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?

Split equally. The fact is that just because someone is studying law at Oxbridge it doesn't mean they will enjoy their working life. They'll have to sacrifice time away from their kids and family - maybe inheritance will mean she can have longer maternity or hire a nanny or buy a house so she doesn't have to commute four hours a day.
City life isn't all that.

When my dad spoke to me about it, I promised him I would rather siblings had a greater share because despite working hard, their careers do not pay as well. I have never seen it as money I should be entitled to or even that it should be equally given if it is left to us.

I think if you have a frank discussion with Andrew I'd should be ok. Definitely as for his input. I like PP suggestion of 10K for GC each to help them in their studies etc, And the rest for DC split as per whatever you decide.

I have a small amount inherited to be inherited from a deceased grandmother in the future and am about to refuse it in favour of my younger half siblings who need it more than I do. Don't get me wrong, any extra money is always welcome and we are not wealthy and there will be no further inheritances coming in to our family, but I feel like they could use it more than me.

So many errors in that post, sorry!

Generally I would advise an equal split between the children, the only thing that would make me pause, is the grandchild with SEN. If he’s likely to need additional support or income, I might leave something in trust for him specifically, explaining your reasons why.

moochypooch

Interestingly dh who is an Andrew worked his butt off at school and continues to at work, his sisters did not work at school and continue to work less than half the hours he works - he takes a lot of shit from them about his income, he gets rounded on for the hours he works, as the years have passed their resentment has grown.

I get that.

I worked long hours. Worked hard for my career. The resentment has grown over the years too.

For something they never bothered to work for. I dont get it.

This sounds like "crabpot mentality", when family members band together to punish the one who tries to escape.

Another reason to split it equally is that £200k will go a lot further in the NW than London. £200k will be a life changing amount for your DDs if they’re low paid in the NW. For Andrew it may just pay off a 1/3 of his mortgage.

Do you have disposable assets that you could use now (so not tied up in your home, for example)? If so, could you do something now for your grandchildren ... something special, but also based on need?

So for the 'poorer' grandchildren that might be something such as a deposit for a home, for example. For the 'richer' grandchildren, it might be something like special trip, so they can 'follow in your footsteps' to a place you have loved.

Your choices could be laying something down for their futures ... be it a home, a car, some savings or some priceless memories. The whole project would leave your estate smaller, but might therefore make decisions about your will easier.

I would be more concerned about your daughters and granddaughters struggling to cope financially than I would be worried about my son's family feeling less loved in the future. I would split on the basis of need.

If you split based on need, you must get all of your children to agree to it, and perhaps sign their agreement in a document. Trust me when I say these things very easily break entire families.

I would 100% say split evenly. And perhaps consider a monetary gift now to all the grandkids. It would be a lovely gift for all of them, but a great help to your struggling granddaughter and I think it is very important to be fair, regardless of circumstance. As much as Andrew's family don't see the others as frequently, everyone is going to be part of the family and need to get on for years to come.
Any favouritism is going to fester in the minds of those feeling hard done by and it will damage relationships, whether that be at the time or years later.

Jane is a teacher, you think she doesn't work as hard as Andrew?

I am a teacher (for 14 years now) and no, I don’t think I worked as hard as a lawyer has had to do, to get to Senior Partner in a London Law firm.

In regards to sibling relationships, Jane and Hannah & their families are very close; but Andrew doesn't really have a relationship with either of them, doesn't see them apart from when I invite them round at the same time every few years. Bethany and Michael can probably count the number of times they've met their cousins on two hands.

Unless there are reasons for this that you don't want to explore here (and that's fine), I think you should be focusing on this. My family is in tatters so I might be projecting but I think that the cousins might find that having each other to turn to as time goes by is a just as powerful a legacy as money.

But please split the money equally - even if 'Andrew' is fine with it, it may not survive many iterations of the story, and his descendants may soon be saying they were 'cut out'. This will hurt, and could jeopardise the chance of your grandchildren from this son forming relationships with the others in the future. As others have said, circumstances can change in the blink of an eye.

It all depends on other factors too.
But I think I would at least make some adjustments for need,I try to treat my children equally now but to a certain extent that means trying to provide what they need when they need it,not exactly the same all the time.
Also - how is Andrew being punished by a non three way split? It's not punishment not to get exactly the same as your siblings all the time,and he has worked and achieved,and has had the ability to do so - his reward for that is to be where he is and have the satisfaction of it.Its only punishment IMO if the parents make it clear that he is being left less because he has disappointed them (eg).
DC need different amounts and kinds of support,and as a parent you try to give them that.I don't see how the distribution of your estate is any different.You could argue that splitting in proportion to family income was entirely fair,in the same way that contributing to paying bills in proportion to what you earn rather than splitting them 50/50 is fair in a marriage.

