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?

In my family we have always left everything to the next of kin. Then that person splits it with the family. For example when my grand died it was all left to my mum as next in line on the understanding she would do fair by everyone. We all had oppertunity to have what ever material items and my mum split the house sale equally between her self, me and my brother. My mum will expect me and my brother to do the same when she dies.

But of course that only works in a tight nit family you can trust. You do hear of some hurendous stories of families fighting over inheritance.

I would split it 3 ways! Any amount of money would be greatly appreciated if your really struggling.

I would split it equally, as the "doing well" adult child it's always been assumed we didn't need financial support and I watched my siblings being helped by my parents continuously practically and financially with nothing coming in my direction because we had good jobs and I was resourceful.

I feel so feel resentful towards my parents - I've worked exceptionally hard to be ok off financially (nowhere near the level of the OPs son) and have funded my own higher education which hasn't been easy by any stretch. I feel my parents haven't recognised that when deciding I don't need support from them in life and or an inheritance in death. I deserve the same as my siblings because we are siblings.

@LiliaoftheGreenwood - ghastly? Really? To equate Andrew's success with hard work? I don't think so. That his wife has rich parents is sheer luck on his part, I'll give you that. But talent/intellect are qualities, which aren't the same as luck. I think it's an over-simplification to suggest he is richer than his siblings because of his sheer luck in being smarter. As I said in an earlier post, regardless of natural ability, he will have had to work bloody hard to get where he is and whilst he's clearly in excellent money, City law firms basically want blood for their money, he will have to work bloody hard for it, trust me! (I'm in the same profession but at a lower level).

Not everyone who is highly successful/high earning is academic or vice versa. I know very successful people who I suspect are millionaires (one definitely is) who've made their money in construction who are not academic at all. One left school at 15. What they do all have in common though is their work ethic and they are all "people persons", as it were. Equally, I know people who are extremely academic that never have been high earners and likely never will do. Just because the two daughters are less academic than Andrew doesn't mean they didn't have the potential to go on and make huge money doing something else.

Andrew's wealth therefore is not just down to fate having dealt him a few lucky hands. It's partly that, but it's mostly going to be a combination of personal qualities and hard work. To suggest otherwise is churlish. That is why people on here feel that cutting him out of the will is penalising him for his success.

Early on in this thread, OP contrasted the fates of Bethany and Isabel. Again, I think would be an over simplification to assume this is just down to the hands that life has dealt them. Bethany will have had to work bloody hard to get in to Oxbridge, even with the advantage of a private education. And if she joins a City law firm like her Dad, she will have to work bloody hard for her money there too. It may be that she chooses not to have children until she can afford to support them herself, and until she is certain that the father of her children is in it for the duration and will stick around and support her. We don't know Isabel's back story but we know she has two kids from different Dads, neither of whom remain on the scene or involved in any way. There is an element therefore of Isabel's fate being partly down to the relationship choices she has made at some point in her life. Arguably therefore it's a harsh over simplification to say Bethany doesn't deserve any inheritance because she's doing well and is going to make more money, whereas Isabel needs it more, when neither is a hostage to fortune and both will have had a role in shaping their own lives into what they are today....

The only comments on here that I think could legitimately be described as ghastly are those who have made comments to the effect that OP has already shown favouritism to her daughters over Andrew and that she loves them more. That, I think, is unfair. There is nothing in any of her posts that gives me that impression, I believe OP is just trying to work out morally what is the right thing to do here....

All this money. Why not gift some of it now to your struggling daughter? It may have been mentioned already but havnt read every post!

I suppose I'm just struggling with the dilemma of having one granddaughter who is a single mother on benefits while another has a £100grand trust fund and is studying law at Oxbridge.

^In that case OP I wouldn’t hesitate to give more money to those that are more deserving.

Essentially you are saying that you want to treat your chidren differently because one dared make a success of his live whist your grandchild should be rewarded for making some poor decisions. That's exactly how your son will see it and others.

It sounds like their is done resentment that he moved away and is not close to his siblings as it comes across in your posts.

I'd split it three ways. I wouldn't penalise the high earning son for having been successful.

Yep. You have three children; split it three ways. There's no other fair way to do it.

deserving and struggling aren't the same thing

OP has said that they are property wealthy not cash wealthy. The less well off DCs are helped out in practical ways now.

AHungryMum I would add that a big difference is that Andrew is a man whi h will have a made a huge difference in his ability to be successful and reach high level positions at work as well as being in a better place to handle relationhsip issues (even if he had been the father of two dcs from two different women, he wouldn’t have been the RP with all the childcare issues etc.. coming with it).

It think it’s very easy to say it’s only done to hard work or choices that people make re relationhsips etc...

Yes hard work will make a difference. But hard work doesn’t equate becoming wealthy because the opposite of that would be that if yu dint have money it’s because you’ve chosen to be in that position (by not choosing your partners well enough, by not working hard enough at school etc...).
Whereas we all know that some people are academic and some aren’t. Some people are good at communicating, others aren’t etc etc and even with all the hard work in the world, these abilities will make a difference.
As for luck, ask most people who arrive at that sort of level. They will all say that luck has played a big part.

@NotReadyToMove - not really a relevant consideration in my view, would have been 20 years ago but not these days. His wife is also very successful in the same profession, after all! (As I say, I'm also in the same profession, albeit at a less well paid/prestigious level, and my honest view is that these days there are no glass ceilings for women in law these days)

I would never for one second suggest that hard work alone is all it takes, but equally I don't think it's right to classify intellect and ability as luck. Like I say, those are qualities, not luck. I do recognise there are plenty of people (which historically would have included myself by the way) who work very hard but don't make much money for doing so, but to say that the Andrew's and Bethany's of this world are primarily successful due to luck is, imho, doing them a disservice....

