Ungrateful nieces querying grandfather's will

tickingbird

Normally your late brothers share of your father’s estate would go to his offspring; therefore 25% each. Why did your father change his will after your brother died?

I must admit it could look like you encouraged him to do so and maybe that’s what your nieces are thinking.

I agree. It could very well be that the OPs father was really set against leaving his son's share of his assets to his granddaughters, and was determined, without any due influence from the OP, to ensure they didn't get it. However, it could also be that he was encouraged by the OP to change his Will, as she didn't think her nieces deserved their father's share. There are two sides to every story.

MissAdventure

What's the point of having a will if people are going to ignore it and do what they think?

That's lovely Gagajo
I'm glad you are reunited too.

MissAdventure I do agree but "of sound mind" is of prime importance.

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.

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. I agree.

Why is it some expect to inherit absolutely equal shares, yet so often didn't expect to share any burden of care for the deceased absolutely equally?
For many, maybe most, the equal shares for the children, and in the event one had already died, their share went to any children they'd had would be appropriate.
I can't understand people who had no contact with the deceased for years thinking it's their right to material gain after the death. If sharing a bloodline was unimportant while the person was alive, then it's equally unimportant once they've died.

We're only hearing one side of the story.

Callistemon21 my last post was a general observation, not meant specifically for the OP. That's always the case though on here isn't it, we only get one side of the story. I suppose we tend to accept or reject in accordance with our own lived experiences.

nadateturbe

^we can't possibly give any valid opinion.^

Well, you said quite a lot Dickens

... yes, I did.

But I didn't give an opinion on whether or not the OP was being 'reasonable' or 'unreasonable'.

Because without more information, I've no idea. Which was my point.

Callistemon21

We're only hearing one side of the story.

I think that's the crux of the matter Callistemon21.

There's always 2 (or more) sides to a story.

Like others, I've had personal experience of Will 'problems' but it's not worth adding to all the other anecdotal evidence... so I'm bowing out - especially after reading your comment!

Witzend
My mother left certain sums to each of her grandchildren and great grandchildren, but by the time she died, after many years of dementia, there were 2 more great grandchildren who had not been named.

When we updated our wills recently, the solicitor suggested that we leave specific amounts to each of the grandchildren by name, before dividing the rest between our AC - she said how nice it was for grandchildren to find they were thought of and named in the will. I was very nearly persuaded, but it’s a good job we didn’t go along with this, as a year later we were introduced to the “extra” grandson we were told we’d never have. I suppose the solicitor would have been quids in though, with another amendment to sort out.

We also wondered what would happen if we’d spent up by the time we’d shuffled off this mortal coil, and there wasn’t enough left to fulfil the promises.

One way of leaving grandchildren something without causing too much hassle is to specify a percentage of the estate to be divided between all grandchildren. That should cover all eventualities.

I am so sorry you are having to deal with disgruntled nieces after loosing your father and your brother not so long ago, as well.

Your legal duty is to carry out the instructions in your father's will and only that. You know that, so try to do just that.

You do not say whether your father wrote his will himself and had it properly witnessed, or whether a solicitor drew it up. If the latter, then the solicitor was bound to mention it, if he or she felt that your father was no longer competant to write or amend his will.

Sadly, few families inherit together without this sort of trouble, so please distribute the legacies according to the terms of the will and the copies of the will and try not to let these youngsters upset you, more than they already have.

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.

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’s ‘fair’ as one might assume they will eventually inherit from the OP too. This has been taken away from the nieces.

As others have said we only know one side of the story but I think it’s a great shame the deceased brother’s side of the family is being treated in this way. I wonder how the OP felt about her brother? Just seems a bit grubby to me.

I do not see why we need to know any side of the story. There is a will, which we understand is clear and legal and some of the beneficiaries are upset that more did not come their way, and to an extent, in this case I can understand how they feel.

But at the end of the day the deceased was free to leave the whole lot to a cats home had he chosen. The will he left has been properly drawn up and the executor has administered it correctly.

Those that lost out may be unhappy about it, but there is nothing they can do about it. They should just have a moan between themselves and then get on with their lives.

Sorry I don’t think you can or should assume that the other grandchildren will inherit eventually Enid.

All sorts of things might happen including the money needing to be spent on her own care needs. In any case, the inheritance could be years away.

Just think.

100,000

All grandchildren get £10,000

60,000 left over

daughter gets 30,000

Two grandchildren get an additional 15,000 each
Result they get 25,000

The other grandchildren get £10,000

How is that fair?

The moral I think is to spend your own money on enjoying and looking after yourself?

I know you will all say it’s ‘my’ money and I can do what I want with it but in France you cannot cut the blood line unless something dreadful has happened.
The question remains what on earth happened for the Father to cut out his son’s daughters.
Some grandchildren need a nudge to visit family members and maybe after their father’s death they found themselves in a difficult situation.

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?

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?

The will and admin have all been done correctly.

We're only hearing one side of the story.
So there is no point in us giving our opinion, in fact.

I ask again, where does fairness come into it?
We can only go by what we would do ourselves.

My mother left everything to be split equally between all her offspring even though her care in the last few years fell mainly on my shoulders and some of my siblings had no involvement whatsoever. However it was what she wanted and I wouldn’t have had it any other way.
This case does seem very unfair to me and I agree with Callistemon21, though the whole thing hangs on whether the father was unduly influenced and was of sound mind.

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.

*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.

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.

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.

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.

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.