I read the first page of the thread which had several posts from the op.

The only fair way to do this is to split it equally among your three children. Otherwise you are showing favoritism, surely you understand that. How do you think your son will feel? I think it would be very cruel to punish your son for working hard and achieving success and supposedly not needing your help. Parents often favor those children who “need” them, or should I say, those children who get all the help. You don’t know what the future holds. Your legacy will be leaving your son out of the inheritance. That would be badly done.

A couple of things:
I wonder if you’ve given financial help to your daughters over the years?
And I take it you don’t much like Andrew’s wife?
I sense antipathy from you toward your son (or his wife which colors your feelings toward your son) just from your posts, how they don’t have a relationship to your daughters’ families and so on.

I supppse I don't understand. Are you very wealthy now? Why are you letting some of your family struggle on benefits?
What age are you? You might be around another 30 years, things might have changed entirely.

Split the will equally. Target struggling siblings now, when they need it. Help with what you can - a holiday for example.

Definitely split 3 ways equally between your children. After that, it is up to them

@Slanetylor

We help out our struggling granddaughter as much as possible, mostly through childcare, but most of our money is tied up in our house, which we bought a very long time ago when it cost a lot less. Apart from the house, we aren't wealthy people.

We’re in a bit of a similar situation - my brother is wealthy (4 properties, earns more than twice what I do.... will be able to retire at 55.) I earn a reasonable salary but still have a mortgage on my property, my pension is being forever eroded, and I’m lucky if I can work until retirement as I have a serious injury which has led to a chronic condition. I am a higher academic achiever - have a PhD and extremely well respected in my field, but have chosen to work in a more ‘worthy’ career. My brother is in a corporate role. Neither of us have children (or partners currently.)

Our parents are typical baby boomers (retired in early 60s, full pensions, mortgages paid off, comfortable) leaving everything to us equally, but they are helping me out more now. I am having help with healthcare, etc. However, my brother has been told(!) he has to ‘look after me’, and we’re aware that should my Health continue to deteriorate, then things might change.

The difference is, we’ve talked about it all. Also, after some significant family tragedies, we’re lucky and thankful, to still have our parents (we’re in our 40s) and have them still in good health.

Keep talking about it. It’s the only way to make sure there won’t be full on warfare (I’ve experience of that one too), when the time comes.

Alternatively.... you’ll be dead, and you won’t know anything about it, so won’t have anything to worry about!!

@Lashalicilious

No, his wife is absolutely lovely and we get on really well.

Andrew never really stayed in contact with his sisters after he left home - he always used to and still does call us regularly, but never Hannah and Jane. They were never particularly close as children and they're not close as adults.

With regards to the cousins, Andrew was the last to have children, despite being the eldest, so his kids are quite a bit younger than Jane's/Hannah's. Added to the fact that they live 200 miles apart, their parents aren't close and the fact that they're just very different people with different outlooks and aspirations, I don't think it's surprising they barely know each other.

A few years back BBC 2 had a very interesting series called 'Can't Take it With You'... six programmes with six dilemmas where families discussed the challenges of inheritance before they died... hosted by Gerry Robinson. No idea if these can still be viewed online but they would be worth a watch.

I own my own house outright. Neither of my brothers are in a position to buy with a mortgage right now, so if they do die will have a long time to be in the position I'm in. Being mortgage free lets me plan for my 5yo DS's future in a way that I couldn't otherwise. So I've told my parents (who are late 50s and healthy) to feel free to leave their house and savings to my brothers. Anything I'd stand to inherit from them would really just increase my savings, for my brothers it could be life changing.

..........Neither of my brothers are in a position to buy with a mortgage right now, so if they do eventually buy, they will have a long time to be in the position I'm in. ................

Cripes, talk about a typo!

If you split the inheritance 3 ways equally then afterwards no one can easily say 'that wasnt fair'. Anything other than equal split between your DCs has the potential to cause problems.

I would also not leave specified cash sums to GCs. My GM did this. By the time she died most of her assets had been diminished by the costs of her care. The major part of her estate ended up being distributed to her GCs whereas the intention had been that the bulk of her estate should go to her DCs. Once the cash bequest had be paid there wasnt a lot left.