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 would split three equal ways on death, for various reasons. I think ultimately the children were all given the same opportunity, you don't know how life will pan out in the future for them and it'll stop upset at the time of your death.

However, I would consider making gifts now to help the "needy" ones with current issues.

I earn just above average with a partner who works and own my house. I knuckles down at school and did my best, not as well as Andrew thou!

Some of my family didn't, and live in Council houses and don't work.

I would hate to be penalised for it... though I do try and treat my family where possible, so perhaps Andrew might gift them some of his inheritance if the decision is left up to him?

I would split the will equally - but can you do things to help those who could benefit from it now?

I have one sibling who has no children (and no plans to have any); I have two children. My parents’ will splits things equally between the two of us - but to acknowledge the grandkids they currently (very kindly) contribute monthly to my children’s saving accounts.

I agree an equal split is best. But I do understand the desire to help your less wealthy children and grandchildren. Could you perhaps set up a small trust fund for each of the less well off children/grandchildren now in their names and therefore separate the matter from the will? It would of course depend on your current circumstances and available funds.

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.

Doublevodka, that must've hurt 😔

It's YOUR money. Do as you see best. There may be fall out, but it's also unfair if you leave them equal shares, too. You cannot get this perfect.

Several sets of siblings have not had equal share of inheritance in my family, when their last parent died. Sometimes siblings have voluntarily relinquished their share (my wealthier dad & his brother just did this). Sometimes a set of siblings & their kids sucked up most/all inheritance early, before the parent died, leaving nothing for other siblings.

Not sure if any estate was equally divided regardless of underlying need, in our family experience. I don't expect it any more. It's a fantasy.

I feel very strongly that you should split equally amongst your children.

As others have said, circumstances change. Andrew's marriage could break down, he could lose his job, become ill and unable to work or any number of other things which would alter his current circumstances. One of your dds might get a well paid job or meet and marry someone wealthy. You just don't know.

There is also the strong risk that whatever you or Andrew say, he might feel that a lesser ( or no) bequest means you love him less.

I would definitely keep it to your 3 children, but in your shoes would be looking to give whatever financial help I could to those less fortunate grandchildren.

I would split it into four, a quarter to each of your children, and a quarter split between however many grandchildren you have at the time of your death.

I also agree with pp that you don't know what's ahead for any of them, your most well off today may experience (hopefully not) and number of spectacular changes in fortune. Equally, you're less well off may win the lottery a week after they inherit.

For the sake of sibling relationships I would keep it equal, that's would be more important to me. The amount that you leave will still be helpful to your less successful children.

Equal split between your children. Also best in mind that you may both need care and there may be little left to share, anyhow.

Who have you given LPA to, or are you thinking about? If it will be one of more of your children this could then cause problems i f other family members think they are making decisions on your behalf based on the potential contents of your will.

Even the happiest, closest families fall out when money is involved, sadly I see it everyday. Keep it simple and equal. As others have said, can you offer a little help to some of them now?

Do everything you can now to financially help the family members that need it. Tell your three kids you are doing this so they all know.
But don’t put your care home provision at risk planning it otherwise your kids who can least afford it might be paying to help you out.
After your death, leave a three way split of everything that hasn’t been spent.
Drum into them all that you hope that they will help each other out in future after you’ve gone.

I would split equally, come what may. In our family, irreparable rifts have been caused by a relative dividing on the basis of need and of the closeness of particular relationships, i.e. left the most to the relative who provided most care, then to those who needed it most, and a token amount to those who lived further away and were financially secure. The inheritors are in their 70s and after being relatively close to each other prior to the relative's death, are not likely to speak again.

I would leave it in equal shares.to your 3 DC.

What if Hannah married a rich man or won big on the lottery, and Andrew fell ill and could no longer work?

You'd have to keep altering your will with every twist and turn of their lives.

I don't think you can future proof a will adequately. Help the DC who need help now as far as you can. You could consider liquidating what would be their third share, giving it to them in life and reducing will with explicit verbiage that they've had their share.

I'd say give those who are struggling at least a little money now.

Split the rest between your children equally. I would suggest to Andrew he might like to share his inheritance within the family.

If you leave your money purely on need - why wouldn’t you just split the money between the 4 or 5 that actually need the money and don’t leave any money to anyone else.

What happens though if the day after you due one of the beneficiaries wins the lottery....?

DH and I are much wealthier than my siblings, and We are expecting my parents’ estate to go to my siblings, with sentimental items passing to me.

I’m ok with that. Not thrilled, if I’m honest, but I understand their reasons and I can recognise that they are trying to look after each child and grandchild as best they can. I also appreciate that money is not the same as love and that they love me just as much. So it’s ok.

However it’s VERY unusual. I’ve mentioned it to some friends who were shocked, and I think worried for how upset I must be. Their lawyer also strongly advised them to put a full explanation in writing as part of the will to be sure I would understand and not be upset.

So if you decide to do this you need to make sure Andrew and his children understand your reasoning and won’t see it as a snub/an indication of love.

I would split according to need, in these circumstances. If Andrew didnt understand, then id be disappointed in him

I would say split equally, although Andrew and his family don't need the money, if you don't leave anything's to him and his children this could cause resentment and a rift in the relationship between your children. It is difficult when the others are struggling but if they are left money and he isn't he may also feel it not fair that he has worked his arse off to be financially well off and his siblings are just handed money on a plate. I do completely understand your reason for asked the question though.

Leave it as equal splits. Talk with Andrew about your dilemma. The best outcome is probably your children together deciding a deed of variation, at the time your will becomes relevant. That relies on Andrew being willing, but equally allows for them all to consider their circumstance at that point in the future. Perhaps suggest to him that he might prefer to divide his share amongst your grandchildren as appropriate - inheritance tax planning for him will presumably be relevant! But keeps your will straightforward and fair!

what if Andrew suddenly split from his wife, suffered financial hardship, got sick or decided to go and live in a yurt in Zimbabwe?
3 way split would be fair and easy.
Anything else is trying to read the future.

I see a pp has already suggested this, but I would give as much as you can now, while still being comfortable instead. If you develop a care need later, there may be next to nothing for you to leave.

Who have you given LPA to, or are you thinking about? If it will be one of more of your children this could then cause problems i f other family members think they are making decisions on your behalf based on the potential contents of your will.

Not sure the relevance of the LPS and will contents?

LPA can categorically not make monetary gifts from the estate above and beyond what is normally given (ie for birthdays, Christmas etc)

An equal split isn't going to upset anyone. I imagine the less well off will be delighted at a £200k windfall (who wouldn't be?!), and they're unlikely to question why Andrew's family also have a share.

An unequal split otoh is likely to cause huge upset. Even if Andrew says he's ok with it, it'll hurt.

Split three ways, it is the only way to do it. You can't predict the future once you're gone. Your daughter who is single could meet a rich man, win the lottery etc. Your son could be made redundant and fall on hard times. Circumstances can change.

Three way equal split.

As Teal said, you don't know what the future holds for any of them.

I can see why you feel as you do but I think doing anything other than an equal split (with maybe a small bequest for grandchildren) is just too difficult and penalising those who have done better. If Andrew were a millionaire who truly wouldn't notice or the familiar relationships were very good so that you knew he would agree with the approach then that might be different. The amounts are still significant for everyone. To my mind the only exception can be where someone needs extra support because they are disabled for example.