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.

Surely it depends on when the DGC get the money?

My GP left some money to me, similar to the split described by the OP, but I didn't get it until I was 21. Had my "share" been given to my parents instead, I wouldn't have seen a bean as my parents aren't great with money and spent it all within a year on things that had nothing to do with me - they went on a big overseas trip while I was at uni for example, and bought a new car after I'd left home.

Which is fine, it was their money etc, but it was only through getting my own specific bequest that I was able to put some money toward my studies - had the money been divided per family it just would have meant my parents overseas holiday would have been longer!

Which, I think the GPs knew, hence the split this way

My parents set up a large trust fund for all their grandchildren. It won't pay out any capital until they are 25, and is split evenly between all of their grandchildren. It could theoretically cover grandchildren not yet born, but only if they are conceived before the first payout I think, otherwise the overall pot will be a little smaller.

Personally I am just very happy that my children and their cousins will get a helping hand , not sure why I'd begrudge my sister who has an 'extra' child or my brother who has one less.

Personally, I agree with the OP's parents' approach.

My parents are in their 70s and are in good health. They may well live for another 10 or 20 years, perhaps more with a bit of luck. My brother and I are in our 40s and we're both financially stable. To me, it makes much more sense to leave it to the grandchildren, who are currently aged between 6 and 13. It's very likely that by the time my parents die, our DC will need the money far more than me and my brother will, eg for uni fees, house deposits etc.

However, I do recognise that this isn't the situation for all families. And also that it is out of line with the normal accepted approach, so is probably more likely to cause resentment among families, simply because it is a departure from the norm.

I wouldn't like that, tbh. I have three children, my brother and his partner have none, so if my parents were do to this it would be my family who benefitted and my brother who lost out and I would really not want that at all.
Afaik our parents have a will that just leaves everything equally to me and my brother and I can't see them ever changing that. Even if one of us became massively rich in the meantime.

But you children would be the ones who benefited, alltouchedout, not you, unless you think you can tell your children how to spend their inheritance. Good luck with that one.

This was discussed a while ago in the Telegraph financial pages. The solicitor said that in his opinion a will should always divide equally among children. Parents should not try to "even up" things - eg if one is less well off than the others, as you never know what the future will hold, nor should they divide among whole family including grandchildren. Individual bequests are ok, of course. Also many people fail to update wills to take account of new family members (or outgoing ones).

My dsis tried to persuade my parents to make a will divided into ten parts, to include grandchildren. This was all very well but I was 14 at the time. 1/10th would have left me in a very poor position! And, of course, I had yet to marry and have children. Df laughed at dsis's plotting.

The situation can change over the years, though. Once children are themselves getting elderly and the grandchildren are grown ups with children, it can make sense to leave money to the grandchildren instead - you will know they aren't going to produce any more grandchildren and, with house price inflation in recent years, your own children may not want to inherit extra money in their own old age if they don't believe they need it, in case it results in an inheritance tax burden for the next generation which may well actually need it. Wills should be reviewed regularly. It does sound like the arrangement the OP describes is somewhat premature in this case, though, given the young age of everyone concerned!

My mum ( widowed ) has split hers 50/then my split my half by 3 for me and my children . It's her money and get choice . My sister doesn't have children so she sees this as fair . She has ALOT of money and property but also likes to spend and do she should do in not worrying about it . She and my dad worked hard all their lives so she may as well enjoy it .

But SevenSeconds - there is nothing to stop you giving all your inheritance to your children is there? I don't understand why people keep bringing this up - if you don't want the money and you think your children would benefit more from it, give it to them

When my parents die, I won't need any of their money (if there's anything left). So I shall put it trust/give it to DS.

Yes Lynda that is what we will do. But my point is that, if both my brother and I do choose to do this, then you could argue that it would be a fairer division of 'family' money (in terms of the amount per person among the people who will be benefiting from it) if it was split the way the OP's parents are doing it, rather than the traditional way of splitting it evenly between children.

I think it is shockingly cruel to divide your estate in this way when you have a child suffering from infertility.

People can be so stupid and mean when it comes to wills.

Basically the last thing they are ever going to say to your sister is that she matters less because she has no children.

I can't imagine why any parent would want that to be their child's lasting memory of them.

Bathtime Not at all......your love of someone isn't measured by how much money you leave them when you die.......it's measured by the love and care you give them whilst you're alive.....surely?

your love of someone isn't measured by how much money you leave them when you die.......it's measured by the love and care you give them whilst you're alive.....surely?

Considering wills are made when people are alive, treating children unequally has to be considered demonstrative of how much you care for them when you are alive.