Sorry OP, we appear to have taken your thread off on a bit of a tangent here!!

Bringing it back on topic - unlike some on here I'm not going to criticise you for favouritism or similar, you clearly care deeply about your family and want to do the right thing. I am in the camp of split it equally to avoid the risk of causing rifts between your family after you've gone and making Andrew and his family feel hurt and snubbed. Ultimately though, it is YOUR money and your choice.

Good luck whatever you do....

I'd split it three ways, but I am biased, having watched my mother's family descend into all out war over wills and inheritance. My brother and I have asked our parents to make a good go at spending every last penny before they die so we have nothing to inherit!

Why don’t you help out your granddaughter financially while you’re still alive, then leave equal amounts in your will?

3 ways. My ILS informed my H that he wouldn’t be getting anything in their will as in their eyes he doesn’t need anything even though we are far from being well off. As we are the only home owners and my H works hard whereas his siblings don’t work out of choice.
It isn’t fair and my H is a little miffed although also pragmatic that ultimately they can do what they want

I'd split it equally three ways too. Just because a child is doing well it doesn't mean they will always continue to do so - life can change in the blink of an eye and often does. What if the successful child has a terrible accident (god forbid), his wife leaves him and he's left disabled on benefits with carers to pay for in future?

I feel pretty strongly about this as my mother decided about 15 years ago that she was leaving everything to me with nothing for my sister. No reason other than she didn't like my sister's partner at the time and hated the thought of him living on her hard earned money whilst never working. My sister split up with him 10 years ago, but the will hasn't been changed yet. Now it's supposedly because I have kids to take care of and my sister is daft with money. She's actually far more sensible than I am. Really it's just sheer spite because my sister will point out when my mother is being abusive (I live hundreds of miles away and don't see her often, and have always been the 'golden child'. I've told my mother that I'll give my sister half no matter what - she just says that's up to me if I decide to deprive my own children.

Given that the "children" are all adults, some themselves grandparents, if it were my money I would want to ensure that the young people directly received some inheritance. I'd split it 9 ways. Each child has two children so that is also "fair".

Andrew really doesn't need your money and his children are more likely to need it, despite their ostensibly better start in life. A 9th of the money is still enough to improve your daughters' quality of life significantly.

I'd make additional provision for David's future given his SEN, presuming this is such that he may struggle to live an independent life. This will alleviate huge stress from his parents too.

*This situation is happening to my Dad, he was the first person in his family to bother with his education. He went to University and got a good job, not as much as your son earns but he's comfortable and has a modest house.

His brother didn't bother, had a baby with his girlfriend at 16 and has been in prison a couple of times. He now lives with my Grandma rent free whilst she struggles to pay the bills for herself and his family.

My Dad has spent a lot of his time helping his Mum with her finances and helping her when she got into debt. If he didn't do that she would have lost her house.

She's wrote my Dad out of her will completely, because she believes my uncle, his wife and children need the money more. For my Dad he doesn't care about the money it's just a total snub after all he's done for her*

Oh my fucking God, that’s horrible . Never have I ever felt so much anger and disbelief reading that post.

Sorry, that should have been in bold *

i would share the money equally between your three children irrespective of how much money they have or how well they are doing at the moment. Life changes and things go wrong you never know what the future holds

@1DAD2KIDS that sounds like an absolute disaster waiting to happen. The whole point of a will is to leave money how you want it to be left. Not some weird guessing game. Are you sure there actually was a will and it didn't just pass to your mother as next of kin in the absence of a will?

In any case the example isn't comparable as it appears your mother was the only child of the deceased and the only next of kin. In this case, all three children have an equally calf claim to be next of kin, assuming the deceased person doesn't have a spouse or parent living.

Your family's approach really is a terrible idea that would almost certainly result in disputes. Imagine your mum left all her estate to your brother with the expectation he would do right by you. And you feel that a fair split would be half of the house and maybe most of the savings because you have recently lost your job or you provided more elder care to your mother. Oh and a further share each for your children. Your brother meanwhile believes "doing right by you " means £3000 for a nice holiday and he will keep the rest, thanks, because that was what the mother obviously wanted. You have to see how naive and risky this approach is.

@1DAD2KIDS

Inheritances can rip apart the most close knit of families. This is why wills exist.

They don't call money the root of all for evil for nothing.

I would advise against leaving everything to one person then ask them to pass it on as they see fit. They legally can keep the lot and is a recipe for absolute disaster.

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.

This describes my sister and I exactly. Our 8 year old daughter and 19 year old nephew are as thick as thieves when they get together. None of those things inevitably make for a distant relationship if everyone makes an effort.

But I don't think your children's failure to keep in touch with each other should have any bearing on your will. Punishing him for his success seems really unfair.

Rather than worrying about this I would ensure that at first I have wills set up so that you and your DH both own 50 percent of the house each along with mirror wills and a life interest in the house for the remaining spouse with each half being gifted to your DC in the event of one death but in trust .
if one of you needs dies and the other needs to go into a care home at least 50 percent of house would be safe and in some cases 100 percent
I would do this now before the goverment think up some ways to prevent this very legal and cheap loophole .
At the very least should you die first at least 50 percent of the house is safe for your kids and should your husband remarry and his new wife inherit everything at least your kids will get something

Call me cynical but having seen this happen many many times with the first kids losing any form of inheritance when a parent remarry . This is what I would do first
And I would split it three way anything else is pretty unfair unless your son is happy with it