Four children, one deceased when fathers second wife widow passed, she had no other family. Will names three surviving children. I'm pretty sure no legal obligation to give anything to deceased siblings children, but what about ethical obligation? Deceased siblings spouse has also passed.

Widow didn't know that set of grandchildren very well.

There is no legal or moral obligation to give anything to anybody. and inheritance is a completely discretionary action by the deceased to give their stuff to literally whoever or whatever they want.

As a test of this logic use the reverse: if you were Morally obligated to leave your stuff to Someone else, then leaving anything to charity would be amoral.

No obligation. However, if there are items with emotional attachment, it would be good form to pass those items on. My opinion.

'Ethical' and 'obligation' don't go in the same sentence.

Nothing like money to cause family strife. I do not think there is any moral obligation, no matter how it turns out, someone will be unhappy about it. Do what you think is best.

If you consider that inheritance should be distributed equally among the children of the deceased, then yes, there is an ethical obligation.

If the person was still alive, would they receive an inheritance? If the answer is yes, then that money still should go to that person, or in this case to that person’s estate.

Money, no. Sentimental objects, maybe.

(IE, Did “Grandpa” have fishing reels/guns etc for teaching the grand kids? Those might have more meaning to them, than to the children.)

If the will says "give it" then give it. If you are talking about a discretionary gift not called out in the will, then do whatever you want. It is/was the responsibility of the deceased to have clearly documented their wishes.

Expect heirs and potential heirs to want more than they are getting no matter what happens. There is no way that everybody will be happy with the final outcome, and resentments can last for the rest of their lives.

Perhaps except for warfare nothing demonstrates the poor character of the great majority of humanity than an inheritance.

I encountered this situation. My oldest brother died before our Mom's estate cleared probate. I passed his share to his widow.

Currently dealing with my mother's estate.

Her will divides the estate equally between the 5 children with the stipulation that if any of us pass before the estate is closed out then it is to be decided equally between the surviving children.
The only ethical responsibility is to carry out my mother's final wishes.

If, in the OPs situation, the father specified only the 3 children, then to do otherwise would be unethical. It is his estate, do it the way he wanted it.

Zero obligation to those not mentioned
That said,

If any of the three mentioned want to share a portion of their inheritance, they are free to do so.
My mom got the least expensive least qualified lawyer for her trust / will .

Then got the cheapest , least qualified. People to be managers,

Shit storm, confusion , war of the worlds now for 8 years.

If the person who dies does not specifically spell out what is to happen (will or trust) other than appoint heirs. Then the executor shall exacute the will/trust and the heirs can do as they see fit with a clear conscious imho. No matter what others say.
If that is not the case than like others have pointed out. A judge gets involved?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: old rugged cross,

Legally and morally, the executor must honor the intent of the person leaving the estate. If the will or trust is unclear, this can get complicated. If the will is clear, it is pretty straightforward.

If the beneficiaries feel a desire or obligation to share something with their late sibling’s children, they are free to do that.

If a will names a deceased heir then their share is distributed per the will's instructions. e.g. if it says "per stirpes" then it goes to the descendants of that deceased heir. If the will says nothing about the situation of a deceased heir, it would be up to local law, the probate judge, and the living heirs.

If there is no legal direction to give the deceased heir's portion to his heirs, then the remaining living 3 heirs would get everything.

The executor is obligated legally and morally to follow the will and safeguard the interests of the legal heirs. The executor cannot decide something else is more fair.

The probate judge could modify the distribution, e.g. if the will is contested and the judge agrees. If the 4th sibling's children can prove that their grandparents' wills show that they were intended to be included, the judge could agree. A good will should be clear enough about what to do if one of the heirs dies first, or other complications.

But the living 3 heirs can decide to send some of the estate to the 4th sibling's children even if there is no legal requirement to do so.

Fly-Sig is correct.

The personal representative/executor is legally obligated to distribute the estate in accordance with the will and probate laws, and those things determine whether or not the deceased heir's children receive anything. Doing anything else would likely subject the PR to personal liability (which, by the way, is one reason why agreeing to serve in that capacity is a significant decision).

Whether any of the heirs choose to share what they receive is up to them, individually, because at that point it's their property.

Something that can be avoided with a proper will. My MIL's will specified her estate was to be divided between her 3 children, and if any died, their children were to split their deceased parent's 1/3rd. But no, there is no obligation other than what is self imposed.

My father had his will all done. 3 kids, 4 grandkids. Then my sister died from cancer. The next year, he finds out that my half brother is a junkie. He changed the will so I inherited everything with the instructions that I make it right. Nothing else except that he stated that he was OK with the fact that he understood that I may not obey his wishes. I did what was right.


I split the assets between my sister and me. Her 2 kids, me, and my son all got a roughly equal share. My half brother and his spawn shall never contact me again. Understand that I had no real knowledge of his existence until I was 41.

I had no legal obligation to do anything other than take possession of all assets in the estate. I had an ethical obligation to my father and family.

quote:

Perhaps except for warfare nothing demonstrates the poor character of the great majority of humanity than an inheritance.

For that reason, when both my parents passed, I never asked if there was a will and never discussed it with my siblings.

We went through this issue a few years ago. In laws drafted their trust to ensure inheritance followed blood-line direct kids received a portion, grandkids received a portion and so on. In the event a direct child passed, the funds went to their kids. FIL passed, one BIL passed and wife's childless sister decided she didn't like the 'follow blood' concept and tried to force her mom (and kept remaining siblings in the dark) to change the trust so funds wouldn't go to grandkids/great grandkids. MIL (slight dementia) almost bought into it - but reached out to BIL for his thoughts - and he shut it down. Regardless of the trust's wording, the 'rationale' siblings split the inheritance amounts themselves and portioned out to their kids and grandkids - even the kids from the deceased BIL.