Except seven that's very hurtful to the child that doesn't have children

As I said earlier, it's effectively rewarding the fertile. If you have 7 children and your brother doesn't have any, do you really think it's fair that your parents split their money 9 ways equally? That doesn't seem very fair to me on your brother

Grandchildren are separate human beings with separate needs from those of their parents. The parents are not being rewarded if their children inherit something. I just find that notion utterly bizarre and slightly twisted, tbh.

And LyndaNotLinda - why would you want to inherit money you didn't need, which took you over the inheritance tax threshold so that when you passed it straight on to your children, you then had to ensure you lived seven years so that they didn't have to pay inheritance tax on it? Why not just get the grandparents to pass it straight on to your impecunious children, so that they can get the full benefit, as they are the ones that need it and you don't even want it?

Yes, you could certainly argue that the grandchildren should only get their parent's "share," not reduce the share that goes to the actual children, but you can't really argue that it wouldn't sometimes be better for money to go direct to the grandchildren.

What I strongly disagree with is that passing money directly on to grandchildren is rewarding their parents. It just isn't - if their parents needed the money, but it is held in trust until their children are 18 at which point they have no control over how their children spend it, it does not put them in a better position than their other siblings. In fact, it might be quite annoying to them, too...

Roundaboutthetown - as the childless and grieving sibling, I absolutely agree with you in theory, but in practice, I'm afraid that I would take it as a final message from my parents that I was worth less than my siblings.

Now, you can say that there's something wrong with me to equate money and love, and I can blame myself for feeling emotionally upset by a sensible action on my parents part. (And, of course, presumably if I didn't already genuinely believe that I am worth less to them because I have no children, I wouldn't take this message from their will.)

And yet, the fact remains that people's emotions are often not sensible, particularly when someone is grieving and will probably continue to grieve for the rest of their life, and emotions don't run by tax rules.

:o at my inheriting enough to take me over the threshold.

Actually I guess I wouldn't have a big issue if my parents left everything to the GC but that isn't what the OP is talking about.

I think the issue for a lot of families with leaving everything to the GC is that new GC can be born after the GP die. Or what if one child doesn't have any children? It's much cleaner to leave everything to the next generation rather than skipping one - the potential for rifts and resentment is massive. If you divvy everything up equally between your children, no one can really complain that it's unfair.

Apparently my grandmothers will (she isn't dead!) is unfair because it doesn't take account of the fact that one of her children (my mum) has 3 children and the other child (my uncle) only has two. Strangely this bothers my aunt and uncle more than it bothers my mum or me and my siblings. I couldn't give a shiny shit whether it is fair or not.

I personally think that the OP's parents are being unfair and may not realise how hurtful their will could be. If I was the OP I would discuss it with my parents and urge them to reconsider.

I would feel exactly the same in the OP's position and would rather the money was split between the children.

I do think it is best if people are open about their wills as often they're done with the best of intentions but cause a lot of upset/hurt which could have been avoided.

I think it's easy (and PC) to say that 'It's their will, and they can do what they want', but wills do cause all sorts of upsets within families. To me the OP's parents will does seem unfair, and if it was my family I might try to ask them to change it (I have more children than my DSis , so my family would benefit more, but it just wouldn't sit right with me).

I think it can be even worse if generations are skipped altogether. For instance, a friend of mine has parents who were leaving their estate equally between my friend and his DB. However, they fell out with the DB, and have changed their will to leave everything split equally between the GCs. This means that my friend, who has never been particularly well off, and struggles a bit financially, will continue to struggle after his parents death, while his children will be very comfortably set up. I know my friend is very hurt by his parents decision, as he feels he is being penalised by his brothers, and subsequently his parents, actions.

The question was: is the will fair. Once you accept that it is not fair for what people leave not to go as they wished, the question answers itself. It is at any rate the least unfair.

Just because people have the legal right to leave bequests that are hurtful and cause pain to others doesn't mean it is fair or moral to exercise that right.

I think that people can generally do whatever they like when they write a will, but - unless there is an extremely good reason - they shouldn't deliberately do something that they know will cause upset.

I have 1 sister. She has 3 children and I have 1. The chances are that anything my mum and dad have now will be eaten up with care costs. But if they chose to split things equally between their 4 grandchildren I would be happy with that.

My sister and I are both settled and neither of us are in need of money. Our children are aged between 13 and 22. Hopefully, my parents will be alive for many many years. But, I can't imagine any of the grandchildren being in a position to put down a deposit on a flat of house for many, many years - not with current house prices and rental costs.

So, by the time my parents eventually die, all of the children would be of an age to really make use of any bequests. You could say that 75% of the estate would go to my sister's family and 25% would go to my family, but that would seem a bit of a precious way of looking at the situation.