To wonder if parents' will isn't "fair"

[toastedbeagle]

My parents have written wills recently and decided to split their estate etc equally between descendants rather than children. Do you think this is fair?
For the sake of argument let's say there are three children and three grandchildren, but unequally distributed. So estate divided into families would go 50%, 33%, 17%... But each person is only getting 16.6%.

I'm not sure if this feels fair, but on the other hand wills are for doing YOU want aren't they, not to keep people happy.

how what an awful thing to say

YANBU.

It's only fair if the parents' skip a generation and divide each child's share between those specific grandchildren. People keep saying how grabby people are with wills, and some are, but mostly how much / what proportion a person is left in a will represents how much they are valued as a member of the family. Omitting a child who wanted children but couldn't have them in favour of grandchildren is actually really cruel, it is in effect saying we don't value you because you didn't give us grandchildren.

For example, I have one brother. If my dad decided to leave half of his estate to my brother and the other half shared between my children, that would be fair. It would not be fair to give my children a half share each and my brother nothing.

Very very grabby

Also a very fair will because everyone gets a share regardless of who they've fallen out with (so grandchild may have fallen out with middle generation and not be included in anything they hand out from their inheritance but this way they get something)

Good on your parents I say

I think it's on the whole fairer to leave your children equal amounts rather than try and make provision for grandchildren and then arguments start over who has more children than somebody else. If one of your children is much wealthier than the other this can be taken into consideration. But in the end it's up to the people making the will how they opt to distribute their money. As everyone has different ideas of what is fair.

My parent's will divides everything three ways: me, ds and my sister. She wouldn't want it any other way. She loves her nephew and would be unhappy if he wasn't included.

I don't really think it's fair.

Say there are three children, with varying numbers of dependent children of their own. Let's say 0, 2 and 3 for arguments sake.

I would make a nominal gift to each grand child (nominal might be a few hundred to a few k depending on the size of estate) and then split the vast majority of my estate 1/3 to each of my three children.

I don't think it would be fair to split my estate into 8 equal parts (3x children 5x grandchildren) because then my child who has had no children of their own yet has a vastly reduced inheritance just because their other siblings have been sprogging it.

I suspect that this is why it is the norm to split anything between your own kids and letting them deal with the next generation, their kids.

Anything else is unusual and, rightly or wrongly, someone gets hurt.

Again, it comes down to if you see the DGCs money as the DCs money.

I have heard this sort of thing a lot more recently, I think it's down to the older generation seeing their DGC will have a harder start in adult life, from uni fees potentially being crippling for the next round to go through, house deposits harder to safe for, less job security etc.

OP you sound like a very thoughtful person. I hope everything works out well for you, and that the family relationships continue well - honestly, if they are all as generous-hearted as you are coming across, I am sure you will not fall out over money.

I have one DC that was born after my parents had died, it is bad enough he never got to meet them but I would be deverstated if I then had to explain that his siblings had a nice tidy nest egg and he did not. If I have anything to leave it will be equally to my DC.

(Whois - you could also argue that it's unfair on your DC1 -particularly if they were a DS - that they got a lot less money because you'd be sprogging it and had a couple of siblings they were expected to share with, rather than going with the very traditional leaving everything to the 'son and heir' and nowt to younger DCs)

I am middle aged and my path in life is already set. I therefore see a lot of merit in my parents skipping a generation to benefit my DC.

Ultimately it is their money to do with as they wish, however I can see your point. One family will end up getting more than the others if they have more children.

Most usually GP leave their money to their DC. However, my GM is leaving her GC a sum of money each as well as the parents. That is her choice and her will has been like that for years. It is an equal split though, a set sum of money split 4 ways. We will get less than our parents, which is fine by me. and if she goes in a home we will never see it anyway.

However it is their money, their will, and they can do what they like with it. If it causes resentment that is sad, but I can see how it would happen. People just assume because of tradition and it causes problems when something different is done.

