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?

Dont as it only effect the children after your death. Best thing is to do it fairly. The relationship between your children is worth more than any money!

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

If you've raised them right!?!! Bit harsh'

I’d opt for splitting it equally between the 3 children. As other posters have said - seems harsh to penalize the eldest who happens to have done well for himself. Perhaps a set equal amount as a token to each grandchild also.

I would do what you can to help the less well off now, see them changing their lives. Maybe provide deposits or pay off loans. Then make you will equal.

Equal split.

I agree with Orchard it reads like a text book question that a family dilemma.
If it were real, I would say think very carefully whether you might come across as marking out the younger two as unsuccessful in life and needing more of a handout from you- they might get offended. It happened in a strand of our family.

Agree with other posters that the thing to do is to help the ones struggling now. Or could you put a sum of money in trust for Isabel, Jake, Lucy and David now? I think the whole will thing, just because it comes at a time when people are upset and not wholly rational (and, to state the bleeding obvious, you won't be there to explain your thinking), has the potential to cause a lot of bad feeling.

This thread puts me in mind of this cartoon

Help those in need while you are still around to help them. Split the will equally.

I would leave the grandkids out of this for the time being. I think it’s the parents responsibility to make sure the kids are looked after- eg if you have £200,000 to one they could use that to pass on to their children.unless there’s any reason you think the parents wouldn’t do this then I would leave it just to your children.

If you decide to split it 2 ways, or maybe 3 ways but less equally, I would definitely talk with your son first. Then when the time comes he won’t be left feeling as if he was loved the least. I’ve not read all the posts but if this was me & my siblings & I inherited money I clearly didn’t need & they did, I wouldn’t think twice about helping them/giving them the money.
It’s also about people living to their means & whilst your son has the highest income he potentially has the highest outgoings. They may satahd to inherit a lot from the in-laws but you don’t know when that would be.
Tricky one. I think I’d be inclined to split equally.

I would be looking to give away some of the money sooner rather than later. 40% inheritance tax takes a massive chunk out of what you are planning to leave. if you feel that you need to even up the balance a bit between the children why not do it now by helping out financially those that need it. at least you would be alive and seeing the results of the good that money can do.

I’m with previous posters. Help out the grandchildren who need it now and split your will equally.

I don’t really like the idea that you’re punishing Andrew for having done well and marrying someone who has wealthy parents. You never know what the future will hold for them.

Split equally to avoid family rift.

So I guess I am the Andrew in my family. I have told my parents that I would not be at all offended if they did not leave me anything and in fact would prefer it, although understand they may want to make a token bequeath to my DC.

I have always tried to treat my children fairly and have always taken the view that this does not necessarily mean exactly the same as they may have different needs at different times. I don’t see this as that different, but if you go this route I do think it needs to be properly explained, whether in person or letter, and you need to make clear that it is not an indication that you love him less and that you are very proud of his achievements etc.

Whyohwine My point was you/Andrew might not be offended but your siblings might.

I would talk to Andrew if I were you. My gran was in this situation. My uncle is a billionaire and the inheritance would have been pennies to him. Where my mum is a single mum teacher. My uncle when gran was writing her will told her not to include him but requested some possessions to be left to him - grandad' s watch etc. Your son might feel the same. Xx

Equally 1/3 each.

My grandmothers will is the main reason my family is at "war" with each other.

Don't assume they'll inherit from the other side. Care homes and donkey sanctuaries can eat up the lot!

We've recently changed our will, and have left everything to our 3 DCs in equal shares. That way, there is no potential for arguments and if some have children and others don't, there is no inequality. We chatted with them all first, and they felt that was the fairest way and they would pass money to grandchildren appropriate to their ages. We didn't want to end up specifying when grandchildren would be old enough etc for trusts and went for the simplest method.

You can't decide who is more deserving of money from you according to their job/status. They would never forgive you, and they will all need each others love and support when you're not here - not to be warring over money.

Only read to page 2 but surprised that most people’s advice is to split equally.

I would sit Andrew and his wife down and see what they think. They may surprise you and Andrew may be happy to be able to help out his siblings.

If they don’t seem happy about the idea then I agree an equal split between the the children

OP says her kids barely see or have contact with each other, already. Her grandchildren wouldn't recognise their own cousins, for instance.

OneinEight not really though, that cartoon would apply to helping with a problem now, for example paying for a holiday or to replace a boiler or car.

It's highly unlikely that the op knows the financial institutions and outs of all her children and grandchildren, and she is making assumptions about her daughter in law's parents too (who may perfectly well live to be 100 and outlive Dil/ spend every penny on care/ spend all their money cruises/ be conned out of their life savings or may have hidden gambling debts or who knows what).

The OP is speculating about what the future holds for a kid now doing A levels - he wants to be a doctor, so she's assuming he will indeed do that, not miss the grades needed or become physically or mentally unwell or have a life changing accident, or marry the love of his life who becomes disabled and give everything up to become her/ his carer, or have a disabled child himself, or qualify as a doctor but join a relief agency and devote his life to the poorest people in the world in war zones and refugee camps instead of amassing personal wealth...

Fanciful?

Who knows.

The op doesn't have all the information about the present and future of all the people involved, so she doesn't know who might actually need a bigger box to stand on long term.

Equally an inheritance is a gift, made to those you care about, not a social benefit.

I personally would split it equally. I'm in a situation where my parents (well, mum and stepdad, who I consider my parents) are not splitting their will equally. There are 3 of us. I'm an only child and then my stepdad has two adult daughters. I am by far the more successful of the 3 of us, in terms of education and profession, but my stepdad's daughters have chosen to have very little relationship with him as adults (my understanding is that they were teenagers when he and their mum got divorced and it was very painful for them to see their parents split up and they blame him for this, the divorce was his choice as it had long been an unhappy marriage but they stayed together for the kids). Anyway, long story short, they aren't close to him by choice despite the fact both he and my mum make a lot of effort to reach out to them and support them financially.

So in the will, though there are 3 of us, I am left roughly 50-60% with the rest split between the two sisters. In part, this is because I'm the one handling everything (and also will do all of the care for both of them eventually when they need it). I also live in a different country, so there will be significant travel when they are older/ill/after they pass to sort everything out. Stepdad's daughters live in the same country, but a flight away. So partly it's compensation for the disruption to my life to sort out their affairs and all the long haul travel involved, but a lot of it is just down to the fact that stepdad likes me more than his own daughters who he is a bit upset by. I understand why they are doing it and they feel strongly about it, but it's also sort of awkward. I've never even met his daughters and then to have to dole out money that is clearly unequal is a bit weird. I certainly don't need it more and when it's a large sum of money (in your case, as well as in mine), I don't think it matters much if one gets a bit more. I would keep it equal, perhaps the only exception being if you feel one child has intentionally abandoned you or has expressed a desire to receive nothing from the will. I wouldn't do it based on need and achievement though.

Not RTFT as it's huge. But here's what I'd do. Help out the lower earners now if you can. Give them money for things they need or would really appreciate - towards a holiday, house maintenance etc. But in the will, divide it all equally. After you're gone, I think it's important that all three feel equally loved and valued and an equal split will be the easiest way to prove this to them unequivocally in your absence. But to help now those who need help would be kind and make sense.

My parents are leaving more to my disabled sibling (the entire house then any savings, which would likely be minimum split between us.)

I'm by no means an Andrew, but I'm happy that they're doing this as my sibling would never be in a position to own a house or be able to rent anywhere decent.

Equal doesn't always mean the same.