AIBU to want to leave my money to charity and not to relatives?

[TheMoleInAHole]

I don't have children yet, due to fertility issues I may never have them. I'm in my early 30s so hopefully not going anywhere for a while but I'm planning my will. My parents are still alive so will receive my money(house, savings and life insurance) if I die before them. I'm an only child so siblings aren't an issue and I'm single.

However if I die after my parents and don't have children I want to leave the house and money to four or five charities with causes that are important to me. I have 22 first cousins and while I have no real issues with any of them I never see some of them and the rest I see once or twice a year.

My friend thinks that it's wrong to leave the money to animals/the homeless etc when I have relatives but personally I think that the charities could make better use of the money(about £500,000 or so) than if divided between some people I barely know, relatives or not. If we were especially close then yes that'd be different.

So AIBU?

Life insurance goes to named beneficiaries so doesn't form part of your estate. Same for any pension or death in service benefits.

I believe that you can name a charity as the beneficiary though? At present my parents are the beneficiaries but if they die before me I'd choose a charity to be the new beneficiary.

I want a fairly basic green burial

Have a look at the costs..way more than the standard fare

I’m afraid that the stories about charities forcing houses to be sold to get their money is true. This is the job of their teams, to collect the cash and they disregard the emotions and feelings of the deceased’s loved ones.
A solicitor told me that the best way to leave money to charity is to say that the executor can distribute the money to the charities that the deceased has informed them of. This worked for someone I knew. He was executor of two wills, and suggested this way for the second one. This was after the first will involved a legacy to a big charity, that charity forced a house sale and also claimed the court costs back. He was disgusted.

I would do the same in your position but as someone still so young (I'm the same age) I have planned our will loosely but hoping it won't be for awhile so I'm not too concerned as I'm sure it will change ov3r the years and your situation could too. So id not be bothered by anyone else's opinion it's your money.

YANBU. I'm child free and my money is going to animal charities and elderly homes when I pass. Not family.

Obviously, it's something that might need reviewing periodically as house values change - and you may not care if it's only charities that are the beneficiaries anyway (assuming your parents have already gone before you), as they can fight it out between themselves, but I've always understood it to be a much better idea to leave a specified amount to each charity rather than a percentage or split of your estate.

Sadly, as other PPs have said, big charities (and probably also smaller ones too) can be all nicey-nicey whilst you're alive, asking you to please remember them in your will after making provision for your loved ones, but once you've passed, they're often like vultures. We read often enough of ravening family members fighting over wills and siblings etc working underhand, trying to come up with fraudulent wills or codicils to steal their relatives' share as well as their own, so why ever would a charity care about upsetting a dead stranger's family to get at as much money as they possibly can, as soon as they can?

They probably justify it to themselves by saying it's what their donor wanted. As a PP mentioned, even if a charity has been left a relatively small percentage of the estate (but more than a nominal amount that the family could probably come up with upfront), they can get very arrogant about it - wanting to dictate very short timescales for a loved one's memory-filled house to be cleared and put on the market and then cavilling over the market price - wanting it dramatically lowered so they can get some money earlier or insisting on holding out for ages for an unrealistically high amount, so that the beneficiaries have to wait much longer for their share of the money - all for their 2% or whatever; but of course, they're more than happy for the family to pick up all of the legal bills.

We're in the position where we do have a child, so short of a tragedy where he goes before we do, we'll be leaving everything to him and if he has any siblings, it will all be divided equally between them. We also aren't only children and have DNs, so they would be the next along the line if it ever came to that.

We do have charities that are close to our hearts. None of the big ones that haemorrhage money and pay their CEOs megabucks - yes, they are run as huge businesses and the CEOs are arguably paid a small percentage of the money that only they could bring in to the charity, which makes them worth it - but it's absolutely our right to disagree with this ethos and to decide whether or not to donate our money accordingly.

We will be leaving our DS (and any siblings) clear instructions as to which charities we would like him to donate to (and how much) from what we leave (we trust him implicitly, but it would still ultimately be his decision), but the first the charities would know of this is when they receive the money from him.

Crikey, don’t appoint solicitors as your executors - their fees are exorbitant. Fine if you’re not worried about leaving anything behind but you’ve said you want to benefit some charities.

But better that than expect a cousin to negotiate with charities but for no gain and loads of hassle. Obviously if OP has someone happy to do it then great, but if the money is going anyway then I would rather remember cousin Maud fondly than the heap of hassle I had sorting out their estate.

Yes, I really don't want to pass on the burden of being an executor so for now it'll have to be a solicitor.

Yes, I really don't want to pass on the burden of being an executor so for now it'll have to be a solicitor.

Some larger charities can act as executors.
An elderly relative died last year. She left everything to Oxfam and had also appointed them as executors.
They sorted everything, disposed of all her possession, sold the house, and arranged the funeral she'd specified in her letter of wishes.

My friend was executor for a childless couple who left their fairly largish estate to two large charities.

The charities behaved appallingly, ie where not satisfied with the amount the house was sold for, they wanted more, ffs it was 2008 in the midst of the financial crash, she was lucky to find even one buyer.

Of course anyone can leave their assets as they wish.

However, I'm going to buck the trend here and say that unless the person has no close relatives or friends at all, then IMO it's uncharitable to leave nothing to any they do have, that is unless they know those people are loaded or have no need of a windfall - hardly the case for many people nowadays, if ever.