I can see your point, OP. I have power of attorney for my mother who, amongst other matters, can't write or understand numbers as a result of a stroke. Her will currently leaves defined sums to each of the grandchildren with the remainder to be split equally between me and my sisters - I just have power of attorney because they are a long way away. I have three children, each of my sisters have one child.

My mother has said that she would like to increase the legacies to the grandchildren and in theory I ought to get in touch with solicitors about putting that into effect. The trouble is that, because of her cognitive difficulties, if I do that it could well be perceived as my taking advantage of having power of attorney to benefit my family, because obviously with three children my family would do much better out of this than my sisters. I value my relationship with my sisters so I've decided that, unless my mother really insists, I'm not going to do anything about it - when the time comes I will make it up to my children out of my share and let my sisters do whatever they want.

My DP's Aunt left her entire estate to charity (no DP, no children). Half a million pounds. Nothing to her family. It's what she wanted. Nobody has a right to anythiing.

I think you sound lovely to have this concern. Refreshing, really.

I don't think it's unfair. Children are separate individuals, with their own lives. They aren't extensions of their parents. The money isn't being left in the shares you allocate, because each child will need to pay to learn to drive, to buy a car, to put a deposit on an eventual home. It's being left to each person, not in uneven chunks to the families.

At the moment, you see yourselves as a family unit. In 20 years, when the kids have left home, it may well look and feel very different indeed.

Again, it's so nice to have a post from someone bothered about the sensitivities of their siblings, and not money and their own children's perceived rights.

Assuming no family rift or unequal family dynamics (eg one child or grandchild doing the majority of the parents' care), leaving money equally to the DCs seems fair to me. A small sum left to each GC is OK, but the main estate should go to the DCs. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? What if they are great-grandparents, should they leave their money to the third generation?

They can do as they like, any decent parent would split fairly so as not to cause sibling rivalry. What loving parent wants bad feeling between their offspring? I am sorry you have parents as you do op, this is just an example of bad parenting

Perhaps most decent parents wouldnt bring up their children to have such a grabby attitude towards other people's money.

Money that is given to an individual belongs to that individual and not to the rest of their family. People who would view each individual person being left the same amount as unfair because some of those individuals may be more closely related than the others has a very limited understanding of ownership and quite likely untrustworthy boundries

But even if one 'family' is getting more than another, the individuals aren't. I wouldn't count the inheritance of my children as 'our' money, it's theirs! If this was my family, one sibling's family group as a whole would get more than mine but my sibling and I would receive the same as each other.

Nobody should make plans for inheritance they haven't yet received.

God, Scobber, how horrible. I'm really sorry you had to hear that.

How is the money being left to the grandchildren? Will it be held in trust until they reach the age of 18 or older, or are the executors permitted to give the grandchildren's share to their parents to look after?

Would you have a problem with the money being given direct to adult grandchildren? If not, then it seems to me your problem is with a lack of trust of siblings to spend their children's money on their children, rather than on benefiting themselves.

Not sure I'm understanding correctly but if each sibling receives the same I see no problem. If each sibling receives more because they have children then they could give part of their share to the childless sibling so that they get the same.

My mums will state my brother and I will get 40% each with the remaining 10% to grandchildren. As both my brother and I have two children it's all equal (we are both unlikely to produce more offspring due to age). However I have three step children who have always been treated the same as my own children by my whole family (luckily) and initially my mum wanted to bequeath them the same as the other grandchildren. I felt this may cause resentment and instead my mum has gifted them a fixed sum of money which is considerably less than the grandchildren will get.

We are hoping this will keep everyone happy and certainly my stepchildren will be grateful to receive anything as they don't expect it.

Whatever happens hold onto it being what your parents want and not what any of you siblings want.

I think it's a crap way of dividing it up. Essentially you're rewarding your fecund children. Particularly painful if one of them isn't childless by choice. It's a great way of ensuring bitterness between siblings.

Equal shares between the offspring is the best way of avoiding resentment. And yes, I do think it's crap parenting - it's crashingly insensitive.