Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to split DS1's money with DS2?

137 replies

AbelMancwitch · 18/08/2016 13:30

I've been mulling this over for nearly 10 years, so I thought it was probably time to get some outside perspective on this!

My grandad died 10 years ago when my DS1 was a few months old, and left DS1 £1000. I put this in an account for him for when he is older and have continued to save his birthday money in there (until he got old enough to want to spend it! This is an account that he doesn't know about and I'll be keeping this money back for him until he's an adult rather than letting him fritter it all on polos and tat now)

Two years later DS2 came along. Same thing, I've saved any money he's come into, but obviously what with one thing and another he has about £1200 less than DS1. This is partly because my "family" favoured DS1 over DS2, and didn't treat them fairly. (I am now NC with them, partly because of their behaviour to DS2.)

Perhaps because of this I have a heightened awareness of what I perceive to be unfairness, and I can't help feeling that DS2 has financially dipped out. I'm wondering whether I should split the £1k between both boys to try to even things out a bit? I imagine if I'd had children 2 years earlier, my grandad would have left money to both of them. However, if the money was left just to DS1, is it wrong to give half of it to DS2?

I literally can't get my head around what is the fairest thing to do. It also doesn't seem fair to try to boost DS2's money by saving for him, because if we save for one, we need to save for both, and then it will never even out anyway. I don't know if this is just one of those times where DS2 will learn that sometimes life isn't fair due to circumstance, or whether in 10 years time this will cause grief if DS2 feels like he is being treated differently - sibling rivalry is already a big deal. Sad

See, I'm tying myself in knots. There's no urgent need to resolve this, as they won't get it for another 10 years or so, but I'd like to make a conclusive decision, rather than spend then next 10 years swinging from one side to the other on it. (I'm a Libran, can you tell?) Wink

So Mumsnet, what do you think?

OP posts:
Barmaid101 · 18/08/2016 15:59

I would just save more for the youngest as that would then make it fair bringing it up to a level playing field. It would be unfair to leave ds1 with more as he had that inheritance so by saving extra for ds2 then you are making it fair and then they each would have had the same boast.

RepentAtLeisure · 18/08/2016 16:05

I think that's the only right solution. Just save for DS2 until their money matches. No need to feel guilty about it.

Believeitornot · 18/08/2016 16:14

The thing is, how they react to the difference may well partly be determined by how you present this.

You mention sibling rivalry - I don't know how big of a deal it is, but might be worth addressing that because I wonder if you're worrying too much about it or not.

I found the book siblings without rivalry to be very good.

I would tell my DCs that this is a savings pot, and actually I would make up the difference between the two if it were me.

AdjustableWench · 18/08/2016 16:23

I agree with those who have said that you can't really make a decision about what to do until you know exactly what the will said.

I have a similar situation with my kids and it's a headache. I haven't figured it out yet (I still have a few years to worry about it), but at least I know that my family members have always aimed to be as fair as possible, so that will probably by my guiding principle. That, and open communication.

carefreeeee · 18/08/2016 16:28

Also, some sibling rivalry when they are 8 and 10 is normal and things will probably be very different when they are adults, as long as they are not given any different treatment to exacerbate things in the meantime

Welshrainbow · 18/08/2016 16:44

I would save the extra £1000 for DS2. Or if you can't do that split the inheritance but leave the rest.

Witchend · 18/08/2016 16:50

I can imagine the situation where you say "and I split the money with your db" actually, however well they got on, bringing up issues.
What if dc2 then ends up with more money?
Dc1 turns round and says "well you didn't insist we split when dc2 got x, y, z"
Could bring up things you never realised they minded about.
Nor do I think handing it to dc1 saying "and of course you'll want to split it with dc2" is fair. No pressure eh?

No. I'd give them and explain that dc1 had money left from his grandad. Or tell him not to tell dc2 how much he has if you think that's better.
You don't know how things will go in the future. Dc1 may need that money, dc2 might take up an expensive hobby you pay way more on as he grows up, etc.
At times things aren't fair. However if you give him it then you have not altered it. If you try and fiddle things to make them in your eyes fair you may end up with one of them not just feeling that it's unfair but you did it and favoured the other.
At least with giving it as is, it is explainably unfair. "your ggd left dc1 money after he'd met him. I'm sure he would have left dc2 the same amount, but he died before he was born" is understandable with nothing personal there.

LivingOnTheDancefloor · 18/08/2016 16:59

I agree, Witchend

Enidblyton1 · 18/08/2016 17:43

I would definitely split it - legally there is no problem and morally, I don't see an issue either. Obviously your grandfather would have split it equally had both DC been alive when he died. What is morally wrong about doing something you know your grandad would have wanted?
If you don't want to split the money, I really wouldn't give your DC2 extra 'to make up for it'. Just keep things how they are and explain what happened when the DC are much older and you hand over the accounts. Over the years the difference might even out naturally or, even if it doesn't, £1000 isn't a huge amount of money anyway.

dowhatnow · 18/08/2016 17:55

grandad would probably have liked all your children to benefit from his money.

