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.

I'm wondering. Why have your parents decided to leave their inheritance to their grandchildren rather than their children?

I can see why the sibling wo children would be feeling left out and that the fact they can't have dcs be rubbed in their face.
I would also wonder if they know about it, ie is that will, even though it wont come into force for a long time, going to have some effect on the family as a whole?

My parents have made their will. They have left some money to the grandchildren (all equal) but the majority of thing is left to the children (equal amount again). Their idea is that they want to give a nest to their grandchildren to start in their life (my own gran had done the same except it ended up
Being all eaten up before she died). But the inheritance as such is with the children iyswim

Of course this is a controversial subject and not everyone will agree.

But Lynda I personally wouldn't describe the OP's parents' will as "rewarding the fertile", I'd describe it as "distributing the money fairly between the family members within a generation".

If you describe it as "rewarding the fertile", you're implying that my brother and his DC are one family, and me and my DC are a different family, and each of the two units should receive the same total amount to divide between them. But if the OP's parents see themselves and their DC and their GDC as all part of one single family unit, they may consider it fairer that each of their grandchildren within that family receives the same amount (given the important proviso that their children's generation don't really need the money - obviously this isn't true in all cases), rather than one grandchild receives two or three times more than their cousin because they happen to be in the branch of the family with more children.

If any of my kids took issue with the provisions of my will before I was even dead, it would all go to a charity for homeless donkeys.
Why do people set the cat among the pigeons by informing their children where their cash will go? Assuming there is any actually left after their death, of course, anything could happen between now and then no matter how affluent someone currently appears.

If any of my kids took issue with the provisions of my will before I was even dead, it would all go to a charity for homeless donkeys.

So if one of your children expressed concern about how your will might hurt the feelings of another child, you would punish all your children by disinheriting them?

Because being considerate of your siblings is a bloody cheek!

It isn't 'within a generation' seven. It's equal shares between every descendant. So the sibling who is infertile inherits the same as the grandchild. That's why I think it's unfair as one of the children and their progeny will inherit half the estate while the infertile one inherits 1/16th. That may seem fair to the grandparents but I bet it won't seem like it to the poor person that hasn't been able to have children.

One of my friends is one of 3. One of her siblings has 4 kids and my friend and her other sibling are both infertile. I know it would been a huge slap in the face if her mother had split her estate equally between the children and grandchildren and caused huge animosity and resentment. Thankfully she didn't. I can't imagine any loving parent/GP wants to leave that as s legacy.

It isn't money per family though, it is equal money per person.

It makes sure that the GC get something rather than having to rely on it filtering down from their parents.

Should I get more from my father because I have more children than my sibling?

Sorry, I've put money as if everything would be sold.

I do think that it would be more usual to leave a set sum of money or lesser portion to GC & then everything else equally between the children.

"I know it would been a huge slap in the face if her mother had split her estate equally between the children and grandchildren and caused huge animosity and resentment. "

I don't really get that tbh.

They would have begrudged their nieces/nephews getting something?

I'm confused diddl - that's exactly what the OP is saying - she and her children will get more money from her father because she has more children. But then in your subsequent posts you're saying that seems reasonable.

Can you really not see that it would hurt that your mother left you, her 40 year old daughter, exactly the same proportion of her estate as she left your 12 year old niece?

I can only think you don't know women who've struggled to come to terms with their infertility. It cuts very deep.

Agree with diddl. Maybe it depends how close you are as an extended family though.

My friend is very close to her brother and his children. But it has hurt her over the years to see how much time and energy her mother has devoted to her brother and his children and I know she and her sister felt that they were of less interest to their mother because they hadn't reproduced. So it goes a lot deeper than just money.

Anyway, this is all a moot point as my friend's parents are long dead and divided their estate equally between their offspring, as are my parents :)

I probably would be hurt, but I'd like to think that I would get over it.

I love my niece, as did my mum.

I can't see how GPs saying that they love their kids & GC equally is that awful.

I can see how the infertility of a sibling is clouding the issue in this case, although I hope that the Ops parents aren't intending to be hurtful, just wanting to do something for people they love.

I cannot actually see why it would hurt deeply to inherit the same as a niece or nephew if you were also inheriting exactly the same as all your siblings - unless your unhappiness at being infertile resulted in you wanting your parents to prove that they didn't love their grandchildren as much as they loved you.

I am shortly to make a will. I have three children.

This thread has brought home to me how important it will be to make it as simple as possible.

If I die before my DH then my shares of any assets will pass to him, and vice versa. Any of the estate left after the death of the last surviving spouse will be sold and split equally between my children.

That is the only way I can really envisage setting it up. It is what I know my parents have done for my sister and I. It was the view drummed into us as we were growing up. It would never have occurred to my parents to do anything else, and it has rubbed off on me. It was also what DH's mum did.

Everyone does, of course, have the right to make their own decisions about how anything left is to be apportioned. Many are probably reacting to their perception of the dynamics of their own extended family. It is a valid approach, but seems more of a minefield to me so wouldn't be my preferred method.