Also, I do know of more than one case where a control-freak man has spitefully left much of his estate away from his wife, on purpose to limit her freedom.

I am still incensed by one such case (knew the couple very well) where a really hefty chunk of his estate was left to charity, out of sheer, bullying, control-freak malice. He could still have left a very hefty sum to the charity in question - I mean £100k plus - without deliberately limiting his wife's options after he was gone.
I still wish I could have that bloke back for 2 minutes, to give him a massive kick in the goolies.

Accountant I know of a case where the deceased was purposely advised by the solicitor to leave the charity the house, rather than the proceeds of the sale, in order to avoid precisely this sort of hassle.

The charity in question, having known for months precisely the terms of the bequest, then had the effing cheek to write to the executor, to say, 'Actually, it'd be easier for us if you could just sell it and give us the money, ta very much.'

I'm glad to say that dh (an executor) wrote straight back and told them (rather more politely) to fuck off.

It was a very big charity with its own legal dept. - how much of a big deal could it really be to transfer ownership and just give the keys to an estate agent?

The charities behaved appallingly, ie where not satisfied with the amount the house was sold for, they wanted more, ffs it was 2008 in the midst of the financial crash, she was lucky to find even one buyer.

I remember reading that at least one big charity (and I'm guessing that most of them do the same) had a full-time legacies officer, one of whose jobs was to keep track of the values of large bequests which might considerably change in value (such as houses) and also to assess their likely time of receiving the legacy.

Many will say that they're just being responsible and practical in ensuring continued income, but I wonder how many people who've left legacies would genuinely be happy to know that the increasing value of their home and their own ages and/or states of health are actively on the charity's radar and continually monitored from that point on until they die.

You think you've made a very kind gesture and then, when your time finally arrives, many years later, the charity will be notified, respectfully check their records, realise that you've mentioned them in your will and then start gently and sensitively pursuing their legacy, immensely grateful for anything they get.

In fact, from the moment they receive the original notification, they see your money as theirs and, if anything, you as the obstacle to their getting it (by stubbornly remaining alive). They add it to their balance sheet, to continually actively manage it along with all of their other rolled-over assets, projecting when they might expect to realise its value. As has been stated, they will then be very annoyed if they feel like they haven't got the maximum entitlement that they were planning on. 'Grateful' doesn't come in to it anywhere.

I've no way of knowing if this is the case, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if some deliberately sent annual Christmas cards or 'thank you for your ongoing support' letters to the more elderly donors of large bequests for the sole purpose of waiting for them to be returned 'addressee gone away' (quite probably to a care home or hospice, once over a certain advanced age) or 'addressee deceased' - to give them a heads-up and a spur to pounce.

One reason of many why I much prefer small charities that are run wisely and responsibly as trusts by volunteers and/or sensibly-paid employees who genuinely have a passion for the charity's aims rather than the massive ones that are to all intents and purposes just another business that happens to sell sob stories and promises rather than goods or services.

We have a close relative who has pushed us away and intends to do this. We know they will leave their money to charity as it’s their choice (continuous references/threats), However, we are very hardworking and live within our average means. We do not understand why there is so much hate and no matter what we do it’s not good enough. However, we feel upset that our children may miss an opportunity for a more secure life. I could not treat my children or grandchildren like this. This person is a nasty man and is a very lonely man. I have tried my best to help him and we had him over for Xmas day. He is so unpleasant but that’s a different thread!

I don't have a husband(or want one) or children or grandchildren so leaving them without a legacy isn't an issue for me at present. I'm sorry for those who have been hurt in this way but as I don't have such relatives at the moment it isn't something I need to worry about for the time being.

Your money, your call.
I am dubious about how genuine some charities are though. I don't believe they are always efficiently run, and are very bureaucratic. High salaries for management. How much of your money would actually go to the cause you wish to support?
I would be inclined to leave mine to friends, if not family. Some to charity.. but only ones I had researched thoroughly and was sure would make a difference.
I'd leave it to the people I know and love.

I wouldn’t leave a charity diddly squat. Most charity’s especially the bigger ones it’s down to 10 percent and less that physically gets to the cause with the rest eaten by wages buildings and monsterous waste by them.
Better to throw your money out the window and hope some of those in need pick it up.
And deffinately a executor that’s a solicitor will be taking a very nice lump for doing very little

Do what you like.
It's your money.

We have recycling centres near us that are a charity,the only charity is themselves pocketing the money and after many years of ripping everyone off and numerous complaints there finally been investigated

Imagine if a charity that is actively monitoring your state of health is able to access your medical records

I would probably give each cousin a token amount of £500 each enough to pay for a nice meal out with their immediate family. Hopefully means harder to contest any will.

Bulk absolutely to charity if that's what you want, your money your choice!

You talk about leaving money to your cousins? You don’t need to leave it to family...why not think about your friends?

Leaving a gift to charity in your Will is a great way to ensure that your beliefs can be upheld after you pass in my opinion.

Make sure your Will is legit and, if you're comfortable, mention your decision to your executor and family as contested wills are on the rise.

I have friends but I'd prefer to leave it to charity. Especially as due to various circumstances I imagine that my friends will change over time as I move and they move. The charities I have in mind are carefully chosen and ones that I donate to at the moment because their causes are important to me and I'd like to see the money used to help people and animals via those causes. Obviously in time my chosen charities may have to change and I will review them at intervals but for now I'm content with those selected.