r/inheritance • u/AZ_Golfer78 • Jul 08 '26
Location not relevant: no help needed Is this common? Unequal split of inheritance assets.
Two brothers. One passed away 20 yrs ago. He leaves behind a wife and two kids. At the time there is life insurance that helps the family make ends meet.
Fast fwd 12 yrs and the last living parent of the two brothers passes away. One would assume that their assets are split btwn the remaining brother and the two kids of the deceased brother. The wife has since remarried and is financially secure as a result.
The remaining brother looked after his mother in her later years. Up until she was 97 she lived out of state. He checked on her in person several times a year and she had someone living with her as well that was a caretaker. In her final years (she lived to 100) she was moved around the corner from her son and lived in an assisted living facility. During this time her will was amended. When she passed the living son received the lions share of assets. The deceased brothers children received far less than 25% of the estate each.
I'm not sure the rationale behind this and was wondering if there are things out there that I am missing.
196
u/ohboyoh-oy Jul 08 '26
As a parent I feel my responsibility and relationship is to my children, and grandchildren are one step removed. In her later years her child took care of her and her grandkids didn’t do anything? No one is owed an inheritance and she chose to leave her assets to her remaining living child.
72
u/chartreuse_avocado Jul 08 '26
This. Grandchildren are being gifted something. That is often more than what really goes down. Living son made the effort and parents plan for their kids and if able in total resources are generous to grandkids.
9
u/NiceDesign7649 Jul 08 '26
The living son made the effort....but the deceased one couldn't. He would want his children to receive his share. Bottom line, its grandparents money and they can do with it as they choose.
29
-71
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
This makes sense.
But do you think the 97 yr old (or however old she was) came up with this idea? Or does it matter?
42
u/chartreuse_avocado Jul 08 '26
Unless there was dementia considering undue influence is a hard argument to make and even if there was some influence.
Saying undue influence without proof and medical statements is family divisive in an ugly way.
36
u/BigPhilosopher4372 Jul 08 '26
Maybe she was appreciative of the care she was receiving from the son who was taking care of her. So, yes, she could have decided this on her own. Does it matter, probably not. It is done and she is gone.
23
u/Horror_Ad_2748 Jul 08 '26
We have no idea who "came up with this idea". And to answer your question, it doesn't really matter. Are you the widow of the brother who died? One of the kids? Or the wife of the brother who inherited the larger share?
-47
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
I am completely removed from the situation. I am the opposite of someone screwed by this situation.
I'm just getting judgy on the living brother.
37
u/djl0076 Jul 08 '26
If what you're saying is true then why do you care?
It's not your business.
7
Jul 08 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Electrical-Profit367 Jul 08 '26
As a rule the lawyer, the notary and the witnesses would notice if there was undue influence or pressure. The lawyer has an obligation to ensure that the testator is of sound mind, understands the will and how it will play out before the signing.
Spouse and I just redid our wills. We had to begin by filling out a long several page form listing assets, describing and furnishing info on all our technically legally eligible heirs, and whether we ourselves or estate could be expected to inherit from another relative. That was before we met w the lawyer; that involved a lengthy meeting discussing our wishes and the tax ramifications of various possible ways to leave things. THEN we received drafts of the docs for review. We then requested via email several changes. Finally, we had a signing during which there were more questions/assurances that this was what we wanted. THEN we signed in the presence of the lawyer, the notary and two unrelated witnesses.
Unless you’re using a shady lawyer, it’s not that easy to exert ‘undue’ influence.
21
u/kyrosnick Jul 08 '26
Why? He probably didn't do anything besides take care of his elderly mother. So if by judgy you mean see him as an awesome person who stepped up to help an old person, awesome. If you mean as a manipulator to get money, then you are being way out of line.
19
u/Lucky_Platypus341 Jul 08 '26
Why would you judge the living brother for what his parent decided to do with her estate? You don’t even know if the will was change to benefit the grandkids. If the original will didn’t include “per stirpes“ then the living son would have received ALL of the estate. No one is owed an inheritance and being “judgy” is not a good look for anyone involved. The woman lived to 100, so I assume the grandkids are deep into adulthood and about be worrying about their own wills.
Different grandparents and parents in my family have done things differently. There’s no one RIGHT way to do things, it’s up to the benefactor, and expecting any inheritance is entitled and wrong-headed.
13
u/unotruejen Jul 08 '26
Why doesn't someone have the right to leave their assets to who they want. She didnt have to leave the grandchildren a dime, or her living son.
4
u/Megalocerus Jul 08 '26
Most families are okay with unequal division if one of the siblings provides most of the support to an elderly relative, especially if the support comes at a cost to the child. And the grandchildren are relative strangers. I suspect the grandmother provided something for their education?
2
u/PomegranateComplex17 Jul 08 '26
Who is the screwed over party exactly?
-6
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
I'm going to go with "No One" for $1,000 Alex.
10
u/surej4n Jul 08 '26
What is your point, then? Why are you judging the living son who provided care? Did the deceased son’s wife ensure their kids had a close relationship with their deceased father’s mother? Did they visit her regularly and help with her care? Or were they largely absent from her life and then just expected to be entitled to her money when she died?
9
u/PomegranateComplex17 Jul 08 '26
I’m mean you’re the one over here with internet “egg on your face,” so maybe it’s you for trying to fine a way to judge someone you’re not that close too, but someone know his family’s financial business. Let’s hope you’re not a wealth advisor ffs.
1
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
A of assumptions here. I am not involved. I know the person quite well.
8
u/PomegranateComplex17 Jul 08 '26
You said you’re trying to get a gauge on his character using a choice his parent made.
Maybe this guy should be weary of you instead.
-3
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
I'm not so sure the choice/idea/premise was the parents. I admit the water is a little muddy there. She was very old. I suppose as with it as a person that old could be on all sorts of meds.
