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.

Like this.

Similar situation here. Lucky to still have my parents, and they’ve already given us all very, very generous gifts.

I’m married, we’re both high earners and will likely increase earnings significantly over the next 20 years. Have savings, investments, and large pensions. My DH is an only child and is likely to inherit a fairly sizable estate from his parents.

My sister has five children, including one who will never be able to live independently through disability, and a very sick husband. They’re struggling with their mortgage, and future earning potential is very limited.

My parents have given them more than us. I think that’s right.

As a parent, you have to look at needs, not just wants, when it comes to your children- whether you’re giving money, time, or anything else.

My DB lived rent and bill free with DPS, who provided free childcare for his kids when they were small and gave him a car to drive too.

I had no family support and raised my kids alone 350 miles away, paying all my own bills.

At DM's death, we both inherited 50/50. But how could you put a value on the rent free/childcare/car? I'd rather be on good terms with my DB (now my only family) than be squabbling over 25% of an estate because he'd had a cushy number.

It’s a tricky one. My dad doesn’t want to leave his money 50:50 (or in his case 25:25:25:25) because one of the middle aged DC has addiction issues and hasn’t worked at all for over 20 years just existing on benefits/begging/low level crime. In Dad’s Leaving money to them would be enabling them to continue their destructive and wasteful life style. However he doesn’t want to be ‘unfair’ so at the moment his will bypasses the children and distributes the money equally among the grandchildren. I am fine with that as I am the best off of the children but it seems harsh on my DS who is a single mum struggling to get by . She could really benefit from an inheritance but won’t get one because one of her siblings is a waster.

People get ridiculous and extremely petty over inheritance and any perception of unfairness.

A sibling group in my family have torn apart recently over perceived unfairness. They were partly brought up by their grandparents. The youngest sibling is considerably younger so when the grandfather died they were still a child whereas the rest were uni/marriage/housebuying age. So they were given their share of the house to allow them deposits etc and the house was willed to the youngest child so that the Grandmother knew that regardless of who ended up caring for the child they’d have a secure home.

When the Grandmother died recently two of the elder siblings felt that because the youngest was an adult the house should actually be split. Using the fact that the youngest had benefitted for more years - totally ignoring the funding, feeding and looking after they had before the youngest was born!

The grandparents would be heartbroken to have seen what’s become of them.

@Loonoon, has your Dad taken legal advice? There are ways of giving money to feckless individuals without them being able to blow the capital. One of the other siblings could hold it on trust for him, for example, and use it to directly pay his rent etc. You'd need a lawyer to make sure the will was drafted properly though..

I'm all for parity between children, unless prior to the will being signed there has been open discussion and agreement about it in the family so that nobody feels rejected or let down. I used to be a lawyer who drafted wills and administered estates of deceased people, so I've seen a lot of this sort of thing.

I’m a bit undecided. I’m not inheriting anything but if I were, I’d expect more to go to my sisters who are in a far worse financial position than me.

My husband and his brother stand to inherit quite a lot and my DH has always expected a greater share to go to his brother for similar reasons but his parents said they’re splitting equally.

One of my sons has special needs and we don’t know what support he’ll need in the future - that will inform our decision about how to split any inheritance we leave.

As an only child I'm perhaps not the best person to comment.

However, I'm wondering whether the single sibling has any children (I am assuming not).

I would say 50/50, however, I'm guessing that any children the 'family' have will also receive a portion of their estate.

Which would result in the 'single' sibling and the 'married' sibling receiving 50/50 after anything was left to the Grandchildren (depending whether the parents do or not, and how many children the 'family' have this could potentially be quite a bit).

I think someone mentioned they were leaving an equal amount to both children and grandchildren (say the couple has 3 children, that would mean the single sibling receiving just 20%).

Meaning that as a family the married couple would receive more.

I would think it only right to leave 50/50 and take into account the money left to the Grandchildren as part of the 'family's' 50%. The single sibling will most likely go onto have children.

Just my opinion, but at the end the parents will have their own plans, and it is ultimately their decision.

Parent's choice absolutely. I am one of 4 and we are currently dealing with estate. Mum died before dad and his will left everything equally between 3 of us (with a few other small bequests). Sounds strange, but the one left nothing received large sums of money several years ago as business investments so in dad's view he has had his share. It may not seem fair or equitable but he had his reasons. My siblings and I are not equally wealthy or poor so do I think they should give the most to the one who has the least. No I am happy with whatever I am given (And I am not the one with the most!)

I'm (at least at the moment) in the position of the better off sibling. When my mum dies (hopefully not for a long time!) She'll leave a million pound house (due to the massive inflation in London house prices). I think ideally the parents would leave it 50-50 and the better off sibling would choose to allow the other sibling some of their share.

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?

