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 it equally. My Aunt has 3 children has helped 1 out considerably as he earns significantly less than the others and its already caused resentment.

However you can help out more now, could you maybe cover childcare costs for your DD so she can work more etc.

I would previously have said be fair but having seen the gaping chasm between how first and second/subsequent If close in age children are treated and then their life outcomes, I think the first child has benefited unfairly by order of birth so the other children can reasonably be given more financial help from your will.

I think you should split equally but leave a letter for Andrew suggesting he takes into account the other siblings/grandkids position when deciding what to do with his inheritance.......

@Jobjobjob I have seen many situations where the LPA is accused of been very frugal with money and not acting in P's best interests. For example a self funder in a care home who doesn't have basic money for toiletries because their LPA won't provide it. Of course this can be challenged at the Office of the Public Guardian, but it is a difficult situation for the family and of course P. Siblings will often argue that the one with LPA has an alterior motiive, e.g. if Michael knows that Hannah and Jane are the sole beneficiaries of the will. I know of a current situation where P is stuck in a care home that is not appropriate for her needs, whilst her children argue about what money should be spent on funding her care. The contents of her will and who has LPA are central to this.

Funding care home and needs for donor 100% fine. No matter if the donor was frugal if LOA thinks it's in the best interest it's fine. It's the attorneys duty (usually two) decision in funding care.

The contents of the will have no bearing on this (or should have no bearing) the donor is alive and needing monies.

The moral of the story is make one attorney a solicitor without a vested interest in inheritance. Assuming you can't rely on family.

And presumeably due to the limited contact between your children in the meantime you could maximise any opportunities to give liquid assets to the other two in advance of your death?

Absolutely agree that if anyone is struggling now then now is where to help, if possible. Your children may be pensioners themselves when you die, and the time when the money might make a big difference past...

Fwiw I write a lot of wills and no one does this. Pretty much everyone divides equally except in blended families.

If you do go the un equal route you need to front it with Andrew and have the discussion

I think any other than an equal slot would be very unfair.

As said further upthread you would basically be punishing Andrew for being successful. If my parents did that to me I would be extremely hurt and frustrated.

3 way split. If you’ve raised them right they will take care of each other as they need to, after you have gone.

Andrew and his family might suffer a terrible catastrophe the day after you go. Hannah might have a lottery win.

Leaving a will sends a message and leaving less to your son who has worked just as hard in life as Hannah and Jane, is a pretty shitty message to send.

barefoof that's barking mad.

Split it equally. You have no idea how life will pan out fir them in later life. Your high earning son may become depressed and have to leave work. Or get cancer or be made redundant.
My parents try and equal things up with my sibling even though we have different incomes. It causes resentment. Split equally is the fairest way.

Money is not the way to judge a life, health and happiness are much more important.

FIL did this. All of his DC are hard workers and have their own DC but 2 are high earners and one earns reasonably well, think £75k. The other DC earns an average wage with no real hope of it increasing. FIL was very transparent about money while he was alive so DC knew how much they were getting and why and were given opportunities to discuss it. It only caused a small amount of resentment with one of the high earners who barely sees the rest of the family anyway (though his share had it been split equally would have been less than half his annual salary). The other DC are close and understood the reasons. Difficult one though, not everyone would be so understanding.

I'd say an equal split too. Life can change in a heartbeat. Accidents, head injury and mental health issues can change your future.

I think this is the Daily Fail

Equal.
The sums of money you're talking about are already life changing for the less well off dc and gc.
And as pp says, you never know how life will pan out. Andrew may get divorced by his wife etc.

Split it equally, you have no way of knowing what the future holds.

100 percent agree

If you give away as much as you can now, to whoever you want to help in your lifetime then you are accountable for your actions and your kids or grandkids can ask you about it and you can make very sure you discuss it openly with them.

The reason people say they make an equal split in the will is that by then you are gone, so if you do unequal shares at that stage, you can’t explain your actions, people can read into what you’ve done and it causes rifts.
So why not avoid leaving an emotional minefield behind for your family by acting now.

I completely understand where you are coming from, and I can see that it is a good place and you are wanting to do something to change the fortunes of the less well off family members.

However, the legacy of not splitting it equally three ways is that it could leave a bitter taste with Andrew and resentment towards you both, and his siblings.

I think the kindest thing to do is split equally, for the sake of your children’s relationship with each other.

Speak to Andrew and see what he says before you do anything.

My DCs also have very different incomes and lifestyles, with one being much better off financially than the other. My will and DH's, assuming that we are widow(er) at the time of death, leaves everything to the DCs equally. I couldn't do it any other way.

An equal split.

Once you're gone Andrew might be generous to his siblings anyway with help if it's needed?

To be honest £200k should be a lot to the least well off anyway! Enough to buy a house in most areas outside the M25.

Help them out now, if you can.

My in laws have been paying an amount each month into our DC's savings account.

Yes, can you help them now?

Equally.

In a similar scenario as the high earning couple while siblings are less so. With my inheritance I will buy something to remember my parents by and I will cherish and treasure it for the rest of my life as it's been bought 'from' them.

Even split 3 ways. It’s the only fair way to do it.