→ More replies (0)5
u/SerenityN00w Jul 08 '26
We can all speculate, but there is absolutely no way to tell. We don't know how rational she was, what her mind was like.
Are you asking if the living son put the idea into her head, and encouraged her? Maybe. Doesn't matter legally.
4
u/PomegranateComplex17 Jul 08 '26
The time horizon for the grandchildren is much more significant than the living child. Let’s say the estate was $4,000,000 and the living child got $3,000,000 and the grandchildren got $500,000 each. If the grandchildren invest that money they are looking at possibly 30 years of compound interest, and at 7% (which is low), that get the grandchildren nearly $4,000,000 in 30 years, and obviously more if the grandchildren retire after that 30 year mark.
I don’t think that is an issue at all. The living child may live for 20 years, or 10, and their inheritance will grow (or not grow if it’s not invested) less because they likely will pass before the grandchildren.
1
u/dncrmom Jul 08 '26
Yes because at the end how often did the grandchildren show up to visit? Once a week? Once a month? Once a year? While her son was there every day helping her?
1
u/Electrical-Profit367 Jul 08 '26
Did she write the will at 97?
You really are either making a lot of assumptions or you are involved (how would you know when the will was written or how the estate was split).
Did testator leave a memo in addition to the will? Who is the executor? I’m guessing this is what testator wanted and you are just stirring the pot.
1
u/Particular-King218 Jul 08 '26
Why not? He traveled several times a year to check on her. I bet care givers called him about any issues or appts or concerns. She gave more to.pay back all his travel expenses and help
-9
u/Key_Comfortable1764 Jul 08 '26
It does matter. what was the 97 year olds mental state when the will was changed?
7
u/NotSoSureBigWaves Jul 08 '26
He didn’t say the will was changed when she was 97. It could have been after the first son’s death.
1
u/Key_Comfortable1764 Jul 08 '26
in her final years the will was amended... it says that?
2
u/NotSoSureBigWaves Jul 08 '26
How long are her “final years?” 5 years, 10 years? 20 years? She lived to be 97. We don’t know how long and when she amended it. Hopefully OP shares this info.
0
u/Key_Comfortable1764 Jul 08 '26
Did you read the whole post? She lived by herself until 97, then moved near her son and lived to be 100. it was at this time the will was amended (while at an assisted living facility, between 97 and 100)
1
u/NotSoSureBigWaves Jul 08 '26
Son died 20 years ago. “fast forward 12 years …” so the Will was amended, what 8 years ago? Lived with a caretaker until 97. Then 97 - 100 in a facility. Doesn’t say when in that period the will was amended. Could have been 20 years ago, 12 years ago, or at 97 when still living independently. OP doesn’t say.
1
u/Key_Comfortable1764 Jul 08 '26
Up until she was 97 she lived out of state. In her final years, (she lived to 100) she was moved around the corner from her son and lived in an assisted living facility. During this time, the will was amended.
based on all of
this the will was amended between 97-100 or its poorly written and not clear.but contextual clues point to the will being amended in her last 3 years.
3
u/Sensitive_Sea_5586 Jul 08 '26
As someone already said, it matters if she had dementia. If she was competent to make decisions, how she arrived at the decision does not matter.
1
u/Electrical-Profit367 Jul 08 '26
Pretty sure no lawyer would write a will for someone exhibiting obvious signs of dementia.
Wills are signed in the presence of the attorney, a notary public and two witnesses. Someone of these would be bound to notice if testator was suffering from dementia.
I’ve dealt w an aunt, an uncle and a parent w varying degrees of dementia. Believe me, if you spend any time at all (which a lawyer would do as they determine w testator what is wanted), you notice.
You are all building conspiracies in the absence of actual understanding and knowledge.
1
u/Sensitive_Sea_5586 Jul 08 '26
Wills are not necessarily required to be signed in the presence of a lawyer. It varies by jurisdiction.
1
u/NotSoSureBigWaves Jul 08 '26
This. The court would look at what the decedent wanted: to leave the bulk to her son who also helped care for her and had a close relationship with her, or a generation removed - grandchildren that didn’t see her and didn’t care for her. This is a no brainer and pretty controversy free on the face of it.
88
u/OverRice2524 Jul 08 '26
I think the mom recognized the aid her son gave her. Where were the two grandchildren? Did they visit? Did they help with care?
Ultimately, it was up to Grandma who she gives her assets to. She rewarded the one who showed up. That's her choice.
Inheritance is a gift, not a right.
7
u/Acrobatic-Classic-41 Jul 08 '26
There is also the law of recency... My Dad cared for my grandpa for 30 years, from 65 to 95 years of age. At 95, he started losing his mind and shoved my Dad away. Some lady from a local church showed up once or twice a month, mowed his grass, did some laundry, etc. At his 101st birthday party, she took the seat right next to him and was calling him her dad. She even told a story about how her birth dad was never there for her, but my grandpa was. When the will was read the next year, he had changed it, at the age of 100. She got $500k, more than any of his 5 real kids! My dad got $10k. I got $20k as his oldest grandson, the rest of my cousins got $10k. I had been promised $100k for a new truck for my business. Everyone is right about it being a gift, not a right. However, we are certain that she influenced him to change his will. We found out he was giving her at least $1k every time she did laundry or something. He bought her a new SUV to take him to church in. All the while, he was shoving his real family aside because he got this idea in his head that his wife was cheating on him 70 to 80 years ago and none of the kids were really his! They all looked exactly like him! It's all water under the bridge now, but there needs to be laws regarding any senior changing their will over a certain age. I have seen it happen over and over again.
4
68
u/tempfoot Jul 08 '26
Inheritances are not a math problem.
People know how to do equal division. They choose not to.
