

I really wish I had left things alone and not allowed him to change his will, as I would have inherited everything then, but I genuinely thought I was doing the right thing

I agree with what ^SueDonim said - surely your broy0ther's part of the inheritance should be going to his children.

To think you should receive it all because your brother died is quite shocking unless your father would have disinherited him for some reason.
Even so, he may still have wanted your brother's share to go to his children.

I'd be asking to see the will, too, if I were them.
And querying if coercion had been involved.

YABVU.

Why do you think the OP is being unreasonable. At the end of the day, this his her fathers’ will, not her own, and reflects what he wanted, not the OP. She was clearly uncomfortable at inheriting everything herself and managed to influence him into being more generous to her own and her brothers’ children. At the end of the day the will reflects what her father wanted, not her, so what’s she supposed to do, not honour her father’s will ? Just to satisfy what sound like greedy relatives who, as she stated in her OP, couldn’t even be bothered to visit him ?

DaisyAnne

Callistemon21

The only concern is that after his son died, the father changed his will at a time when he wasn't recognising people which indicates he had dementia, was not of sound mind and therefore may not have had testementary capacity.

I do wish people would stop using the dementia card. Even if he had it and couldn't recognise, from a photograph, people he hadn't seen for some time, it would not necessarily mean he didn't have the competence to make his wishes clear when making a will.

And it may not have been dementia. I saw a photo recently of someone who meant a lot to me years ago and didn't recognise them. People change. If you don't see them, they may change beyond recognition.

... Quite!

I have numerous cousins I haven't seen for 50 odd years. I certainly would not recognise them in most photo's taken after the last time I saw them. We are not in touch - I remember their names, but that's it.

And I don't suffer from any kind of memory loss.

Sorry I got your name wrong?

lathyrus I agree with your moral!

Maybe you should tell your nieces that their grandfather did not wish to leave their fathers share to them and tell them why, if you know?

M0nica

So much of this thread is based on concepts of 'fairness'

Where is it stated anywhere in our legislation that wills should be 'fair' and who should decide what is fair and what is not?

The will and admin have all been done correctly.

I ask again, where does fairness come into it?

Exactly M0nica.

Callistemon21

The only concern is that after his son died, the father changed his will at a time when he wasn't recognising people which indicates he had dementia, was not of sound mind and therefore may not have had testementary capacity.

I do wish people would stop using the dementia card. Even if he had it and couldn't recognise, from a photograph, people he hadn't seen for some time, it would not necessarily mean he didn't have the competence to make his wishes clear when making a will.

And it may not have been dementia. I saw a photo recently of someone who meant a lot to me years ago and didn't recognise them. People change. If you don't see them, they may change beyond recognition.

DaisyAnne

Lathyrus

Lathyrus

Hang on. If she gave each grandchild 10% and then split the remainder 50/50 then the nieces would get loads more (can’t do the percentage maths but loads) than the other grandchildren. How is that fair?

I suppose to be strictly fair you should say there are five beneficiaries and split it five ways.

But clearly the OP has been impart of her fathers life and the brothers family haven’t bothered. Fair is as fair does?

I was talking about Enid101s post.

10% each and then split the rest.

I can see why people think it should be 50/50 but truly I don’t see why people who cared nothing about him should get anything.

It really doesn't matter if they visited him every day and loved him dearly. It was not their money it was his - to do as he wanted.

Of course the neices can be as cross as they want to but that changes nothing.

I absolutely agree.

I think I haven’t made it clear that I was referring to what Edith said, not my own thoughts.

Enid101

Of course the OP needs to share her father’s estate according to his will but it does seem grossly unfair that she and her family will inherit 80% and her brother’s family 20%. I can understand why the nieces are querying s.
The OP is kidding herself if she feels she is being magnanimous. If she really felt like that, she could give all grandchildren 10% each then split the remainder between her and her brothers children.

Why on earth should she? If someone wants togive a gift that is their choice. It still doesn't make it from the father/grandfather. I can see no reason why she should gift money left to her, intended for her in a way you happen to think she should. What happens when the next person coming along says "oh no, I know best, she should do it my way" and the next and the next.

Why should the neices expect a gift from the Aunt? There is a very nasty taste to this thread and It sounds like some very avaricious people in the world - although I suppose that's a given.

The only concern is that after his son died, the father changed his will at a time when he wasn't recognising people which indicates he had dementia, was not of sound mind and therefore may not have had testementary capacity.

Lathyrus

Lathyrus

Hang on. If she gave each grandchild 10% and then split the remainder 50/50 then the nieces would get loads more (can’t do the percentage maths but loads) than the other grandchildren. How is that fair?

I suppose to be strictly fair you should say there are five beneficiaries and split it five ways.

But clearly the OP has been impart of her fathers life and the brothers family haven’t bothered. Fair is as fair does?

I was talking about Enid101s post.

10% each and then split the rest.

I can see why people think it should be 50/50 but truly I don’t see why people who cared nothing about him should get anything.

It really doesn't matter if they visited him every day and loved him dearly. It was not their money it was his - to do as he wanted.

Of course the neices can be as cross as they want to but that changes nothing.

*Callistemon. This is my point, there are no sides to consider. If the will was legally drawn up and properly administered, it will hold. If the beneficiaries have any doubts on the matter they, in their turn, should seek legal advice, but either way, whether the will was 'fair' or not, is irrelevant.

How you choose to distribute your wealth after you die is entirely up to you and if you choose to leave it all to the prodigal son and disinherit the loyal stay at home son, you are entirely free todo so.

Anyone read Middlemarch, by George Elliot? The numerous wills of Mr F.eatherstone and the way he lead his nephew to think he would be the heir and then when it came to it left everything to an illegitimate son, nobody knew he had.

Kamiso

Janna didn’t say if the prior will named her late brother as an equal beneficiary or that her father didn’t recognise other people in the photos. Too little to base all the judgements on but perhaps much more information would make her recognisable.

Interesting how people judge on their own circumstances but surely the father is free to leave his money to whoever he chooses.

The signing of the will has to be witnessed so, presumably, the only beef the granddaughters could have would be if there were inconsistencies with this.

Kamiso - you got there ahead of me. We don’t know what the earlier will stipulated, the later will would have had to be witnessed and if it was signed after the father was proven to be of unsound mind then contesting it is much easier.
In the event that DH isn’t around, the executor of my will is a friend, not family. Her daughters will be left all my jewellery in recognition of their mothers efforts in carrying out my wishes. My will also states that she MUST claim for her time and expenses. My son will inherit everything unless he predeceases me, in which case the not inconsiderable amount, will go to charity. Not to nieces and nephews who I don’t see from one year to the next.
I am still on good terms with my brothers but rarely see them, it’s my friend who has been there for me for nearly 30 years, so I would be horrified if my wishes were not complied with.