Will unfair or not?

[tryingtostickupforme]

I will start by saying I have name changed as I don't want to offend members of my family
I have had 30 years of mental health problems, but am considered high functioning so am capable of making my own decisions. Problem is when I do I am repeatedly shouted down by my family and told 'don't be so stupid' (when I have an opinion which differs from theirs). As a result I am now not sure if I am being reasonable or not. Please help me see....
I was a wild child for many years and certainly the black sheep of the family. I guess teenage rebellion didn't calm down until I was in my 30's (mental health mixed in). I am for the most part stable, however have been conned by men- in 2 serious relationships I have been financially abused (low self esteem and conned by a narc. For which I am still undergoing therapy, so please be nice). I admit I have never been great with money and my parents have bailed me out before now.
My brother is a high flyer and has never stepped a foot out of line. He is their golden boy and it has been made clear they feel like that from childhood. I understand he has put up with a lot of crap caused by me over the years. I love him as my brother, but pretty sure the feeling I not mutual. He tolerates me, but would rather I wasn't around.
My parents are currently setting up a trust fund for their will. It is being set up for my brothers 2 children, my brother and I, so a 25% split each way.
Am I unreasonable to think this is unfair? I have no children so they cannot be included, but my niece and nephew get 50% of my parents inheritance. My brother would be an executor along with a lawyer, so I would have no say, and even if I did, it would be 3 votes to 1. If it came down to a request later, my brother could (and probably would) decline it. He stands to gain with effectively 75% share and a vested interest in his children first.
I know it is my parents money and they can do what they want with it, but I feel I am being seen off in this. Am I being unreasonable or just ungrateful?

I think it's reasonable, when my dgm died the estate was split three ways, my dad, my uncle (her two sons) and me, her only grandchild. Which is the same use.

Seemed quite sensible I thought. It certainly makes sense to me to leave some money to the grandchildren directly to the grandchildren rather than "via" the children.

How much money have they bailed you out with? If it's thousands then perhaps they feel you have had all you should get. Also I understand they don't want their hard earned money to be given to you, for you to just spend it on rubbish and be conned again. I would probably also minimise your share and give to grandkids so others had a chance to spend the money on things like a deposit on a house.

I think DB in the trustee role really depends on DB. There are people in this world who would take advantage but then there are also people who would never no matter what. If he’s the latter then I wouldn’t be worried. You haven’t stated whether you think he’s likely to be controlling with the money or not. To me it sounds a bit like you’re saying he would be but just because you don’t see the split is fair and actually he would make sure you had your 25% when you wanted it.

It's infantilising for your brother to have control over your share, but perhaps your parents feel better knowing that he will make good decisions for you long term. Do you feel that you could manage the money well now?

Inheritance tax payable is 40% on everything over £325k. Elderly care in a private care home is £500-£750 per week. I do think it's perfectly reasonable OP, if you do intend to roll your sleeves up and effectively become primary carer of your parents; thus saving on care home fees, that you put this to your DB to agree some flex or even pay inlieu ...otherwise how what are you supposed to live on?

I don't think it's fair, children should get equal and it's up to them if they choose to then pass it on to their own children.

They aren't children and how is it not fair? Everyone is getting equal.

4 beneficiaries are getting 24% its bang on equal.

I love all these posters saying ‘it’s not fair, they should do x, they should do y’. They can do what they damn well like - leaving their money split equally between all their descendents. It sounds like it’s well thought out, rather than based on spite. No child is being favoured over the other. The OP has said herself, if she had kids, they would get a share too.
Reading between the lines, this set up is as much to protect OP as much as anything. They have already bailed her out multiple times and given expensive gifts to DB. I hate this sense of entitlement, that you should get the money because they’re your parents. The OP has probably put them through a lot of hurt and upset and are now trying to do the right thing by and for everyone. It’s their absolute right. Just because it’s not what some posters would do, doesn’t make it unfair.

@SpikyCactus

The state decrees that the estate would be split between the children *in the absence of any other expression of wishes'

OP has told us something of her history, which may have informed the parent's choices.

