Will - what would you do?

[WeHaveSnowdrops]

A friend popped in this morning for a cuppa and to get away from bickering with her DH.

They both agree they need to write new wills but can't agree on what to do.

They have 2 DS's both in their 40s, unmarried but in long term committed relationships, living with their GFs. Elder DS has 2 DCs. Younger one has none and unlikely to have any.

Both have good jobs and mortgages. The GF with children is mostly a SAHM for now but does a couple of weekend shifts as a nurse to keep her hand in, she expects to return to full time work.

The other GF tried to run her own business but it failed several years ago. Since then she hasn't looked for any work or to work for herself again. DS earns enough to keep them both but no luxuries, like holidays abroad.

Friend's DH says they have 2 choices.

1. Half the estate to each son
2. Estate divided into 4. One quarter to each son and a quarter each to the grandchildren.

She favours (1) her DH favours (2)

He doesn't much like the non-working GF, who has never been friendly or welcoming, and he doesn't want her to enjoy the fruits of his labour while "lazing around for most of her life". Both DSs were given substantial sums for deposits for their homes.

Friend's DH wants the GCs to benefit and is considering option 3 which is even split between the DGCs. Leaving out both DS's.

I can see his point but I think a straight split between the two is the only fair way. Friends are fit and healthy and in their 70s so feel the need to have their wills sorted.

They can set up a bloodline trust in the will to ensure the sons and grandchildren are protected in the event of death/divorce etc.

They need to be careful to refer to percentages rather than fixed sums.

The son with the lazy girlfriend isn't married. I imagine if he is married before they die and the Will just says it's to be left to him, then his share will go to her, won't it? That won't happen if they're not married.

I think if they have savings it would be good to leave something to their children after the first parent dies. Obviously if they just have the house, that wouldn't be possible.

That's perfectly possible. My will specifies an order of potential beneficiaries to ensure that a particular sister doesn't inherit.

@WeHaveSnowdrops That's good outcome. Well done them.

I don't think he'd do that out of respect for her.

There are loads of cases where the first person dies, the surviving spouse either just writes a completely different new will or remarries then leaves everything to their new spouse.

Sadly there's no way to predict what people will do in the future.

I'm not a legal expert but I think they'd be better off changing their property to "tenants in common" rather than "joint" then each leaving their share 50/50 to their sons with bequests to the grandchildren.
Then when the first spouse dies, their share is ringfenced for the sons, and the surviving spouse can live it it until they die. Even if the surviving spouse was to make a new will, they could then only will their half.

Mirror wills mean you can't rewrite your will and leave it to DH/DW #2.

The best financial management is giving it away now, no IHT.

Option 5: stop banging on about wills when care home fees are £1,600 a week per person now.

My mother-in-law left everything to her grandchildren; it has been deeply divisive. My partner has one child and siblings have two and three. My partner feels that the sibling with three children disproportionately benefitted.
It emerged that this decision was made to miss a generation so that my eldest child, my partner’s stepson would not inherit by default.
The situation is that my youngest son has a life changing amount of money which my partner’s cousin is trustee which I find humiliating and my eldest son has nothing.
Relationships between my partner and his siblings have not recovered. One sibling wanted to inherit as he feels his daughter got married too young because she could etc. And blamed my partner because of his choices i.e. me! Nieces and nephews now have mortgage free homes admittedly in the north while their parents still have mortgage. They feel that their kids made choices that ultimately they wouldn’t have if they hadn’t got money.

They, like us, and many people of around our age gave their DCs lump sums for house deposits.

The thought of having to pay for care is something people our age worry about, especially when the feckless with no savings get everything free.

They and we intend off loading as much cash as possible onto the DCs.

*The thought of having to pay for care is something people our age worry about, especially when the feckless with no savings get everything free.

They and we intend off loading as much cash as possible onto the DCs.*

Are you planning to 'offload' cash to avoid it having to go on care costs? If so, I hope you realise that the standard of care provided by the state to "the feckless" is far below the standard of care those with significant savings can access.

Are you planning to 'offload' cash to avoid it having to go on care costs? If so, I hope you realise that the standard of care provided by the state to "the feckless" is far below the standard of care those with significant savings can access.

My father spent his last year in a nursing home and paid through the nose for the "privilege". In the same home were those being paid for by the council, I saw no appreciable difference in the treatment of either groups. The staff were caring and his care was excellent. No complaints about that. But everyone in the home got exactly the same care.

"Mirror wills mean you can't rewrite your will and leave it to DH/DW #2.

The best financial management is giving it away now, no IHT. "

There are so many ways that both of these 'statements' are incorrect that I've not the energy to describe them. Just in general, please don't take financial advice from unqualified strangers on the Internet. Age Concern have some great factsheets on paying for care and other related issues.

"Her DH is a belt and braces type of chap so he's going to look at a way to make sure the money stays with the blood so if childless DS dies his share goes to his brother and children. I don't see that would be too hard."
The only way to do this would be to put the childless son's share in trust, meaning that he would be very limited as to what he could use it for. It could also cost a lot to set up and manage. And all for the sake of spiting the son and his current partner for their harmless life choices.

My father spent his last year in a nursing home and paid through the nose for the "privilege". In the same home were those being paid for by the council, I saw no appreciable difference in the treatment of either groups. The staff were caring and his care was excellent. No complaints about that. But everyone in the home got exactly the same care.

You're basing a lot on a single experience. Most people would prefer to have choice if finances allow it. I'm no spring chicken myself but I certainly won't be divesting myself of as much money as possible so that the state has to pay for my care.

It's rather unpleasant to assume that those without money have been "feckless". I don't suppose many NHS and other public sector workers, single parents etc will have amassed much in the way of savings by the time they need care. Conversely there will be many with savings who inherited it or got it through not particularly worthy careers.

And, I also totally agree with emberemember that it's pretty awful to try and control what happens to the youngest son's inheritance. My wider family contains adopted and step children and there is none of us would ever see them as lesser family members than those of "blood".

It's rather unpleasant to assume that those without money have been "feckless". I don't suppose many NHS and other public sector workers, single parents etc will have amassed much in the way of savings by the time they need care.

I think many of them will own houses which the government will come for.

I hope you realise that the standard of care provided by the state to "the feckless" is far below the standard of care those with significant savings can access. - no, it's the same care in the same home.

Really? I think you'll find that the council will put people into the cheapest place going. Lack of space may mean of course that the feckless end up in high end care homes along with the wealthy. But they have little or no choice in where they go. Bit of a lottery for them. Those with money can choose - as we did for dm.

My option would be 1/3 split between any and all gc, then 1/3 per child

Mirror wills mean you can't rewrite your will and leave it to DH/DW #2.

That's simply not true.

Mirror wills can be rewritten at any time