I'll imagine I'm Grandma with a clear concept of what a lousy layabout by grandson is. I'll recall WWII, maybe the Depression, the challenges of my own life when the kids were literally hungry and there was no such thing as easy credit. And I consider the $20k I have designated for this couple as I write my will.

Logically she gives half to the LW who will caretake the money and use it for something sensible and wise. She gives half to the layabout to insure there is no bad blood, knowing he will piss it away.

Now, LW, use the money the way grandma would have liked -- for something practical and wise like an investment. It will honor her intentions. Handing the money to the layabout is a slap in the face of a generation that earned their way through life.

The LW posted this on the thread:

to clarify...

LW here. Just want to point out that my partner and i were not married, there were no tax benefits to his grandmother splitting the money, and it was left specifically in my name with no caveats. I'm not justifying, just clarifying.

often cary's letters are from individuals who are so morally confused and narcissistic that it reinforces belief in a pervasive societal anomie. but here we have a rational and ballanced reflection and what do we get in return? the most inane attacks. it is interesting that many of the unecessarily harsh responses rather than the actual letter that are of concern

Ravnwing:

I agree with the poster who asked you to read more carefully.

It's evident, by reading the letter, that we have--

1) what the family thinks/believes about the grandmother's wishes, i.e., that the money was to go to grandchild and partners-- and then--

2) THE ACTUAL WISHES IN THE WILL, which do not agree with the grandmother's family's beliefs, which are the LW's name and a specific bequest.

Those are two different things. I'm guessing that's probably part of the crux of the problem for the LW here. What he/she has heard from the family and what the grandmother actually requested are two different things. That's not really shocking. Often, family members believe they know everything about the wishes of their other family members, especially when it comes to a will. But, really, how often is that true? Not very often. It's why we have wills in the first place.

The writing in the will, which is what actually occurred, is the more accurate rendition of what the grandmother desired. Actually, by naming a specific name, we don't even have to guess.

Second-guessing the way those instructions were written is moot, from a legal standpoint and actually, from an ethical standpoint as well.

Now, it really all comes down to what makes the letter writer happiest.

If the LW dated the ex for five years and the grandmother put him/her by name into the will, that suggests that the will was updated very recently, probably within the last two years or so. And I agree with the poster above who suggested that assuming the grandmother was a dotty old fool is ageism. The grandmother certainly seemed to know specific names and relationships, didn't she?

I'm making a huge assumption about the attorney involved here, so I apologize in advance, but NO attorney worth his/her weight will write a will for a dotty, senile individual. Most attorneys will turn down clients when it is evident that senility is involved. Sometimes, it is even heartbreaking, because the child is taking care of a parent who had not made a will before senility set in. Nevertheless, no good attorney would put him or herself in that position for many, many reasons.

Again... the addition of the LW's name is a big deal. These were the legal, specific wishes of the grandmother. The money is yours. Period. No legal issues at all. That's not to say you couldn't be taken to court over it, in which case I agree with one of the other posters who said that you shouldn't fight it, because it's not worth a legal battle. Although it is a legal battle you. would. win. --it would still be a heartbreaking ordeal.

In the end, it's about your comfort level. Just, please, don't hand the money over to the ex. Just tell the attorney you don't want it and go from there. After all, she only left $10,000 to the ex for a reason. Whatever that reason is ... whether it's you or something else...is not for you to speculate. I imagine there are provisions in the will to cover it, if you don't accept it and those provisions may very well not involve the ex AT ALL. So, do it all through the channels of the attorney and the court, even if you have to retain said attorney by handing him a dollar.

please read (for the first time???) the entire letter.

"I don't feel right interfering with the grandmother's overall legacy and don't want to encourage resentment from my ex or his family, but she did leave the money to me, in my name."

The LW was mentioned by name.

One issue that hasn't come yet is what legal or moral entitlement grandchildren have on a grandparent's estate. None I imagine, or we'd be hearing a lot more from Warren Buffet's grandkids.

I'm quoting the LW here.

I've just discovered that the final will dictates that each brother's inheritance is to be split between them and their partners...

In other words, the LW is stating that she/he was not named as an individual in the will, but that his/her former partner's share was to be split with his partner.

In other words, Grandma (who the LW admits that he/she was not particularly close with) meant for her grandsons to share their inheritances with their partners. But the LW is no longer his partner. So does he/she get any of the money?

Legally this would be very easy for someone to contest. As I stated in a previous response, wills get contested all the time. They are often out of date. I've seen wills where 2nd wives are shut out while ex-wives inherit estates because the will was never updated. I've seen children shut out of wills. There is no indication in the LW's letter that he/she was singled out for an inheritance seperate and indepenantly of the money left to his/her former partner. Without that clear seperation the intent becomes pretty clear. The share for his/her former partner was to be split evenly between them upon the execution of the will. Because they are no longer partners, there is a very clear legal argument to be made that the LW is not entitled to the money.

Realitically, $10,000 is a pretty small amount to begin a legal battle over but I've seen legal battles started over nothing more than worthless knick knacks.