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 don't think it always needs to be 50/50.

We have a family situation- two brothers- one move abroad 30 years ago, has visited his mother twice.
Other brother has done all the caring for their mother.

Mother is leaving her house to the brother who has cared for her.

Seems reasonable to me.

50 / 50 Then the siblings can choose to give their inheritance to their sibling if they want to. Not having the choice = not fair.

I think it is up to the parents. I earn much more than any of my siblings but school and exams came easy to me. They are hard working but money is tight. I am always encouragingly my mum not to gift me money and give more to my siblings. I would love for my brother to be able to buy a home.

I think consideration also has to be given if someone has been a carer, particularly long term as they may have missed lots of opportunities and sacrificed a lot over the years.

I never understand people’s opinion on this, ever. If my brother had less money than me and my mother wanted to leave him more then fine! I would need it less, and would be happy for him to have the help. People care way too much about money and inheritance and being treated “exactly the same”. Funnily enough they don’t think people with more money should be able to claim tax credits though 🙄 (neither do I, but for the same reason as above that some people simply need more help than others...I find it odd that people think one and not the other)

As someone whose DH got f-all while his well off siblings benefitted from hundreds of thousands each (although even that was uneven), I would say leave it an equal split. The only exception is where one might be disabled and need care, or if one was a multimillionaire. Even then though I would consult and make sure everyone was happy.

50:50 should always be the starting point, but there are plenty of reasons why one MIGHT deviate from it. The important thing, though, is to talk about it first, if you can.

I'm entirely financially stable; my Dsis is not so much. Also, she still lives with DF whereas I moved quite a long way away, so there's a strong chance she'll wind up doing much more later life care than me. If DF just died one day and we discovered the will favoured her, I wouldn't know whether it's for those reasons or others, and I'd find it hard not to feel hurt. If he explained to me that he wanted to favour her for those reasons, I'd be fine with it.

I say up to the parents. Although I suppose I can see that it may be a bit upsetting if the reasons weren't clear.

My mum has told me she is leaving more to my sister, who has a lot less than me and my other sister. I have zero problems with this. Mum would feel much happier knowing she'd left my sister in such a stronger position, whereas we are quite comfortable.

I don't think fair is always exactly equal.

Generally 50:50 unless specific issues (eg my aunt moved in with my grandfather, and she was left the house, other kids split the balance, with a small fixed amount to me as sole grandchild). Both other kids had houses of their own and it would have been totally unreasonable to force aunt out of her home.

My ds is an only, so it's easy for us; he will get the lot.

My Mum has left it 50:50 to my db and I. I already have some of her jewellery, as some belonged to my grandmother, and great grandmother. I have suggested that Mum leaves the house between db and I, but leaves the contents of her ISA between the three grandsons.

50:50 unless you have a crystal ball to confirm that life tomorrow will be the same as today eg ‘poor’ sibling might win the lottery, ‘rich’ sibling might become disabled/lost their job or business/lose their spouse or partner

I’m often very wary when I hear the comment “We’ve discussed it with our DC and they are fine with it” with regards to unequal treatment/inheritance.

Are you absolutely sure they are fine with it?

A situation arose recently between myself and my parents. It wasn’t financial or inheritance related but nevertheless I was really pissed off about it. I couldn’t really say anything as it would have caused an almighty problem and hurt feelings which would have spilled over into other family relationships. Instead, I bit my tongue and seethed silently. Even though I had legitimate reasons for feeling the way I did, tackling them wouldn’t have changed their minds and would only have caused ongoing problems in our relationship.

My parents have always ‘claimed’ that they want their children to be open and honest with them about their feelings towards them , but in reality that is easier said than done.

50/50, a sibling shouldn't get less because they worked hard. Likewise why reward the one who hasn't or made poor choices.

I get your point, Sweet but I have discussed it with my DC, since they were quite young. It doesn't reflect any inequality of love, just an inequality of need. They know full well that DS2 doesn't have the life chances that they do. I have always told them that on top of DS2 getting a bigger share of any estate that I don't expect them to be his carers or to have him live with them when I'm gone, but that I'd like them to keep a brotherly eye out for him.

We discussed it again fairly recently and DS3 who is 16, said that he wouldn't expect it any other way. DS1 is at university, DS3 will go to university. They do not need the support DS2 does, but they still get my support, guidance, mum taxi duties, etc etc.

