About Inheritance

[Sunshinelollipops1]

4 siblings A, B, C and D. 3 eldest are in their 50s. Youngest was “a happy accident” and is in 30s.

After D was born the Mum of the family developed serious illness and A who had just finished university came Home and basically brought up A and looked after Mum while the Dad worked. A has spent her entire life as Carer for Mum who died 5 years ago. A couple of years after this Dad became ill. A cared for him and he has now died.

Only real asset is House. Worth about 500k. Will says divide by 4.

B and C have good jobs (probably 50-60k per annum), houses and families. C has a huge mortgage as they have pulled out equity to fund holidays, cars etc. Both have kids in their 20s.

D is a professional and earns 150k. Married and young children.

2 bed flat in area of House will cost 350k (SE). D says A should get enough of will to buy flat and rest can be split between 3. (This means B, C and D will get about 40k each rather then 125k).

B says while he would like to do that he needs to help his kids on property ladder and that 40k won’t be sufficient (3 kids).

C says the will is clear and should be shared equally. He also adds D is only suggesting this as they will end up sole beneficiary of As will (A and D being incredibly close).

D has offered to give B and C their proportion of money so they would get 60k each. Both have said no.

A doesn’t want anyone to fall out, says the money should be shared in 4 and says it’s fine, they’ll find work and use the equity as rent (they won’t get mortgage).

D thinks B and C are being selfish. C thinks D is (and ultimately doing this to get all the money).

Who is AIBU and what should be done?

The one thing people are overlooking is A has said she is perfectly happy with the will and doesn't want anybody to fall out over it. Therefore D should have kept her opinions to herself instead of causing arguments and if she wanted A to have more then she could have given her share to A.

I'm really annoyed at the parents, they should have seen that A was financially disadvantaged and made provisions in the will. I'm annoyed at B and C for not seeing that they are lucky and giving at least some of their inheritance to help out. But I don't know the full story.

How is A currently funding their day to day life? How did the household run once dad (as he was only earner) gave up work? Am assuming a good occupational pension?

Follow the will.

Then A gives D her $125k, which D pools with their $125k, and they have $250k to put towards a flat either rent free or with a very low mortgage that D should be able to get on their salary. D inherits the flat when A dies.

Could A buy a one bed and have a sofa bed in the lounge that she could use when the "kids" stay?

IHT will still have to be paid even if all agree A can stay in house. HMRC start charging interest on this tax after 6 months. So this isn't a solution.

I don't blame B & C for wanting their share. A had choices. D could have lived with her for example as a "daughter" whilst A worked, had a mortgage etc.

There's no inheritance tax to pay. The mother's allocation is passed to her husband on her death. When he died, he left both his and her tax -free allocation, and the house falls well within the total.

If the will states the money is to be split between the 4 siblings equally then that is what should happen.

D sounds lovely and C is an arsehole.
I'm on the fence about A, on the one hand she sacrificed a lot for her parents but on the other hand she's put herself in a very vulnerable position.

I'm glad D is going to help A to buy a flat, that seems the best possible solution. If I was A, I would write a will giving D's share back to her (£125k or however much she gives towards the flat) and then split the remainder equally between B, C and D. Actually I'd probably skip B and C and just leave their shares to their children!

I do understand why the parents left equal shares to each child. However, in their position I think I would have specified in the will that A could continue to live in the family home until she died and only then would it have to be sold and the proceeds split equally between the siblings. Alternatively some kind of trust setup whereby the trustees could agree to sell the property, buy somewhere smaller for A, and split the remainder between the other siblings.

YABU, it’s morally correct to have it 4 ways.
I slightly question D’s motives. She’s a high earning doctor, so must be of reasonable intelligence. Why did not occur to her to give her own share to A and an agreement that D receives her “share” back when A dies? I think kicking off at her brothers is unfair and also, A’s voice is quite lost in this, I wonder her true feelings. Some people value family harmony over money, even if it’d put her in financial difficulty. Unfortunately, this sum of money is unlikely to help A as much as some people think.

Why didn't D just give her share to A? 250k go a long way to getting a flat. N help her getting mortgage (go guarantor whatever) rather than cause all this? B&c on 50/60k with kids are not rolling in it. Ultimately though have to blame the parents they should have made sure A was sorted.

My family have always helped each other out when needed. But wills have always been split evenly. It just seems fairer that way and nobody has to feel less loved by the lost family member.

The really unreasonable people here are the parents. They let their oldest daughter give up her life to become a full time career but divided the inheritance in for equal shares. How horribly ungrateful. A’s parents have betrayed her, her close in age siblings likewise. I’m glad her little sister appreciates her.

It's hard to believe that A was never able to work. Bringing up D wouldn't take up A's whole life . Caring for her parents - did that take up every day of the last 30 years ? She has lived in the family home so no mortgage or rent, presumably getting some benefits as a career. Hasn't made any plans for her future life. Now getting enough to buy herself a flat . I find it hard to feel sorry for her.

Career, not career.

Should be split equally between you all regardless of who has done what. Always money that brings the worst out in family's.

The money should be split equally as the will states. If any of the heirs wishes to forgo their share it is up to them to do so but not to compel others to give up money that is rightfully theirs.

The parents made the money by buying the house and they paid tax on that cash to buy the property and then tax on the property too. They held it legally and, therefore, it is their business to whom they left it.

Of course, inheritances are ‘unfair’ but there is no fairer alternative and it is transparent at least.

Nobody is really losing out in this situation. Many would find complaining about ‘only’ being left £125,000 bizarre. The child who remained at home had free or subsidised rent for years. They could have saved that money or at least made plans for when their parents died. In any case it is what it is. The person who owns the stuff gets to choose to whom it passes.

After all, without A, it is quite possible the parents would have gone into care and the proceeds of their house would have been used to pay towards their care.

Why do people keep saying this?

The house would not have been sold for the mothers care, because the father lived there and A did start cating for her father till about 2 or 3 years ago. Also needing a carer doesnt automatically mean going in a home or self funding.

My own grandfather didnt have self fund. Because there was little help with his dementia. He went into hospital after being detained under the mental health act. So he didnt self fund. My exh husband didnt self fund. He had a carer that went in twice a day. Didnt self fund.

No one knows why either parent needed a carer or if self funded care would have happened.

I am still finding it odd that D cares about A so much but has not, in the last few years helped out financially. Paid for carers so that A could work towards getting a job, lets say 5 years ago, for example. For that D cares so much but hasnt thought out other options or hie A is going to maintain this 2 bedroom flat, that she (not A) think she should have.

I definitely think big chunks of details have been left out.

A should invoice C for the 30 years care she provided his parents whilst he was off being a dick!

In these circumstances d could give a their share, it's a shame the will wasn't written to give a an interest in the house but £250k should be enough for a one bed and a needs to work otherwise

@Witchend judgmental much?

Sounds to me that D knows that A is in her late 50s and she will inherit this two bedroom flat in an attractive area when A goes . With A being 20 years older than her she knows she isn’t very likely to outlive A . Also think OP slipping up calling 20 somethings childcare because she A provides a lot more childcare for D than the OP mentions.

The parents were grossly unfair to A. That the siblings don’t see that is even more alarming!

I think there is too much information missing to say its grossly unfair.

Given that OP tried to purposely mislead the other posters suggests that they are leaving detail out for a reason.

A did not have to spend 30 plus years at home. There has to be choice involved here. Those of us who are parents managed to work and raise children. We also manage to work and have elderly parents. The parents cannot have needed 30 years of care. B, C and D all managed to support themselves. I wonder if A has some problems we have not be told about which led her to “come home” from uni - presumably without graduating.