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?

I think most lawyers and accountants would advise a simple three way split between your children as anything else will be complicated and might be contentious, possibly leading to a lot of unhappiness and potentially leading to rifts between your children.

You would be dead right.

I’m a lawyer who has done wills & estate planning. The standard is to split equally between children. I have seen the repercussions when people have done otherwise, and it is not pretty.

Allocate it on basis of need.

I would give the money to your children/grandchildren who are struggling financially - and leave sentimental items and family heirlooms to the ones who are financially stable.

Andrew is as clever and will have planned for his future well.

As a set of cousins, scattered in 3 continents, we don't see each other very often. We also have an aunt with no kids.
My Grandparents will was set up to divide equally between the kids, with a 1k lump for each grandchild (if you go to 10k per grandchild, consider putting it in as a percentage of total inheritance- 6 grandkids is 60k, and if you end up with loads of care fees, that might leave very little for your kids).
My Dad (Andrew in your family) has given a big lump (house deposit teritory) to 2 of my cousins. The rest of us have been lucky in life, and will manage this relatively easily. For the other 2 cousins, it is a pipe dream, now becoming possible due to the gift. Please don't just write Andrew out of the will. Personally, I'd divide three ways, but with a chunk for each grandchild, but if you wish to only give Andrew a token amount, he needs to know know before you write thd will, so he isn't hurt further following the loss of his parents.

Alternatively, you can spend some of the money (if it is available as cash) on the kids and grandkids now. So small gifts to Andrew and his family. Larger gifts to the others. Remember if the gifts are truly large, they are still subject to a proportion of inheritance tax if you don't survive 7 years from the date of the gift.

Oh, and I wouldn't include great-grandkids at this point, they are too young, and more may appear. Some of the families would struggle to give future babies the boost their siblings got from an inheritance.

I would say leave it equally. The problem with doing anything else is that none of you know what the future holds for any of you. Your will may well stand for many years and in that time a lot could change.

• care home fees can burn their way through your assets leaving your estate as only a few thousand
• something could happen to destabilise Andrew's currently financially comfortable life which you dont get to recognise in your wills in time

Equal split. DH and I are by far the poorest of our respective groups of siblings but we would never expect to inherit more than the others. In fact I'd be embarrassed if we did. My brother and DH's SIL have been lucky in some ways but in others they have made sacrifices that DH and I wouldn't be prepared to in order to get to the financial position they're in - they shouldn't be punished for that.

The only difference I would say is in Jane and David's case, as Jane's husband is disabled and David has SEN. Is there anything you could do now to help them? For example, my mum is disabled and before my grandma died she gave her the money to instal a lift - this was extra to the equally split inheritance. Similarly, BIL has severe SEN and FIL has set up a trust fund to provide for him in the future - again, this is separate to inheritance.

Equal thirds would get my vote.

If your gd is struggling, could you afford to help her out more, while you’re still alive?

I'm the Andrew of my family and would want my siblings/nieces/nephews who needed it to have more. Fair doesn't always mean everyone being treated equally.

The thing is though, that circumstances could change after the op dies. My dad, aunt and uncle (siblings), are all quite successful career-wise and when it came to wills for their parents, it was decided that their younger sibling who had a disability and who they all thought would need the money more, should have most of the inheritance. You get sibling then got a law degree, invested in property near London and is now wealthier than the others ! Luckily, my dad’s family find this funny and accept that it really was their fault for underestimating younger sibling.

I would say help the needy ones now if you can and leave some money direct to DGC, but don't leave unequally to DC. As other posters have said, it will just cause resentment.

There seems to be an underlying issue of Andrew's relationship with the family. Can you do anything to integrate him and his family more with the wider family?

Do you have funds available now and could you help Jane and Hannah and their kids now?

I.e. House deposits for them or their children?

The best laid plans....

You don't know what's around the corner for any of your 3 children. Circumstances can, and do, change in a heartbeat, so I would split equally.

Definitely split equally. My father left me nothing and told me before he died it was because I had a resonably good job. Then left my brother everything because he didn't have a secure job.
I worked and studied for years to be where I am so it was a real kick in the teeth for me and very hurtful.

i would split it by need. I would leave a letter explaining to Andrew you love him just us much but he is very successful and wealthy on his own. Your other grandchildren need it more.

Have something sentimental for Andrew and his family.

Alternatively discuss it with him just now. If he feels involved in the decision he may want to do the right thing. At least he will understand your thought process even if he disagrees he will know it isn't a snub or because you live him less.

I would split it according to need. However, you need to be honest with Andrew and try and get him onside. Perhaps if he spent more time with his siblings and their cildren he would be persuaded? If he was really unhappy with your plans I would reconsider.
This inheritance would be transformational to the lives of your less well off relatives.

Doublevodka It sounds like Andrew earns substantially more than his siblings though. Jane is a teacher with a reasonable income but I think OP is still intending to leave her a sizeable inheritance in recognition of the fact that she and Hannah’s income is actually more similar than hers and Andrews if I’ve understood correctly.

Who knows what the future will hold for any of us? I went to Oxford, had a high earning career, inherited a decent sum and bought (outright) my first home. Now, at nearly forty and with two kids, I’m disabled, I can’t walk, can’t work and am in chronic pain. Adapting our home and general living have burned through my savings quicker than I could have ever believed and we now live off DLA. My husband can only work from home, for limited hours, as he’s also my Carer so no real income there. We own the house thank god but may have to sell in the future.

Please split it equally, you have no crystal ball. Or if you have, lend it to me?!? The Euro lottery numbers would be great 😊🤣😊

I don't think the money matters as much as the way your children would feel about you and each other if you were to treat them differently.

I'm the Andrew of my family and would want my siblings/nieces/nephews who needed it to have more. Fair doesn't always mean everyone being treated equally

On a much smaller scale my sister was the "Andrew" of our family and with both our father's and our mother's will shared out her inheritance between my brother and I. Which was an extremely lovely thing to do, but at least she wasn't desinherited by her own parents.

I keep thinking about this...

I think it would be a terrible, terrible thing to leave Andrew out of your will. You're effectively punishing him for being 'more successful'/working hard (whatever/however he's 'bettered' himself). It's an awful message to send and if you put yourself in his shoes, how would you feel?

And let's hope that you actually have anything left to give. It will likely all go on your care anyway.