If they are actually hurt and feel I love DS2 more than them, and can't discuss it with me, then I haven't done my job as a parent very well.

50/50 split.
Unless one is a multi millionaire and the other in poverty. Think rich house poor house situation. Then an uneven split would be ok as long as the rich ones got something.
Anything in between should be shared equally.

The only situation I am aware of where the split hasn't been (prospectively) absolutely equal is a friend who has three children, one of whom has cerebral palsy. The other two have very good professional careers (one is a surgeon and the other a fairly high ranking army officer). She is very wealthy and is leaving a substantial amount to the child who has CP to enable him to live a better life. In any event despite the disparity, the other two will receive substantial inheritances.

I do not (thankfully) yet have experience of splitting inheritance, but I think it should be 50/50 for siblings.

But at the end of the day it is up to the person/parent who is making the will.

Not sure I agree with the sentiment of someone "deserving" the inheritance more than another.

Circumstances can change completely, a few years down the line and somebody could have a complete reversal of financial fortunes.

A pp mentioned farms.
If a farm is split up then surely it will not Remain in the family long? Each sibling would have to agree on how it's run, one sibling may want his/her share in cash, who gets to live in the farmhouse etc

The chances of shared ownership proceeding smoothly are remote.
Then say 3 siblings inherit it and they have 2 children each, that's 6 people owning the farm and so on.
The same applies to family run businesses.

Any grandchildren? How old are the kids? Is the singleton going to be single forever? If the children were younger (under 40) I would split 50:50 if there were no gra dchildren. If there were grand children and children were planing on having more I would split 50:50. If there were grandchildren and children were not going to have more I would split evenly between children and grandchildren. If there were no grandchildren and there was no chance of any being born I would give slightly more to the poorer child.

Don't get me started on this! One of my siblings has recently had 'secret' discussions with our parents and is now moving their family in lock stock and barrel. This is in the guise of being a carer for parents, but that is load of bollocks. Parents have changed their will so that sibling is sole beneficiary because they are 'good to them'. They get paid very well for every job they do for the parents.

There was no discussion, anything, and I strongly suspected that they purposely isolated parents as we were unable to speak to them whilst this was going on.

As is usally the case, there is back story to this but don't want to go into it. Upset at their sly and devious behaviour. This has all the makings of a very toxic relationship that will not end well. Siblings partner hates my parents, they hate them!

Sibling has recently sold their own property and is hanging on to that.

I have decided to have no more contact with them, and it is the best thing I have ever done. The moment I did it I felt light of heart.

I think it does depend on circumstances. All things being equal, it is probably wisest to be split equally. There are situations, however, where that is not sensible or where parents do not want to do that (e.g. due to estrangement).

In my own family, this has happened- but it DGM's will and my DB who was disinherited (mother and her siblings inherited an equal amount, grandchildren also inherited a smaller sum each). For very good reason- he did something awful, refused to admit it until presented with irrefutable evidence and then did not apologise. Ever. And he and DGM did not ever reconcile as a result. Therfore, as a consequence of his own behaviour, he did not benefit from her will. I absolutely understand why DGM disinherited him and was her right to do so.

My parents have made a reasonably complicated will- again for good reasons. In part, it is to protect my bother from himself (and his equally financially irresponsible wife)- his share will be held in a trust to which he applies to the trustees for funds and can only be spent on specified things (with some discretion from the trustees). I know some will say it's wrong and you shouldn't try to control how your money is spent once you're dead, but in some situations it is the" least worst" option available.

Gotta be 50/50

No one knows what the future holds. I'd never give one child more than the other or pass to GC unless there was something significant in play i.e. either one had an addiction whether it was gambling, alcohol, etc

50 50

I'd say 50/50 in general, but if one child, say, gave up a lot of time to help their parent in their old age, and the other one could have helped but didn't give a toss, maybe a parent would want to change the split.

My grandfather is dying and I know intends to leave a fair bit to my siblings and I - he has always had an especially close relationship to my brother so if he were to leave a bit more to him I would be neither suprised nor upset.

50:50 unless they want to leave a sour legacy of favouritism. You never know what happens in the future. In ten years things may have flipped for the siblings.