Ungrateful nieces querying grandfather's will

notgran

Doodledog
"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)."
I'm sorry but this made me laugh. Being furious when you are 6 feet under, is a good trick if you manage it.

Oh, you haven't seen me when I'm furious?.

Doodledog

notgran

Doodledog
"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)."
I'm sorry but this made me laugh. Being furious when you are 6 feet under, is a good trick if you manage it.

Oh, you haven't seen me when I'm furious?.

Doodledog
I told DH that if he remarried and she persuaded him to disinherit our children I'd come back and haunt them!

Thanks Iam64 and Beswitched

Callistemon21

But if he was unable to recognise anyone that rings alarm bells.

With respect, the OP said he was unable to recognise his nieces in photographs. She doesn't specify if the photo's were of them when they were young or later when they had grown. If the latter, it would not be surprising if he didn't recognise them if they never visited him. That's not the same as being unable to recognise anyone.

We've been given selective information by the OP. There's obviously more to it, but I doubt she wants to give more detail, for obvious reasons.

Were his grandchildren present at his funeral or ash scattering?

I was a bit concerned that the OP says she ALLOWED him to change his will .Was there undue influence? Dis the original will just split everything 50/50 and she "let" him leave his sons share to her but then decided the GC should have 10% each ....

We've been given selective information by the OP

Yes, we have.
I always like to consider both sides (or all).
However, we will never find out the other side of the story.

We don’t know when the original will was made, which I understand left everything to Jannabel. It may have been many years ago and there may have been very good reasons for him doing this, there probably were. The fact that he changed it after his son died suggests there was a bad relationship between him and his son and if he had left money to the granddaughters in the original will perhaps he had reservations about who would benefit from it. I don’t think she is being unreasonable and we shouldn’t make conclusions from limited information about the circumstances because she obviously wants things kept private.

We don’t know when the original will was made, which I understand left everything to Jannabel

She hasn't said that as far as I know - she left us to assume that her brother would have inherited half but he died, then her father changed his will and left everything to her.
If that is what he wanted, fair enough, but if the original will was set u properly there would have been no need for new one.

The don't sound like a very close family and it's all academic now anyway.

because she obviously wants things kept private
But posted it on the internet.

Callistemon21

^because she obviously wants things kept private^
But posted it on the internet.

Exactly! And isn’t coming back to explain herself by all accounts.

As executor you are duty bound to carry out your father's wishes. He chose you to oversee the distribution of his affairs when the time came because in his mind you were the best person for the job. Money brings out the worst in people. Stick to your guns and follow his wishes.

Poppyred

Callistemon21

because she obviously wants things kept private
But posted it on the internet.

Exactly! And isn’t coming back to explain herself by all accounts.

TBH, I think these kinds of 'issues' (for want of a better word) being posted under AIBU where the poster cannot - or is reluctant to - give detailed information are always going to raise more questions rather than helpful replies.

We don't know what the brother's wishes were, we don't know why the OP's father changed his Will, or what was in the original, nor why the nieces expected more - on what basis... and we don't know why the rest of the estate was left to the OP. All we know is that the two nieces are not happy and have asked to see a copy of the Will.

The OP herself, judging by the tone of her post, appears to think the nieces are being unreasonable and is maybe hoping we will agree with her. But, not knowing the family dynamics nor any of the facts - how can we possibly say?

I think she'd be better served by seeking legal advice on the matter where she can discuss the matter privately in full and in confidence, and not solicit opinions from GN'ers who are simply going to respond to the limited information according to their own bias and experiences.

I have just realised this is the same family as another thread about gatecrashers at a funeral! Condemnation of the nieces is unanimous there.

Yes. His grandchildren and great grandchildren were allow to go to the ceremony but not his great niece because she hadn’t visited him in the nursing home, where he was living because he was nearly a hundred years old.

But the will is talking about his grandchildren OP nieces so not to muddle things up.

The fact that he changed it after his son died suggests there was a bad relationship between him and his son

Not necessarily. After my sister died my mother thought she had to change her will to just include my siblings and me. I explained to her that my sister’s children could inherit their mother’s portion, when the time came, and mum was happy with that so has left her will as it was.

Well spotted Cabbie. In the other thread she mentions only one niece who she says she has never met. If she’s never met her brother’s child, who according to the other thread has a married son, isn’t that a bit strange? Doesn’t it reinforce the feeling that we have been told anything but the full story?

Cabbie21

I have just realised this is the same family as another thread about gatecrashers at a funeral! Condemnation of the nieces is unanimous there.

How so? The OP name is different and the gatecrasher thread’s OP was talking about her cousin, not her two nieces.

Oh no, it is the same OP name. Well they certainly don’t have their problems to seek in this family, do they?

mokryna

Yes. His grandchildren and great grandchildren were allow to go to the ceremony but not his great niece because she hadn’t visited him in the nursing home, where he was living because he was nearly a hundred years old.

But people haven't been allowed to visit because of Covid.

The two nieces were nieces, not great-nieces.

Maggiemaybe

Oh no, it is the same OP name. Well they certainly don’t have their problems to seek in this family, do they?

In the other thread it was a niece of the OP's father, ie her cousin, cousin's DH who were going to the scattering of the ashes and a slap-up meal and the cousin wanted to invite her son and his wife too.

OP said to which I said that actually I would rather they didn't as they didn't know my father and it was just me and all the grandchildren and great-grandchildren

Relatives you've got whether you like them or not, friends they come and go.

Weddings and funerals - a lovely chance to get together or the cause of strife?
Take your pick.

Germanshepherdsmum

Well spotted Cabbie. In the other thread she mentions only one niece who she says she has never met. If she’s never met her brother’s child, who according to the other thread has a married son, isn’t that a bit strange? Doesn’t it reinforce the feeling that we have been told anything but the full story?

I'm not sure being told 'the whole story' would help, to be honest. Wherever there is a dispute each person has their own truth.

DaisyAnne

Germanshepherdsmum

Well spotted Cabbie. In the other thread she mentions only one niece who she says she has never met. If she’s never met her brother’s child, who according to the other thread has a married son, isn’t that a bit strange? Doesn’t it reinforce the feeling that we have been told anything but the full story?

I'm not sure being told 'the whole story' would help, to be honest. Wherever there is a dispute each person has their own truth.

No, it's her cousin whom she's never met, her father's niece but she invited her to the scattering of the ashes and the meal, which was nice. Then the cousin started to push the boundaries.

Her own nieces (her father's granddaughters) were invited.

I think

Germanshepherdsmum

Well spotted Cabbie. In the other thread she mentions only one niece who she says she has never met. If she’s never met her brother’s child, who according to the other thread has a married son, isn’t that a bit strange? Doesn’t it reinforce the feeling that we have been told anything but the full story?

It is the father niece she's talking about on that thread, so the OP's cousin.
The nieces in this thread are her nieces and her father's granddaughters., who seemed to be part of the group attending the scattering of ashes.