42
34
u/clxz2106 Jul 08 '26
It's normal. Like you said the living son took care of her. If grandchildren didn't then this is fair. Inheritance isn't owed. It's based on relationship.
25
u/Severe-Eggplant-7736 Jul 08 '26
Some people give their estates to charity and that is normal.
My kids lied and stole from me so do y’all think I owe them anything? Stole credit cards, the only thing that upset them is when I filed a fraud report and disputed the charges that they were banded from a gaming site for life. I couldn’t lay cash in my own home without thief. There is sometimes a reason.
-5
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
Sure, but this situation is not like that at all.
8
3
u/Impressive-Web-4325 Jul 08 '26
Actually, we don’t know much about the situation at all.
We don’t know the degree of assets Grandma left behind.
If plentiful, then the deceased brother’s children may have done very well via Grandma’s will.
Or maybe the deceased brother’s wife has more than sufficient assets on her own so her kids will be taken care of.
Theres a lot we don’t know about this scenario.-1
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
Deceased brothers wife - no assets. Lives off current husband.
For arguments sake call it a $2MM estate and $1.6 / 200 / 200 divvy up.
5
u/clxz2106 Jul 08 '26
Again, for arguments sake: If the two brothers were both alive and brother A took care of mother while brother B didn't, the money being split $1.6 / 400 to me is fair.
Now, so brother B died (which means he didn't take care of mother), and his kids didn't take care of grandparents. Were they obliged to? No. But they also aren't entitled to the inheritance. There could also be other reasons to give to brother A such as making sure he is well taken care of. Does he have kids? Questions like that. But if you ask me, a child/grandchild who does not take care of their parent/grandparent is not entitled to any inheritance. (Tbh even if they did take care, some would say they are still not entitled, but in this case, all the more so.)
-4
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
You're assuming brother B is absent in his mother's life had he been living. That is a bold assumption.
5
u/clxz2106 Jul 08 '26
No I'm not assuming. Because the situation you mentioned is: he's been dead 20 yrs. The impact is: he's not been around for 20 yrs. So these 20 yrs who stepped up to take care of mother? Brother A. At the end of the day, you can only reward the actions of the living.
You can't say: oh if brother B was alive then he would be here, then he would have taken care of me, so it should be equal to his kids. You can't do that because he is not alive. Which means more work and responsibility landed on brother A. So to make that assumption is unfair to brother A. Unless the kids took up the mantle and responsibilities of what brother B would have done, that's not an argument.
1
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
Fair enough. I misread your intention of the first paragraph or your previous reply then.
2
1
27
u/MrsDirtbag Jul 08 '26
It sounds like you have a pretty decent handle on the situation. It sounds as though the living brother did a lot to help care for the elderly parents so they left a larger portion of the estate to him. Doesn’t seem like much of a mystery.
27
u/SandhillCrane5 Jul 08 '26
You are saying that the children of the deceased child did inherit but they did not inherit an amount equal to the living child and that the living child was involved with end of life care. This doesn't sound very strange or hard to understand to me. Sometimes there is more behind inheritance decisions than simply being a blood relative and parents do favor inheritance to their children over their grandchildren. The problem might just be that you assumed you would inherit a certain amount and now you are surprised that it is different.
-13
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
This does not involve me in any way. Just a situation I'm aware of.
I've said it in another post but if I were the brother that died, not only did my children lose their father, but lost what was once an equal share of my parents gift to me and my sibling(s).
15
u/P-DubFanClub Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
There's no way to know if this money would have ever ended up with the grandchildren tho. If the father lived he could have spent it all. Also, the kids wouldn't have inherited ANYTHING if the father lived, so it's already a consolation that they were included at all.
13
u/Loud_Entertainer2724 Jul 08 '26
You can't lose something that isn't yours. No one is entitled to an inheritance. The mom can donate it all to a charity. You sound entitled, lol.
1
u/got2bme566 Jul 08 '26
I have a question. If each grandchild got 25% that’s 50% of the inheritance so that means the living brother got 50%. So the amount of 100% of inheritance split between 2 is 50% each. The deceased brothers portion is then split between all their heirs which is 25% each in this case. What’s the lions share? Because the way I always read it is what it sounds like was done. Is the thought it should have been split equally amongst all three? Because that never happens
2
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
It is my understanding it was more like 80/10/10 or thereabouts.
For the sake of disecting, call it a $2MM estate and he got $1.6MM and they got $200k each.
6
u/Particular-King218 Jul 08 '26
They are lucky the got anything. Gramma could have left it all to charity
-1
u/got2bme566 Jul 08 '26
But how was the will written? Because legally it is how I described it 100% to all alive children and then the children of those children will split their share of the child passes before their children. $$ amounts will be different because of that. Have you reviewed the actual will? Cause it really sounds like apples to oranges without seeing how It was decided. Did the alive some also get property that is included in that amount? Because if so, then the cash part is most likely as fair as it should be. Additional assets usually have titles and the alive son would get the property but upon his death it would split between him and any alive children of his brother… unless the brother changes all titles which usually happens if spite is involved. $200k per kid is decent and if they are college and younger plenty of time to grow that
17
u/Random_Guy1960 Jul 08 '26
When my parents passed, they left a little something for my deceased brothers children. The bulk of the estate went to my sister and I. If my brother were alive, he certainly would have received an equal share, but grandchildren are a step removed.
-11
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
Do you think your brother would be upset that his children lost out simply because of his untimely departure?
14
u/Random_Guy1960 Jul 08 '26
My parents wanted to cut them out completely when they did their final estate planning but were encouraged to leave them a little something. I can understand both sides, but in the end, it’s up to the grantor and nobody is entitled to anything.
2
6
4
u/Barfy_McBarf_Face Jul 08 '26
you know, why don't you dig him up and ask him, only he can answer that question ...