OP is possibly getting less than half, given her history of allowing herself to be financially abused by partners. It must be heartbreaking for parents to have to stand by and watch that happen. I can see why they might want to limit how that might continue in the provisions they make for inheritance.

It is not, or at least not just because one sibling had children and the other not.

It's completely fair.. he doesn't get 75% at all, he's getting the same as you. His children get the other 50%. As long as the same would apply if you had a child, it's fair.

I think you're getting your issues with your upbringing confused with the will.

Superb advice from Tinkobell, especially about working to get yourself in the best possible position instead of relying on future money

It would be very easy to spend years musing bitterly about how "unfair" it all is, but that won't help you to move forward and it certainly won't persuade DB that you're now in a position to be trusted with money

While is a shame they didn't feel able to split 50:50, they've made their choice - and if it's because of the history, you sadly don't get to suggest "it's over - gimme the money"

You said yourself that they have bailed you out a lot over the years with money, so maybe your brother feels like it has been unfair and has voiced this to them, and this is their way of balancing it all out.

So actually your parents have left you nothing without your brother's say so? I'd say that was really unfair. And I agree with you that it would have been fair to leave the estate 50/50 between you and your brother, which is what I'd have done.

So why should the grandchildren get nothing?

Most grandchildren get nothing or a small token, they usually wait their turn.

OP, if I were you I certainly wouldn't be saving your parents money by providing their care, should they need it. Let them pay care home fees, potentially giving up your life to save £1k a week for each of them in order for three other people to benefit is even more unfair.

But once this money is in the trust it can’t be used for their care, surely. That’s the point. And it should be safe from inheritance tax.

They’re trying to ensure you all have something decent regardless.

It’s up to them how they divide the money and they are insuring their grandchildren get money as they may not from their parents of their goes on care etc.

With extended life expectancy care costs and housing costs as they are now leaving the majority of an estate to grand children is becoming the sensible thing to do in a lot of circumstances. Many peoples parents do not die until they are in their 50s or 60s by which point most people are already financially secure so the money can do more to help the next generation. Bypassing a generation also reduces the likelyhood of all the money being spent on care costs.

The trust will presumably be set up post morgen, Middleclass. No sane person would make themselves penniless in old age. And, if they did, they would be regarded as hiding assets. Bypassing a generation has no effect on liability for care costs.

Your history of mental health problems, your relationship history and what you say about the golden boy thing and your parents not taking you seriously, all lead me to suspect that your childhood was somewhat dysfunctional and your parents not all that good to you. I think that maybe for you, this issue about the will is standing in for a lot of times when you feel maybe you've been treated unfairly. In itself, splitting your legacy equally between your descendants isn't totally unreasonable, specially if you want to encourage grandkids, and there's perfectly nice people who do that. But I wonder how nice your parents actually are in other ways, and I also wonder whether they would have used this method of splitting if it had been you and not your golden child brother who had had the children.

None of that is going to help you get past this though. Ultimately the money's theirs. Ultimately their love is too, which is to say that even if you could objectively prove that they are more loving towards your brother, it wouldn't actually make them be any nicer to you. You know in yourself how it is, and you need to (with the help of therapy) get to a point where you can accept your own version of events without needing external validation of it from your parents or other people. Then you will be able to look at the will stuff and everything else and shrug your shoulders at it and get on with your life.

Post mortem, damn it!

How do you know it leaves them penniless? FIL has one for DH and DD already set up. To secure it and avoid inheritance tax.

They still have money and property that will be subjected to the usual process when they pass away.

Or used to find care.

*fund

You have no right to expect a single penny from a will. You have no right to the money anymore than the one legged caterpillar society has. Your parents have made up their mind and will be leaving it in trust. You should be grateful they are leaving you anything.

If you sequester money to avoid care home fees, you're in for a disappointment. Local authorities are all over that now and won't fund anyone who's done it. Also you can't just add money from an estate into an existing trust after death.

Anyway, OP, please don't subsidise your brother and his kids by providing care to avoid care home fees.