Ungrateful nieces querying grandfather's will

DiscoDancer1975

Callistemon21

As it is, the OP is receiving her brother's share as well as her own minus the 10% to her nieces and her children.
Ie her family receives 80%, her brother's children receive 20%.

It seems everyone but me and a couple of others think this is fair.

There may be other circumstances eg the OP may have had to give up work to care for her father who had dementia in which case fair enough.

I don’t think it’s fair, but unfortunately, with so many families at loggerheads by the time someone dies, it doesn’t surprise me.

If I were one of the nieces, I may well challenge it....but for now, being executor of the Will Jannabell, you have to carry out the deceased wishes.

All the best

It's neither "fair" or "unfair". The law is simply not that childish. You can leave your money as and how you want and do not need to justify it to anyone unless you were previously supporting them. If people live in hope of inheritance they deserve to be disapointed, as far as I can see.

Callistemon21

Oldwoman70

As I see it the OPs father made his Will after his son died. That Will invalidates any previous Will which would have left money to his son. Why should the nieces receive any more than their cousins (the OPs children)?

Does no-one get this?

They receive the share that would have gone to their father had he lived.
If the OP had died then her children would have received her share.

It's just so simple.

Not if the grandfather had changed his Will - the previous Will leaving money to his son would be invalidated. No-one is "entitled" to receive anything from a Will. If as the OP suggests her nieces never visited their grandfather they should consider themselves fortunate that he left them anything at all.

This sounds a bit iffy.
He changed his Will, a year after OP’s brother died. So the only one who had ‘influence ‘ over her father, is the OP. If we were talking of fairness, her father’s estate should be divided equally between her brother and herself. Since her brother is no more, his share should be divided equally between his children, regardless of whether they visited him or not. Perhaps they found visiting difficult, with an all powerful ‘aunt’ standing guard, so to speak.
My Will is going to be involved equally between my 3 children. The grandchildren will indirectly benefit. That’s my way of looking at it.

The father made a new will, and if it is true that the nieces never saw him, I can understand why he chose not to leave their father's share of the will to them.

Yes, the son would probably have been upset if he had known that would happen, but he doesn't know, because the new will was made after his death.

The OP's father could well have been justifiably upset by his nieces lack of interest in him
As long as he genuinely knew what he was doing when he made that will, I think it would be very disrespectful to try to overturn it.

Callistemon21

As it is, the OP is receiving her brother's share as well as her own minus the 10% to her nieces and her children.
Ie her family receives 80%, her brother's children receive 20%.

It seems everyone but me and a couple of others think this is fair.

There may be other circumstances eg the OP may have had to give up work to care for her father who had dementia in which case fair enough.

It's not a question of 'fairness', though. It's a question of the person making the will has a perfect right to leave their money/goods in any way that they want to.

I'm a bit that anyone should be thinking any differently.

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?

That's not what I said.

The fair way is this:
OP gets her share, the nieces get their father's share.
If OP want to make a variation she can do this and pass on her share to her own children. Or they get it when she dies.

Leaving money to grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc just makes a will unnecessarily complicated.

Our wills leave everything 50/50 to our sons if one predeceased us then it goes to the remaining son or down bloodline as one son has no children.

Relationships do work both ways and everyone involved has to make an effort.

I do agree that viewing it as 5 beneficiaries and splitting it 5 ways would be the fairest thing to do when they are all adults

“Where there’s a Will there’s a relative” as my late dear mum used to say.

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?

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'm wondering what the will was before the brother died? Maybe origionally 50:50 split between son and daughter with provision that if either predecease the father, as the son did, then that child's share to go to their children (nieces). If so, then why was the will changed ... but the OP states she 'suggested' how the father's will should be written. The OP has strong views on why the nieces shouldn't get the 50% share, or any share so how much influence did she have on her father's will.
Maybe members of a family may not be close in the last years of a person's life but that doesn't take away the good times or the love that continues for your offspring so we really should leave people to make their wills freely. The nieces may have grounds to contest.

M0nica
If he had dementia was he of sound mind when he changed his will?

I just couldn't do that to my nieces or nephews unless I knew my parent had been of sound mind, and the solicitor knew exactly what they were doing and why.

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.

Callistemon Fairness doesn't enter into it. It is the simple fact that the OP's father made his will, made his instructions clear and while the niece and nephew may have hoped for more, they have to accept that their grandfather chose not to leave them more than he did.

Everyone is free to make their own decisions about how they distribute their estate after death, and all of us will know of wills that shocked on being read, because everything gets left to charity or skips generations, or goes to the neighbour who cared for the deceased not the relation who never visited, but expected to inherit.

Or to put it more bluntly, I totally agree with Lathyrus

Callistemon21

As it is, the OP is receiving her brother's share as well as her own minus the 10% to her nieces and her children.
Ie her family receives 80%, her brother's children receive 20%.

It seems everyone but me and a couple of others think this is fair.

There may be other circumstances eg the OP may have had to give up work to care for her father who had dementia in which case fair enough.

I don’t think it’s fair, but unfortunately, with so many families at loggerheads by the time someone dies, it doesn’t surprise me.

If I were one of the nieces, I may well challenge it....but for now, being executor of the Will Jannabell, you have to carry out the deceased wishes.

All the best

The son who died a year before his Dad would probably be very upset to see this situation and how his daughters have lost out as he sadly died so young.. On the face of it, it seems unfair, and OP did have influence over her father. I can understand why they're upset.

We don't know the whole truth, OP does. Pointless to post here really.

I was left out of my Mothers will, I got nothing and my sister inherited the estate. I would be in a very good position financially if it was different. I chose not to contest the will, the solicitor said I had a good case. I just thought it made my Mothers life all about money.
The OP Father made the will, it is his decision, I tend to believe Jana as each Grandchild got 10% including her two sons, she did not give them more. Wills and money bring out the worse in people and I would not like to be in the position of executor in thos case. Also interested to note Janna was going to send a copy of the will with their payment. If the nieces didcontest it, they could lose what inheritance they have got.

we can't possibly give any valid opinion.

Well, you said quite a lot Dickens

Totally agree with you Latherus.

Just tell them that as executor, you are legally obliged to abide by the terms of his will.

Contesting a will in this case, would IMO be futile and certainly expensive.

I used to know someone whose family with IMO far more cause contested a will - their father with dementia had remarried and left the entire substantial estate to wife no. 2, who they were 100% convinced had instigated both the marriage and the entirely new will.
They still lost.

As it is, the OP is receiving her brother's share as well as her own minus the 10% to her nieces and her children.
Ie her family receives 80%, her brother's children receive 20%.

It seems everyone but me and a couple of others think this is fair.

There may be other circumstances eg the OP may have had to give up work to care for her father who had dementia in which case fair enough.

I’m going to leave my money (what’s left of it?) to whoever I like, however I like. It’s my money!

I certainly won’t be leaving anything when I’m dead, to relatives that can’t be bothered with me alive.

When my step grandfather died he left everything equally to his two stepdaughters, stepson (my father) and two nieces. Well, dad had died by then so my brother, sister and I inherited dad’s share. A niece had also died so her two school age children inherited her share. So, my sister, brother and I had less each than the niece’s children. Did we complain? No.

Oldwoman70

As I see it the OPs father made his Will after his son died. That Will invalidates any previous Will which would have left money to his son. Why should the nieces receive any more than their cousins (the OPs children)?

Does no-one get this?

They receive the share that would have gone to their father had he lived.
If the OP had died then her children would have received her share.

It's just so simple.