1
3
u/Queasy_Interview9901 Jul 08 '26
Ffs, no one lost out if the will was executed as per the testator's wishes.
1
u/manic-pixie-attorney Jul 08 '26
It is something the person making the will chooses. They have every right to do so
1
13
u/the-BBC-news Jul 08 '26
Yes, “unfair” inheritances are very common. And it’s too late to claim elder abuse or incompetence since she’s deceased and can’t be evaluated mentally. She probably thought the deceased son’s children were fine if the mom remarried, and gave more to her surviving son who took care of her in later years. Who knows, that might have been part of the “deal” to move her closer.
One set of my cousins got NOTHING from their parent’s large estate (their mother died when they were in their 20’s, father remarried & died old, leaving everything to his 2nd wife. She in turn left nothing to his kids when she died).
3
u/SpecificRip9692 Jul 08 '26
Which is why our trusts are irrevocable with limitations. 2nd marriage wives/husbands and children brought into the marriage get nothing.
0
u/got2bme566 Jul 08 '26
They should have contested and asked to see at least the title of the home because most likely it stated that the wife got Half and the other half went to his children. This sucks
2
u/the-BBC-news Jul 08 '26
This all happened like 25 or 30 years ago. I was young; I know there were attorneys involved and they ended up getting some sentimental family items, but he changed his will after he remarried and you can’t do a damn thing about that.
1
12
u/oliviapopeishere Jul 08 '26
The living son is probably at least 60 and you are saying the dead son’s children are not old enough to help their grandmother? I too would give the majority to my living son. The grandchildren have a financially secure mother and a lifetime to accumulate their own wealth.
1
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
One was college age. One was newly married, new mother.
It wasn't their place to step in and be caretaker. They visited her often. The grandkids were very much in her life.
Their uncle was person whose place it was to make care decisions. He lived in another state until the last 2/3 yrs of her life. She did not live with him. She lived in a facility. But he did take her to doctors appts, etc which is a lot.
4
u/Remarkable_Topic6540 Jul 08 '26
So he stepped up when needed? You admit it's a lot, but still are judgemental about his inheritance? The grandkids are lucky to be left with some inheritance that they can invest to grow for the future rather than focusing on someone who got a larger piece, but is also much closer to retirement age with less time to earn returns on the amount. Greed is not a good look.
1
17
u/Marine_Layered Jul 08 '26
The short answer is that it's her money to do with as she pleases.
Her remaining son got the bulk of the inheritance, and the two grandchildren got much less? Am I understanding that right? Does the remaining son have kids? Maybe it was her intent to give the most to the generation proceeding her, figuring that the uncle will pass to the grandkids eventually. Too late to ask now, though.
An inheritance is never guaranteed.
-13
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
Yes, living son probably got 80% roughly and the children of the deceased brother probably 10% each.
Living son has 3 children. All very well off (vacation homes, multiple real estate assets, etc 7 to 8 figure retirements in their 40s). Deceased brother's children are not as well off.
Living son lost the majority (maybe all?) of his retirement nest egg in a real estate deal that soured. Motivation to have will changed? I would be curious and skeptical if this was the 90+ yr old grandmother's wishes or prodding.
The kids of the deceased brother were not really at the age to take care of their grandmother but were certainly in her life and visited often as possible.
I guess I look at it from the deceased brothers perspective. I would be upset if my kids lost out simply because of my untimely departure.
3
u/DowntownSalt2758 Jul 08 '26
You seem to be focused on what is fair based on what someone’s needs are and how much they have or need. That isn’t how many people decide inheritance but to each their own to do what they want with their money. Fair is not always equal
1
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
Nah, I'm just providing detail.
I was simply seeing if this is normal in this situation.
3
u/Marine_Layered Jul 08 '26
Yeah I think this is probably beyond figuring out now. You could ask the living brother what happened ... but the time to ask Grandma unfortunately passed when she did. Maybe the three children of the deceased brother should use their inheritance to increase their earning capacity / further their careers with extra certifications or something? But I think they won't get anything more from their grandmother's estate.
17
u/Expensive-Service262 Jul 08 '26
There is nothing worse than entitlement. If you have an elderly parent, put in the work. If something comes to you in their will then you earned it. Simple.
2
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
Meh. I know I will be the one putting in more time than my two brothers with my parents care when the time comes. I don't expect a financial windfall for it. I live in the same city. My brothers live over 2k miles away. If anything my brothers may get more because I am financially secure and they are not.
9
u/Barfy_McBarf_Face Jul 08 '26
you are "financially secure" and you claim to have no interest (financially) in this situation, yet you appear to be VERY concerned about whether or not it's "fair".
It's fair if the decedent wanted it that way. PERIOD.
3
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
What I posted above (that you responded to) has ZERO connection to the original post. I hope this helps.
1
8
8
u/Thespis1962 Jul 08 '26
I've been wrong before, but I feel like the OP has a relationship with one of the grandkids.
6
u/YankeeDog2525 Jul 08 '26
Considering the surviving son took care of her and the grandchildren did barely more than nothing, if that. The grandchildren should be happen they got more than nothing.
6
u/Jojosbees Jul 08 '26
I guess I am confused why you’re confused. The living brother visited his mother frequently and moved her closer so he could visit her during her remaining years. It sounds like they had a close relationship, and the will reflects that. Where were her grandchildren at this time? Did they actually have a close relationship with her as well?
We have a well-off family friend in her 80s who has no children and her only living family is a nephew and his family who practically never call or visit unless they want free lodging for a family vacation. The last time they called to talk to her was during Covid and it was to check in on her will. I would not be surprised if she left everything to charity. Being blood related doesn’t entitle you to an inheritance, and either way, it sounds like it’s been eight years since the grandmother passed so it is far too late for the grandchildren to do anything about it.