Horses for courses though.

The assumption that equal is fair seems crazy to me, few people give equal to their children - the eldest is an only child for some of it, the youngest might have less fit or more elderly parents, or more time in a family less short of money, or who've already learnt from mistakes made. Different children have different needs, wants and desires. Treating them fairly is not just giving them all the same money when you die.

The infertility may be clouding this particular scenario, but that can be dealt with by the P talking to their child, it may well have already happened, it doesn't make the distribution inherently unfair.

I can see the OP'S parents' point of view: make sure the grandchildren, that they know and love, get some money to invest. In this day and age of housebuying etc, this can make a huge difference to their lives.

Also, how does the sibling financially compare? If the siblings all seem to be on an equal ish footing, there is no cause for jealousy about the will.

When I started to read the thread I felt it unfair, but now understand, and have sympathy for, their financial planning.

It seems pretty fair to me but I don't know your family.

My parents' wills are written very unfairly. They are basically leaving everything to me except for a bit for my children. My younger sister will get nothing. This is because she is living with a man who they detest, and they can't live with the idea of him benefitting from a single penny they have worked hard for, when he is almost 50 and has never worked a day in his life. They feel he is a scrounger who would spend all of her share to benefit himself.

Now, they may be right about this guy, but as I see it my sister is a fully grown adult who is entitled to make her own decisions about her life (however hard it is to watch) and money. I have argued with them about this and have outright told them that I disagree with this - my sister is actually unaware and will be utterly heartbroken by this - and I will be the one who has to deal with it not them! I have said that I will be splitting anything left to me with her anyway... their response was 'Well, that's your choice and decision, but more fool you as you're just depriving your own kids for the sake of this bloke then'.

It's difficult. I do see that people can leave what they want to whomever they want. But then they must also see that that will have consequences, especially when people are told in advance what is going to happen.

The fairness / unfairness to childless siblings really hinges on whether you see the inheritance as going to "the families" as complete units (bearing in mind the children are very likely to be independent adults themselves at the time of inheriting), or can acknowledge the fact that there are now x number of extra individuals in the entire family as a whole.
Why would the fact that your own non existent children didn't inherit even be on anyone's radar?

Something that struck me reading the last few posts is whether those that think money should be split only between children's families think the same way about gifts given when their parents are still alive.

Say the grandparents think it would be nice for their almost adult grandchildren to have a bit of a leg up and give them all a generous gift. Do people think it would be unfair if they gave them all the same amount?

Say four children, eight grandchildren. One child has four, one has three, one has an only and the final sibling has no children. Each grandchild is given $10,000, and the money comes out of a pot that would likely otherwise be inheritance. Would the sibling with no children really feel that this gift showed that their parents didn't love them or was discriminating against them for not having children?

I wonder how much the ages of the different generations come into it?

Some people seem to be imagining GPs aged 85 at death, children aged 60, well established with houses and careers and with no need of additional assistance, and GC aged 30, who would really benefit from a mortgage deposit.

Meanwhile, others are imagining GPs aged 65 at death, children aged 35 who would benefit from a mortgage deposit, and GC aged 5, who have no particular current expenditure needs.

In fact, I think that everyone is saying that people aged 25-45 need the most assistance, whether they're the DC or GC - which seems to be roughly the age of most MNers

The money is to be held in trust until the grandchildren are 18, though, ForestHigh, so if that's what people are imagining, they are all imagining the wrong thing.

Dementia/ alzheimers secure care in the UK is £1000 per week
in the USA its £1200 per week
in the Euro zone its around £900 a week

ie around £50,000 a year
and is statisically likely to last 6 years

how much did you think you would inherit ?????

I had something similar when my MIL died. She knew she was dying so discussed it with us quite openly. My husband and I have two children and her daughter doesn't have any children. She told us she was splitting her money 1/4 to her son, 1/4 to her daughter and 1/4 to each of my children. Essentially, our family ended up with 75% of the inheritance. My DH and I both said this wasn't fair on her daughter but both my MIL and her daughter disagreed.

Her rationale was that she wanted us to each spend the money and not necessarily pass it on to our children so we would all have the same benefit as individuals.

I'm sure others would disagree with this splitting (including me and my DH to some extent) but it was her choice and it was very much made in sound mind. I am just grateful that she thought to include us at all.

trust nothing
I saw Mil 6 days before she died
and she lied (and had been lying for 4 years)
so we got shat on

my kids were gutted at the way they were refereed in the will : it will affct the rest of their lives

IMHO
keep everything secret until you are dead

If I die before my DH then my shares of any assets will pass to him, and vice versa. Any of the estate left after the death of the last surviving spouse will be sold and split equally between my children

Sounds simple but if the surviving spouse was to remarry the results could be very different. Perhaps put a condition in to ensure your DCs get their share of 'your' money.

Mind you I think how relevant this is depends on whether the sums being left are life changing millions or a nice little pot for a rainy day.