Aibu to think you should split inheritance equally between siblings?

[Bakingberry]

A close friend has this conversation going on in their own family and wanted me to to ask what MN thought.

The parents will be leaving a modest inheritance to two grown up children. One child is married, has a good job and their partner has a senior position position in the same industry. They don’t struggle financially but they have to make sacrifices like all families do. It might be relevant to mention he is an only child, his family are quite wealthy and are quite happy to ‘insist’ on paying for things for them.

The second child is single, does a job they love but is earning about a third of what the other sibling earns. They obviously don’t have the support of a partner and have to pay all bills, mortgage, etc on their own. This means that they need to don’t have a huge disposable income.

Both siblings would benefit from the money but it would obviously help out one more than the other.

AIBU to think that their parents should split things 50/50 when it comes to their wills? I know there is a ‘discussion’ going on and I’m starting to see things from both sides.

I'm in a very similar situation DD1 married with 2 DGS owns home (mortgaged obv) but DD2 earns too little to get a mortgage.

I have willed 50/50 otherwise I foresee problems when I'm no longer around. Having said that any money I have is tied up in my home which will have to be sold if I need to go into care (shoot me first)

SweetSummerChild am planning to do the same with my jewellery - have given both DDs some already.

It should always be 50/50 unless there is a good reason for it not to be. The exception would be a child with an addiction issue.

Should always be 50:50

Any other split will cause a lot of long lasting hurt, which is the last thing any parent would want for their children.

I'm neutral. Mostly b/c I don't think it's actually possible to be truly fair in most cases, and certainly even rarer that wealth is truly evenly passed down. Therefore I have little expectation of 'fairness' happening.

The will dispersal may look fair when it's equally divided, but over the years assets will have been unevenly distributed, especially to adult children. Free childcare or Help buying a car or school fees paid for just one grandchild or being allowed to stay rent free for a few yrs.

My folks say their estate will be divided evenly betw. me & my step sisters. I think it's unfair for very many reasons but heyho, their money. I'd rather have a good relationship with my dad now, and luckily I don't need their money.

What if one of the children has decided not to have contact with the parents? Would you think it fair to still split equally?

tbf... my dad set a recent example. He & a financially-comfortable sibling both waived their own inheritance, put their money back in a pot for the other 4 siblings to each benefit more. Relationships > money.

My mum split it equally between me and my sibling. Whilst I am the wealthier of the two of us I would have been upset had it not be 50/50 simply because we had made different life choices.

I think the fairest way is 50/50.

But, I hate all the entitlement and expectation from wills. I couldn't care less if my siblings got more than me in a will. Or indeed it all went to the local cat home. How much you are loved isn't about how much money someone inherits but from the amount of arguments caused lots of people see it that way.

50:50

There are three of us. One is financially better off. One has just been diagnosed with a life effecting disease and won't know what the future will hold in terms of working.

Still should be an equal split.

Like others have said circumstances can change. The less well off sister could marry someone wealthy and the well off one could suffer ill health, or her husband could and she might have to give up work to look after him

You can't predict the future

In that scenario i would split it evenly. As said, life can change for any of us.

I'm in a dilemma how to write my Will fairly, but allow my youngest DD, who may be a lower earner, as she has LD's/Autism, to stay in the Family home. I've done it so she already owns two fifths of it, within a few years it will be half, after I've given my middle DD the equivalent cash.

Even though my two other children have been bought out, as such. I know, strictly speaking it won't be completely fair.

It may be my youngest's only chance to have a secure place to live, though, for reasons completely out of her control.

"What if one of the children has decided not to have contact with the parents? Would you think it fair to still split equally?"

I have limited contact with my eldest because of her Partner, but she is still my DD and is equal to the others, who inflict themselves daily on to me .

I think that it's very wrong to put conditions on our children, for them to inherit. The only time that there should be a difference is if one stays in part time work to do hands on Care etc.

""How much you are loved isn't about how much money someone inherits""

Usually when there are arguments it's because any resentments/issues from Childhood and later have been brought to the surface.

Money doesn't equal love, but as a Parent, you want your Children's lives to be better, or easier than they are. Or your Grandchildren to have the same chance of education/housing as (we) did, when it was free etc.

Not striving for that does show a certain lack of consideration and thought, as a Parent.