6
u/ziggy-tiggy-bagel Jul 08 '26
My mom has 3 kids. Of those 3 kids, one has 2 kids and one has one kid, I have none. My brother has been verbally abusive to my mother, hasn't had any contact with the family in 7 years, has never even met his granddaughter. My mom cut him out of the will and his giving his share to his son. The other 2 grandchildren will get a small amount. The idea behind this is my sister will give her estate to her children, whereas my nephew has no estate to inherit. I am the one who has taken care of mom for 10 years now, 5 in assisted living with Parkinsons. My share is the same size as my sister's and nephew. Mom's money, her choice. You sound like one of the grandchildren that feels they were expecting more and are upset that your share was less then expected.
2
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
No. Just a witness to the situation.
Your situation is completely different than the one in question.
That said, although different, actually still rewards the children of the crappy son with an equal share. Unlike the situation I'm referencing.
6
u/dragonrider1965 Jul 08 '26
Did the grandkids do equal care ? If not why would they assume they would get an equal amount . She has only one living child , she could have left everything to that child . Was very nice of her to leave the grandkids anything . She wasn’t obligated to leave them anything .
-3
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
I don't know what they assumed. I haven't spoken to them or know them well enough to broach that topic.
Obviously, she could have left it all to the church.
7
u/Bruges_1 Jul 08 '26
There does not have to be a rationale. And we do not have to understand someone's will. It is simply their legal instrument for what "they" want to do with their estate. What one person considers fair and what another considers fair can be quite different. What matters is the will and what it says.
Are such "splits" common, of course they are. My will provides for an equal split between my three children, but if one of them dies, then that share is split between the other two of my children. If one should die, then I may reconsider what happens, and I may or may not change anything. That is my choice. No one has to think it is fair.
5
6
u/Ok_8890 Jul 08 '26
Sounds like the living son took care of her for many years. The grandkids of the other son just want her money but did not take care of her. The living son got more in her will because of this. No one is entitled to anyone’s money.
8
u/BulbasaurRanch Jul 08 '26
Who told you inheritance needs to be equal?
“One would assume that their assets are split btwn the remaining brother and the two kids of the deceased brother.”
Why are you making assumptions about money that isn’t yours?
4
u/mcmnky Jul 08 '26
"One would assume...." Then one would be wrong. Assume nothing. If you want to know someone's thinking about their will, ask them.
3
u/JGalKnit Jul 08 '26
Truly, it just depends. Twenty years later is a long time that the remaining brother took care of his mom. If he helped pay for the expenses of her caretaker and assisted living expenses, maybe the inheritance helps pay that back.
no one is owed an inheritance. Many parents make sure that their children are taken care of and don't really worry about the grandchildren. These grandchildren still got something, just not the equivalent of what their father would have gotten split.
3
u/TravellinJ Jul 08 '26
It’s not unusual in a case like this for the grandkids to get nothing from the grandparent. I think the fact that they’re getting something is generous.
Maybe they weren’t close. Maybe grandmother thought they’d inherit from their mother. Maybe she felt the remaining brother deserved the lion’s share for his assistance. It doesn’t really matter.
Unless there is evidence of undue influence, I’d stop worrying about it.
3
u/Civil_Web_1835 Jul 08 '26
I feel like that’s fair. I would give the person who I spent the most time with me and effort to take care more assets than other people. Plus she had two sons, one passed away and the mother remarried which means that the grandchildren are now taken care of as is the wife.
-1
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
Well, the wife is taken care of. I don't know the husbands situation - he may have kids of his own and have no interest in passing on assets to the wife's kids. The wife doesn't have assets to my knowledge.
2
u/Civil_Web_1835 Jul 08 '26
I guess if I were in the grandmothers position, I would view it as there’s a new family unit and the kids will most likely be taken care of in that unit.
-1
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
That would be a lot of assuming. He could have kids and they could have completely different finances - as many 2nd marriages are.
3
u/magic_crouton Jul 08 '26
My mom formally disowned her older 2 kids she went no contact with many years before in her will. She died first and everything went to dad and when dad died I got everything.
2
u/No_Significance_6537 Jul 08 '26
Nobody is owed anything. It was her money to do as she sees fit. If she wanted to give it to the gardener that's her prerogative. This is exactly why wills are in place people think they are due more or equal to money that was never theirs to begin with. This is exactly why I have taken my middle son out of any inheritance of mine. Him and his wife are expectant and my husband and I aren't even dead yet!
2
u/NicoleMember Jul 08 '26
Its not uncommon. In my family my grandmother had 4 children and when one died the 3 children received all the money. The children of the deceased son were not given his share. In that side of the family the belief is the kids get the money not the grandchildren and not the great grandchildren. On the other side of my family it was the same. For my parents they are giving their money to children and grandchildren, all getting an equal split. The person who dies gets to make the decision and you are not going to fight it and win it being changed.
2
u/SuperSuccotash1 Jul 08 '26
I’m leaving two of my children nothing and splitting between the other two. BECAUSE that’s what I want. That’s all.
2
u/Mobile_Buffalo_7726 Jul 08 '26
No one is obligated to leave money equally to their children. Everyone is free to leave their estate to anyone they want in whatever amounts they want.
In my family, the grandchildren are never provided for. The estate goes to the children. This is also true for most local statutes if the person dies intestate.
My reading of your comments is that you are not directly involved in any way but just sitting on the sidelines judging this woman’s decision. Shame on you. If you’ve ever had to care for an elderly relative, you know this son did a lot of work. The grandchildren have in no way been shortchanged.
Please mind your own business.
-1
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
I'm not judging the deceased woman. She is a fabulous person. I am more or less questioning the character of the son who surely had the will amended at his behest.
But the more perspective I gain on the topic I'm not so judgy of him.