I'd make sure they both receive the same amount of money when you eventually hand it over to them.

Remember the second will have more time to get extra as he is younger iyswim and will continue to receive presents after the first gets his money. Make it fair so that they both get the same amount of money when they buy their first car/house or whatever. That's what we are going to do.

OSETmum · 18/08/2016 19:17

I would try to make up the difference over time for the sake of ds2. My dad has lost out many times to his older brother ( over much larger figures) and they now have no relationship (this is not my dad being petty, the family are very weird and have strange views on inheritance ie. All the money goes to the oldest child Confused and due to my dad's parents dying young, this has happened 4 times now!)

I'm not saying that would happen to your dss but it's not about the money in my dad's case it's about fairness and acceptance in the family.

Sunnydaysrock · 18/08/2016 19:25

We have a similar situation, DD was left a significant amount when a great aunt died, before DS was born. We had already saved for her. We have debated what to do. Including whether to ask her to split the money when she gets it at 18. But we decided to only save for DS from now on to try and go some way to giving him a similar amount. Maybe you could do the same until the £1000 has been built up too for DS2? We know that our DD will not resent our not saving as she will still probably have more and is very close to her brother so would want him to have money too.

CurlyBlueberry · 18/08/2016 19:28

Personally I would ask DS1, when the time comes, if he would like to share with his brother. His money, his choice. I wouldn't say this to him but I would hope I had raised him to be the sort of person who would share. I would share with my brother if we were ever in this situation.

yettiLEGS · 18/08/2016 19:31

If you split the money now equally
Or if you just save for ds2
It will even itself out

spinyffud · 18/08/2016 19:32

I would split the money- it feels unfair to 2nd son! I appreciate the legalities, but would possibly feel a little hurt if I was second child!

happypoobum · 18/08/2016 19:37

Yes I would do the same thing, as I would imagine that if DS2 had been around, your GF would have split it between them.

bumsexatthebingo · 18/08/2016 20:05

I don't think you can split it. But I would save the same for your other child. Rather than thinking of it as saving for one and not the other I would think of it as giving it as a gift on behalf of your grandad as that's what he would have done if he was still here.

AnotherPrickInTheWall · 18/08/2016 21:57

Don't split the money. When both DC's come of age they will probably have equal savings.
BTW, it isn't your money and if it was in a Trust fund it can't be touched.

dowhatnow · 18/08/2016 22:12

why is it morally not ok to split the money for some but they are ok to save more for the 2nd child to even it out. That seems more morally wrong to me.

TeacupDrama · 18/08/2016 22:17

If the will says l leave £1000 to DS1 name it doesn't matter whether it was in trust or given to you for DS1 in cash by the executor of the will that bequest belongs entirely to DS1 legally, in fact if you did not give it to him on 18th birthday in its entirety it would be legally theft even if it comes from a desire to make things fair, DS1 could check the will just as easily as you can.

He may decide to share you, may save a similar amount for DS2 to make it fair in the end but if the will is specific you have to follow it however the will may not be specific it might have just said a £1000 to my grandchildren however legally that would be grandchildren alive at his death not subsequent ones as if there were 4 and they all got £250 then a fifth was born 2 years later you couldn't get £50 back from each to give 5th GC so they all had £200 and so on

I think whatever the will says as DS2 was not alive at death he is not entitled to the money, while it is probably almost certain that if Ds2 had been around the grandfather would have either given £500 each or left him £1000 too you generally can't alter a will retrospectively without agreement of all parties it can be done the Milliband family did it but it's unlikely to be worth the legal costs for a relatively small sum of money

I think the best option is to add to ds2 savings until he has a similar sum, l don't think you can really reapportion birthday money either

dowhatnow · 18/08/2016 22:24

If you split the money now equally Or if you just save for ds2 It will even itself out

Same thing really. Same result. It's just psychological.

The2Ateam · 18/08/2016 22:27

I would split it the £1,000 between them.

Grandad's dead, money was in cash and kids are little.

All those talking about 'legally' is bollocks and funny! Their not old enough to manage their own money & lucky to have you saving for them.

I also put all my kids birthday money straight into an account for them.

Daytona79 · 18/08/2016 22:32

If it was my I would spilt it as pretty sure that's what grandparent would of wanted

Insabbathstheatre · 18/08/2016 23:33

I was in a similar position (DS1 got £600 of premium bonds from my GM after he was born but she died a few years before DS2 was born - the bonds won £1000 plus some other smaller amounts). We opened a savings account for each and just paid in so both got the same amount at 18 (DS1 knows situation and agrees!). DS is cashing in the actual bonds this week and have paid in an extra £600 into DS2s account - both are happy (should I say we spent the winnings on a holiday when the kids were little - but guilt may me pay several times over into their accounts when I went back to work and money wasn't so tight!!)

MysteriesOfTheOrganism · 18/08/2016 23:37

Split the money. Favouritism within families is highly toxic.