To split will between dc on basis of need, not equally?

[jzjz]

More of wwyd in this situation

Dh and I have had the same will since our 3 dc were children, splitting everything equally between them. They're now all grown up with their own families and very different circumstances, so I'm wondering if splitting equally is the best thing to do.

For context (all names changed)...
We have three adult children

1. Andrew - ultra intelligent & highest earning by far, his wife is also a high earner (both city lawyers). They have two kids - Bethany & Michael -both v. academic & high-achieving - who they've put through private school. Bethany doing law at top uni, Michael doing A-levels and want to do medicine. So I'd imagine they'll both be high earners in the future. If it's relevant, their mother is an only child and has very wealthy parents, so the family will be getting a big inheritance from them.

2. Hannah - not at all academic, didn't go to uni, got married and had a daughter & son quite young. The son (Jake) is in a stable relationship with 2 kids, has a good office job but doesn't earn a huge amount. The daughter (Isabel) is a single parent to 2 small kids whose fathers aren't in the picture, she works a few hours a week (can't do more due to childcare issues), but mostly relies on parents/benefits.

3. Jane went to uni & is a teacher, so earns a reasonable amount. Husband hasn't worked in years due to disability. 2 kids - the older (Lucy) went to uni, though not a top uni, and has just started working in an office in her home town, living at home. The younger (David) has SEN & works in a supermarket.

My question really is, should we leave the will as it is and split it equally, giving 1/3 to each child?

Should we split it equally 9 ways between each child & grandchild? (or include great-granchildren too?)

Or should we allocate it more on basis of need - i.e. not leave anything of financial worth to Andrew's family?

Should we prioritise Isabel, Jake, Lucy, David?

Please leave money equally to either your children or to your grandchildren. Anything else may cause huge upset, resentment and falling out in the future.

Do you want to cause a permanent rift in your family after you die?

Do you want some of your children or grandchildren to feel like you either don't love them, or that you think they are failures?

This is a very, very bad idea in my opinion.

I’m andrew in my family, I would be horrified if my parents left an equal sum of money to me because they felt it was fair, whats fair is not putting me in the position where I have to rectify your nonsense by passing anything you leave me directly to my older brother and as such embarrassing him. If you want to improve someone’s life significantly then just do it don’t fanny around thinking I’m grabby enough to care about what in essence is not a life changing thing for me but would be for my much loved and valued brother.

Surely it could still cause upset as the two struggling might think it’s unfair. And having the same parents doesn’t necessarily mean you were treated the same and given the same opportunities.

I would ask Andrew how he feels about it.

I think it sounds fair to prioritise according to need

I'm with NeedsAsockamnesty.

Also I'd do something exclusively for Andrew which demonstrated to him that you love him every bit as equally.

I was one of the adult children in a scenario just like this, but with the twist that three of us were functioning adults, of which one sibling (alas not me) was a high earner and the other two (me and another) were equally hard earners but very low-waged. The fourth sibling has a long-term mental health condition, and is unable to work at all. My mum rang us all when she was redrafting her will, said "I'm leaving the house to [ill sibling], you OK with that?" We all went "sure, it's your money" and that was that.

Could I have done with a share of my mum's estate? Bloody hell, yes, it would have been a life-changing amount. (She didn't have much cash but she had a house with the mortgage paid off.) But it made sense to leave it to the sibling who could not provide for themselves at all, and so we all accepted it. It hasn't caused any ruckus at all.

There was a provision in the will that this sibling has a life interest in it, not an absolute ownership, so that when they die the proceeds will come to the rest of us, but realistically (because of the ages of us all involved) this will be divvied out amongst any grandchildren, not amongst us siblings.

Spend it all on a lovely nursing home instead?

My grandfather had five children. He favoured two of them and left his money to only those two. No one in the extended family could understand why he did it, though there have been many guesses - everything from the adult children not being fathered by him to him being jealous of the three he penalised! It is still mentioned now, years later. No one's opinion of him is very good, which would have shocked him. He thought his name would go down in the family as a hero I think!

I would split equally between your 3 children

Equally split between the 3 children, or if you want to take into consideration the GC, the 30% each DC and 10% to be split between the grand children?

I wasnt saying that the others hadnt worked hard! - I was saying that he would have put effort in and his own sacrifices and shouldnt be penalised for doing so.

It must be difficult if you don't love your children equally, but do you really need to tell the world?!

The repeated references here to Andrew being "penalised for doing well" are ghastly tbh. Actually he's been handed a couple of good cards here that the others haven't been - he's married someone rich (I hope no-one's going to tell me that was a deliberate choice to increase his wealth!), and his talents happen to lie in a direction recognised by the education system. His spouse and his children are whole and healthy, as it stands.

Jane didn't ask to fall in love with someone with a disability or have a SEN child. Hannah, for that matter, didn't ask to not be academic - unless she's very academically clever but a complete dosser, which is not what OP says.

That said I would stick as near to the principal of an equal split as possible, for all the reasons rehearsed. I like Trills' idea, but I would maybe tweak it with some provision for disability and SEN needs made now (i.e. not as part of the will) as that stuff is just expensive and unfair. And be very open about this. I think it's harder to justify extra provision for Hannah but I would probably quietly be gifting her things like holidays, cars, home improvements in the meantime.

This also has the advantage of avoiding IHT (provided you survive the 7 years) so you're doing more with less and reducing the amount Andrew will lose out by.

You should split it equally IMO. All 3 are your children, nothing else including earnings, partners earning, other possible inheritances etc should come into it.

It is the only fair way. Also you can't presume their earnings will continue or presume that they will inherit. Things happen and change circumstances. You may not end up leaving anything to your children yourself if you need care in you old age. And money causes all kinds of problems and arguments so if you split it 3 ways it lessens the chances of this.

I would split the will equally but if at all possible, give those in need some financial assistance whilst you are alive.

I'm shocked that you even have to ask advice on this OP.

Even split, obviously.

Any other scenario will cause your grieving children extreme hurt.

Split equally otherwise it's unfair and will cause resentment. If you don't split equally you're basically punishing the people who did well.

If people on benefits get an inheritance then I think the benefits stop till it is eaten up...

It will only cause hurt if your dealing with the type of people who think money equals love amd amount of money equals amount of love.

I’m surprised by how many on this thread do think like that

Split equally between the three children. Let them decide about passing money on to their own children. Let everyone know beforehand so no surprises.

I'd have to split the money equally, it's not Andrews fault he's been successful and he'd be being penalised for doing so. Also you don't know the exact situation with the, money wise, they might look 'comfortable' but actually have lots of debt.

We are the Andrew in my family and I'd be really hurt by this.

I'd do an equal split regardless of individual success.

I say equal split between your three DC.

I am the Andrew in this scenario, and have told my DM that I would prefer my 'share' of anything left (would prefer not to be left of course) be shared among three of my siblings, who need it much more than I. I know they would be horrified at this, but it is what I would prefer.

DH's family have form for being extremely divisive with wills and inheritance. It has caused untold hurt and angst, and the already disfunctional family has been fractured much more by these actions. His DF has officially disinherited him some time ago, so it won't be a shock when the time comes. Will still hurt though.

I'm also not sure why so many have said "ask Andrew about it"

From the sound of things he's very capable of telling his parents to leave it all to the siblings if that's how he feels, and being no fool he'd no doubt realise that any "meeting" might involve subtle pressure on him to do exactly that

Which may hardly be fair either ...