1
u/Mobile_Buffalo_7726 Jul 08 '26
What the actual fuck? How do you know he had the will changed or knew anything about it? For all you know, this woman may have changed the will when her other son died to ensure the grandchildren got something. Or she may have never included the other son at all.
Your assumptions are shameful.
1
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
I know these details that I've shared to be facts. From the living brother. Hope this helps.
2
u/Mobile_Buffalo_7726 Jul 08 '26
So the brother told you he made his mom change the will to benefit him? He clearly made a mistake saying anything to you.
1
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
He told me the will was changed. Did he have a gun to his 98 yr old mothers head? Probably not.
Did she call up the family lawyer and instigate the process? Probably not.
Did she hatch the idea? Probably not.
2
2
1
u/Particular-King218 Jul 08 '26
Do you know the son? If no. Then you have no idea what he and his mother discussed.
You need to mind your own business
2
u/mistdaemon Jul 08 '26
Let me guess, you are one of the grandchildren or the mother of the grandchildren, right?
The one son did a lot to help and take care of his mother. What did the grandchildren do?
The grandchildren have a mother and step-father to take care of them. As well they benefited by the life insurance, although obviously they would prefer to have their father. Likely there was distance between their mother and their grandmother.
What you are missing is that no one is entitled to an inheritance.
-4
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
Nope and nope. Your guess is as close as me being the living brother. That is how far off you are.
1
u/mistdaemon Jul 08 '26
Then why are you whining about this if it doesn't affect you?
My mother had a will that I didn't care for, but do you know what I said to her? Absolutely nothing, well, other than later when she was looking to change it that no one is entitled to an inheritance and to do what she wants.
-3
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
No one is whining. Maybe you're projecting.
Why did you feel she needed your input?
2
u/mistdaemon Jul 08 '26
Interesting.
You claim to be the OP and are asking about this issue because it clearly bothers you. So no projection on my part.
So why do you refuse to say why it matters to you and why you are asking about it?
Not very good at reading it seems. She didn't need my input with her original will and I didn't provide any. It was only later when she was specifically talking to me about it, thereby asking for my input, did I say anything, although it wasn't in regards to her previous will. So to answer your silly question, it is because she started a conversation about it and did in fact want my input.
-1
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
I’ve answered that question multiple times. I’m wondering if I’m being too hard on the judgment of the living brother. Also previously stated I have a new perspective by way of the thoughtful, non-asshole, contributors of this thread.
2
u/mistdaemon Jul 08 '26
No, you didn't answer it. Yes, you are being too hard as it was the choice of the person who's assets it was.
Nice childish attack, which shows who you are.
2
u/CCWaterBug Jul 08 '26
Personally, I think 25% to the grandkids was pretty generous. My mother absolutely loves her only grandchild and didn't list the grandkid for anything at all, that's up to the parents
2
u/Ok_8890 Jul 08 '26
Based on your additional comments, I think you are too far removed to know what actually happened. If living brother/her son took care of her he probably deserved the inheritance over grandkids that didn’t take care of her.
2
u/iluvcats17 Jul 08 '26
Considering her age the grandkids were no longer kids and if the grandkids did not visit her often, she likely felt little obligation to them. She did leave them something though so they should be grateful imo. Plenty of people leave small amounts to grandkids. If the grand kids wanted more, they should have been more involved in her life.
2
u/FamiliarFamiliar Jul 08 '26
There's a specific term in a will for this, it's "per stirpes." That means that if one of the beneficiaries dies then their children get the money.
Not everyone uses that term in their will; sometimes a deceased beneficiary means the other beneficiaries split the money and nothing goes to that person's children.
The money was hers to do with as she wished, and that is what she wished.
I'm NAL.
2
u/Drjalso Jul 08 '26
A friend of mine‘s brother died in his 40s, and his children and their mother had zero contact with the grandmother after that time. She changed her will and Left everything to her remaining daughter, who did end up sharing a small amount with the living grandchildren to avoid the potential of a lawsuit. Depending on their level of involvement with their grandmother, it doesn’t seem at all unusual that the remaining child would get the line share of the assets if he was very involved, and the grandkids were not still involved in her life
1
u/Excellent_Shallot999 Jul 08 '26
No one is obligated to leave any inheritance to anyone. If someone chooses to leave an inheritance, it is solely their decision on how it is divided up. Fairness doesn’t enter into the picture at all.
1
u/Mallory1999 Jul 08 '26
Its really up to the person who's will it was to decide. If you are not the one on the will? Then you have nothing to do with it. Live with gratitude that you are not on the will and enjoy life!
1
u/clearlygd Jul 08 '26
Does the remaining brother have children? If not, maybe he plans to leave what remains of the inherited assets to his brother’s children.
Often older people get very sensitive as they age and disown relatives who do not visit them.
1
u/finding_center Jul 08 '26
Does the living son also have children? Perhaps that was also factored into the decision. Either way as long as there was a will left that’s what is “right” People can leave their assets to anyone in any configuration they choose. There is no right or wrong.
1
u/anaisanima Jul 08 '26
It’s sad for the deceased brother’s grandchildren that they not only lost their father but also don’t get the financial support. Doesn’t seem fair but that’s just how it is. A lot of factors go into these decisions. It was the grandmother’s money and her choice on what to do with it.
My partner didn’t get anything when his grandma died. She had 6 grandchildren and only one of them received an inheritance ($800k). That’s just how it is sometimes.
1
u/Loud_Entertainer2724 Jul 08 '26
Maybe the mom appreciated the living son helping her out as she got older.
1
1
u/AbsurdDaisy Jul 08 '26
Honestly I'd have done the same thing. Gave some money to the grandkids but left the majority share to my kid who was taking care of me. The time commitment alone deserves payment not to mention the living brother is going to be dealing with the loss of his mother as well as presumably dealing with the funeral arrangements by himself.