He didn't care for anyone. Went to uni in London and stayed there, you could count on both hands the times he's visited his parents since then and he's not exactly young. In fact a number of years ago he said the only time he would be back 'home' would be for their funerals.

DH’s gran’s estate was split 50:50 between her son and daughter.

On the surface this would appear to an outsider to be unfair, as the daughter had lived with and cared for her frail and elderly mother for decades. Son, on the other hand, only visited his mother occasionally.

However, the son was turfed out of the family home in his early twenties because daughter was pregnant and her and her husband ‘needed the room’ in the family home. Daughter lived in the family home all her life while her feckless alcoholic husband pissed away vast sums of money ‘loaned’ to him. Son was deemed to be responsible and self-sufficient - hence the reason why he was sent off to make his own way in life.

Gran’s estate was a trust fund set up for her by her very wealthy husband. I don’t see why it was unfair that this was split 50:50 between her children on her death.

Fintress I guess you are talking about a ‘real’ rather than ‘hypothetical’ son in that case.

It's complicated isn't it.

I'm far closer in all senses to my DM than my DB is - and I have helped her financially a lot, in the past. While she is fit and healthy atm, there will come a point when she needs care and support and I 100% now that it will be me who provides that. If she leaves her will 50/50 I'll be pretty pissed off

There are lots of reasons why one sibling has more money than another. It could be that one child is not that interested in earning lots of money whilst the other has 2 jobs and hardly sees their DC. Whatever the reason, inheritance should be 50/50 split down to the last penny.

The only reason why I would not do this is if one of my DC was disabled or unable to look after themselves after I had passed away and they would need paid for care which an inheritance would cover.

It is a tricky one. I am one of the wealthier siblings but to be honest would feel hurt if it wasn’t split equally.

Whilst I may need the money less than siblings I would be passing my share to my children who really could benefit from the money to get a house deposit together.

There is of course an exception to this when there is a sn sibling involved.

make a will tell the kids unless very small amount & one kid in severe need - it should be equal -go to proper solicitor to talk over details & make sure will is what you want it to be. they can help with details on younger

in a perfect world I would actually divide it up based on who does what. I have seen so many families where one child does all caregiving, paperwork, daily visits, hospital visits, xmas etc and the other children visit once a year and then it splits 50/50. So I would love for it to be done based on who has provided what care.

HOWEVER i would never actually do that myself and feel 50/50 is the only amicable way to move forward without causing bad feeling after you have died for those left behind.

but I would also never divide it on how well someone has done, because things can change. Plus thats YOUR life choice and isnt fair to impact your siblings.

that's were a solicitor help- they may be able to give suggestions on how to get round these problems possible having other family as executors who can give him money when he needs it like a trust of some kind? (you can do this with vulnerable disabled people LD ASD)

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

^ this

If you’re a “better off” sibling and get cut out/down without a really valid reason it feels like a massive “fuck you, we never loved you” from beyond the grave.

I am the youngest of three siblings and I was almost ‘forced away’ to university by my father. Both my sisters had left school at 16 and got dead-end jobs and my dad was adamant that I wasn’t going to do that as well. I was told “you are not leaving school at 16” and, as the least strong-willed and rebellious of my sisters, I did as I was told.

There was simply no employment in the field I studied in when I graduated. My job meant I moved 150 miles away from my home town. My sisters, on the other hand, live within 5 miles of my parents.

I see them regularly, but nowhere near as often as my sisters do. DH and I are the ‘wealthier’ of my siblings. My sisters will end up doing much of the ‘caring’ if my parents need it, but they also benefittted from free childcare courtesy of my parents when they went back to work.

I don’t feel entitled to inherit anything. My parents can leave it all to charity if they choose. However, I will feel very resentful if they leave more to my sisters. It won’t affect my relationship with my parents - they will be dead - but it would affect how I feel towards my sisters.

Up to the parents.

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

It's a complicated area, but broadly speaking death duties are paid out of the estate rather than by the beneficiaries individually - in other words it would be split up according to the will only after this had been paid

However if it was necessary for the house to be sold in order to pay HMRC, your SIL might have some hard choices to make if she wanted to stay there

I wouldn’t mind if my parents leave more to my sibling when the time comes because my life is currently stable and comfortable in comparison.

But that could change, and maybe I’d feel differently if I found myself struggling while he benefitted from a generous inheritance.

And I have children, while he does not, so maybe that would be something to be considered either directly or indirectly.

I think you have to consider the “in-law effect” too. I’ve seen many situations where common sense got turned on it’s head when husbands/wives weighed in with different loyalties.

I think maybe an equitable split might be the wisest course.

I personally favour an equal split among siblings.

People maybe have all manner of reasons for doing things differently though.

I would just worry about causing resentment, hurt and bad feeling by doing it unequally.