Often when you are busy working, you say it's for your children. Well if you aren't present as they grow up and the give away the "profits" from working, who was it really for?

Very different if your children are doing really well, though.

I think the general rule should be 50:50.

Exceptions include: a disabled or special needs child who will need looking after; grown up children who became primary caretakers of he ailing parent, often forgoing their own life pursuits and relationships; correcting past 'bequests' where some children received large cash loans that weren't paid back

We are comfortably of but my DH's sister is full of debt and homeless. We are not expecting to receive any monetary inheritance from DH's parents when they go. We are just hoping that we won't be liable for payment of any death duties should SIL decide to stay put in their house.

Should be 50:50. I know one family who left the lot to their wealthy banker DIL and DS, leaving their disabled DS nothing.

Perfectly legal to leave a child starving in the street, but so is adultery.

Not necessarily. In the scenario where there are two sons, one does everything humanly possible for his parents and the other visited them once in a blue moon, barely phones and then moved abroad without visiting his very sick mother before he left (he hadn't seen her for at least 4 years) as he 'didn't have time' - would a 50/50 be fair. I certainly don't think so.

@Birdsgottafly
I'm in a dilemma how to write my Will fairly, but allow my youngest DD, who may be a lower earner, as she has LD's/Autism, to stay in the Family home.

Ask your solicitor if you can leave the house as a life estate or "life interest". Basically it would give your DD the right to live in the house until she dies and then it would go to whoever you specify in your will. DD would not be allowed to sell the house but (I think) could rent it out if she didn't want to live there.

It's entirely up to the parents to decide.

But it might be helpful if they discuss it now and come to terms with the decisions so there are no surprises or arguments later.

When my granddad died my dad and his siblings were left equal shares of the sale of the house but it was the other stuff that really caused the problem.

My aunt wanted everything of value but also she wanted everything that anybody else said they wanted as well.

She went in first and took everything she wanted, but then as others chose things she was getting upset and saying "well but I wanted that as well" and it caused a lot of upset.

My Uncle then went on to do something so awful that he and my Dad haven't spoken since and it's been fifteen years.

So even when the will is equal, it doesn't mean everyone behaves well or feels fairly treated.

If they are the type to want "their share" it usually means they really want more than everybody else in my experience.

50/50 its the only fair way.

Not necessarily. In the scenario where there are two sons, one does everything humanly possible for his parents and the other visited them once in a blue moon, barely phones and then moved abroad without visiting his very sick mother before he left (he hadn't seen her for at least 4 years) as he 'didn't have time' - would a 50/50 be fair. I certainly don't think so.

But what if the ‘negligent son’ had actually cared for his ailing grandmother and it was actually largely her inherited wealth which made up the parent’s estate? Would it still be unfair for them to inherit?

There are too many different circumstances to be able to judge, and it gets even more complicated when a parents remarries and their are second spouses and step-children involved.

50/50. No one is entitled to money they didn't earn so any amount is a bonus.

I'm a lone parent to 3 DSs, the middle one has SN. I will be leaving him more than the other 2 to ensure he has a home to live in after I'm gone. We have discussed it and the other 2 are happy with this and would expect nothing else. The NT 2 are both bright people, one at uni, the other will most probably also go to uni so they have the potential to look after themselves pretty well. To make things fair doesn't always mean exactly equal.

This is from a piece Daisy Godwin (writer of Victoria, producer of Grand Designs etc) wrote about her mother's will.

On the record, one leading solicitor told me that it is his job to translate his clients’ wishes into a legally binding document. Off the record, and for this reason he did not want to be named, he says: “It’s a common mistake made by successful people who think it is their job to redress the balance between their children through their wills. They may have been hugely successful in business and they see their will rather like a business plan — a rational document with foreseeable results. What they don’t understand is that when it comes to a will, money equals love, and the child who is left nothing, however successful, will feel rejected. If a client asks for my advice, I always tell them to split things equally between their children. To divide things unequally may make perfect sense to them at the time, but it won’t when the will is read.”

www.facebook.com/AuthorDaisyGoodwin/posts/749685928414731

There is no standard answer. It's up to the parents and the circumstances of each family. There are so many reasons that 50/50 might not apply. In the OP case, 50/50 does sound fair but there could be other mitigating circumstances