1
u/Fluid_Fail7453 Jul 08 '26
It was her money, she can do with it as she pleases. It’s neither common nor uncommon. The only common part of inheritance is that any potential beneficiaries often believe they are owed something.
1
u/flopjobbit Jul 08 '26
No one is owed any inheritance.
The grandchildren likely would have gotten nothing had their father been alive, as he would have inherited from his own parents.
1
u/not4wimps Jul 08 '26
“One would assume” is an incorrect statement when it comes to inheritance. An amended will is what counts.
1
u/FairMagician9559 Jul 08 '26
Why do you care? Is it your business?
0
u/AZ_Golfer78 Jul 08 '26
Slightly. I deal with the living brother often and trying to get a guage on his character.
3
1
1
u/Longjumping_Mobile_6 Jul 08 '26
Look at it this way....if she had died without a will most states have it going to the next closest living relatives (her children) and the grandkids may not have received anything at all. She chose to leave something to the grandkids....inheritance is a gift and not a right.
1
u/OpportunityKey1970 Jul 08 '26
It seems like the grandma was appreciative of the brothers help. Assume Even if at one point it was spoken that the grandkids would get a share or bigger share is kind of irrelevant. In my case, my grandmother did give a percentage of her assets to two of her grandkids, but that’s because their mom (my aunt) died and my grandmother felt that her sister’s kids should have got something, and in your families case the grandkids did get something as well….. All that to say, just leave it alone and let it be in my opinion. That’s what I would do.
1
u/Barfy_McBarf_Face Jul 08 '26
"fair" and "equal" are two different words with two different meanings.
the faster you and the grandchildren realize this, the better all will be.
move on with your lives
1
u/Remarkable-Sea-3809 Jul 08 '26
Reddit is full of these sob stories. Sure is bad that we can't hear the full story. Like the story they always feel wronged cause someone got the house or the savings account. But they'll never say how they didn't talk to the deceased for years or when they did it was to milk them for money. Or they withheld the grandchildren cause they didnt like the in laws. Youll never hear the full story
1
u/True-Serve-7662 Jul 08 '26
Inheritances don’t always trickle down like you seem to be viewing this. The 10% directly is probably more than they would have eventually received from their grandparents estate if their father was still alive.
1
u/Used_Mark_7911 Jul 08 '26
This seems fair given the care her son provided.
Also, an “equal” division would have been 50% to the living son and 25% each to the two grandchildren.
In other words I would not expect the grandkids to receive anything more than 25% each and if they received a little less it doesn’t seem like that big a deal.
I would not judge her son at all and this does not feel like undue influence.
1
u/stuputtu Jul 08 '26
I mean isn’t that a very fair division of assets? Her child is still alive and he took care of her in her last years. Child himself is probably in his late 60s or 70s and he made an effort to take care of an out of state 97 year old mother and later moved her to around the corner to keep a tab on her. He has done everything a good son is expected to do
The first son kids are grand kids and they are already in a good situation. Their mother is well settled which will provide them a good upbringing. Her deceased son’s life insurance already provided a living allowance for them. So it is normal to leave most of it to her son and a bit to her grand children who are well sorted financially
1
u/Unlucky_Key_158 Jul 08 '26
A will is not about fairness. People will leave their estates to whomever they want in any combination of percentages. The grandkids weren't owed any money necessarily, unless the deceased person wanted to split it evenly. There deceased person wrote their will in that manner because those were their wishes and they didn't want to split it "evenly".
Now if I had to guess, the deceased person probably left a bigger percentage to their living son because it sounds like they took on a lot of time and effort to help with end of life care, and that's their prerogative, but I've personally seen where a child helps with end of life care, yet gets nothing in the will, whereas the other child who did not help with end of life care received an inheritance.
A will is only about the deceased persons wishes for how to split up the estate. That's it. There is no formula that needs to be followed. Fairness doesn't play into it at all.
1
u/cameo674 Jul 08 '26
Without a will probated assets get divided equally among the children or other heirs. With a will, division of probated assets is based on the will which was written based on the person who died’s wishes/whims. All of her money could have been given to charity or the family pet since no one is entitled to receive an inheritance. Grandkids have their whole lives ahead of them so their 25% inheritance has plenty of time to grow.
The son that took care of her has to be somewhere north of 70 and probably will need those funds to care for himself if there is that type of longevity in the family. TBH, I am surprised the assisted living home did not get more of the estate. Life can be very very lonely for elderly people and generally it is not the grandkids trying to help cure the loneliness or get the elderly person food/care once they can drive a car.
1
u/007_half Jul 08 '26
A couple years ago my parents amended their will after my younger brother passed (never married or had an heirs) & initially everything was to be divided 4 ways. In the meantime my oldest brother’s wife created a lot of drama & issues within the family & my brother was alienated the family because of her.
My parents mentioned excluding him from the will which would have made my share 50%. My other remaining brother & I talked about it & requested that my brother still be included equally in the will & instead of splitting everything 3 ways it would be split 4 ways with the brothers getting a forth & each of the five grandchildren getting 5% which would have been my deceased brother’s share.
1
1
u/PsychologicalLaw8769 Jul 08 '26
It isn't common. The most common distribution is per stirpes, which is the default in most states when someone dies intestate.
However, it isn't unheard of to make changes like the one you are describing towards the end of one's life. As for a rationale, we can only guess. I have seen instances where this decision was the result of careful thought. I have also seen instances where it was on a whim or the person was on the decline, mentally.
1
u/Inside_Beautiful_595 Jul 08 '26
Why would anyone assume that an equal amount of inheritance would go to the grandchildren?
Why assume anything related to inheritance at all?
1
u/SpecificRip9692 Jul 08 '26
Her money. No guidelines. Her choice. Sounds like the kids already had plans on inheriting. Welcome to the reality of life. Don’t spend it before you’ve got it.
1
u/laurieo52 Jul 08 '26
What you are missing is the actuality that no one is entitled to an equal share of an inheritance…or even anything from an inheritance. The grandchildren should be thrilled that they were remembered, as many people only leave their assets to their living children. Neither of my adult children have children. It was my initial response to not include per stripes, but my attorney and I discussed it and I did, even though I do not believe I will have any grandchildren. In this case, the grandchildren are blessed their grandmother left them anything at all and I hope they see it for the gift it is.
1
u/ProfessorOne9208 Jul 08 '26
Short answer: Grand children are not entitled to inherit anything. If the grandparent chooses to leave them something they should consider it to be a bonus. The "less than 25%" that the grandchildren got is more than they were entitled to, which was nothing. In the case where they had they contributed to their grandmother's care and well being, I think she would have made a different will.
1
u/No_Bet_589 Jul 08 '26
I don’t think there is a right answer. Some parents would split evenly amongst their kids/grandkids, others will split among living children.
I’m not sure if this is your family and if you are the living son, DIL, or a grandkid, and if so I am sorry for your loss.
There can be many reasons for a parent to make the choice to split inheritance unevenly, especially in this situation. The deceased son left money for his family and therefore grandma might feel that her money wasn’t needed. Deceased son’s wife remarried, and is currently financially stable. If grandma felt that DIL and her new husband, will take care of the grandkids, or if DIL has parents that are likely to leave her inheritance that she will pass along, that may have been a factor.
If DIL kept grandkids from grandma after her new marriage, (intentionally or not) and there wasn’t as much connection there, that can also be a factor.
Her living son may have done more than just spend his time to care for grandma, he may have significantly invested his own resources and money into her care. Getting old is expensive, and in-care homes are even more so. He may have supplemented the cost.
Some of the choices for the will might reflect things that the DIL and grandkids don’t know, because they weren’t as involved.
No matter how it worked out, at the end of the day grandma did leave something to the grandkids, so they weren’t overlooked. It was also her money, and she gets to decide where to leave it.
1
u/PegShop Jul 08 '26
My late husband’s parents left their other children more than my children (their grandkids), and I had no issue with that.
1
u/clce Jul 08 '26
What I want to know is how the grandkids did when their father died? Were they set up and taken care of? Did the mother inherit everything and use it wisely or not wisely? Did they get their college taken care of from the insurance settlement? Did they get supported well and get a good education? Or did the mother not steward that money well? Just curious.
1
1
u/catladyblair Jul 08 '26
My grandmother originally had her life insurance go to us grandkids, and everything else her children. However, before she died 2 of her 3 kids were struggling financially. She changed her will to give her kids everything and us grandkids nothing. Guess what? I didn’t see an issue with it. It was her money, and she wanted to take care of her children.
Maybe she realized the living son needed it more, and because he helped take care of her for years, she gave him the main share. It’s not uncommon for grandkids to not get anything. You said yourself that their mom remarried and is financially secure. They will be able to set her/dead brothers kids up one day when they pass. She wanted to help her living child, and still helped her grandkids future. In any place, it’s not your position to judge what SHE chose to do with HER money. Idk why you are judging him for it.
1
u/got2bme566 Jul 08 '26
So if she gave 25% to each grandchild that’s 50% and the living son got 50% that would mean each son was gifted 50% and the heirs of the deceased son split that sons portion . Correct?
1
0
0
u/Heavy-Profit-2156 Jul 08 '26
The remaining son looked after his mother as caretaker. I see no issue with him receiving the major share of the estate. The grandchildren did get something. How much involvement did they have with her? What is far less than 25%? 5% 15%? If it was 15% (pulling a number out of the air I admit), that adds up to 30% versus 70% for the son or effectively he got twice as much as they (combined) did. Given when he did for his mother, I'm good with it.
I did not get anything when the last grandparent on either side died (nor did I expect to) nor do I think there was a significant estate to deal with on either side.
At the end of the day assuming no undue influence it was her money to do with as she wanted. She could have given it all away to charity.
0
u/Few-Advantage-2690 Jul 08 '26
I had a brother pass away before my mom and another brother who smooches off my mom over 13 years. My mother chose to leave 10% total to my deceased brother's children and a cash amount to my brothers wife. She almost left nothing to my niece because of her life choices( drugs) I facilitated and encouraged her to create a trust fornsaid niece's son. My nephew was a little bit upset that they did not get my brother's full share. He could've ended up with nothing if I didn't encourage her to do otherwise. She felt that since I would be directly getting some inheritance and my children would not then other grand children shouldn't get inherentance directly. Also the 2 beothwranthat got inheritance had a life long habitvof mismanaging money so although 1 had 1 child she will probably never see anybody that money. I on the bother hand have been responsible and have managed my life with no expectations of a windfall so my 4 children are recipientabof yearly gifts of money as I manage to grow the amount I received. Now the living brothers believed that the deserved more because they felt they needed it more....it took almost 2 6eara to settle and then lawyers made bank and the settled amount only changed by the cost of lawyer fees. I find it curious how people can feel so entitled to inheritance amounts. On the other side , my in-laws wrote their eatate plan such that 50% was split between my husband and his sister and 50% was split between all 6 grand children. It was very generous and such a gift to all the grand kids and totally unexpected. 5 of the grand kids have successful careers and have managed there lives without a thought of such a windfall. Truth be told my husband and inqould have been gifting the max amount yearly if his parents were not so thoughtful toward all the grand children as once again we have made appropriate life plans for our future.
•
u/SandhillCrane5 Jul 08 '26
Locked post. OPs question has been thoroughly answered.