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?

I’m not sure of the legal implications of not executing the will as instructed? It’s not about what people think or feel it’s about what it lawful. If you decline what is rightfully yours with from will or intestacy, could that not raise concerns, cast suspicion ie tax avoidance? Also, imagine a scenario where you gave away your share and lost your job/became seriously ill/had terrible accident/unable to work. You may need to claim state benefits and may not qualify as you deprived yourself of your assets. Also how do you feel about going against the final wishes of your late mother? It’s best if the child who is the carer receives financial help during the lifetime of the parent ie a ‘wage’ and then everything can be split equally. I’m in a predicament myself over my mother’s estate. I’ll put a post up as I would also like some advice x

All of the circumstances are moot

The will dictates what should happen, it's a legal document... And if it's not followed to the letter of the law by the estate executor, then (quite rightly) I hope the full force of the law comes down on the executor personally.

You can't just ignore a legal document and decide how a dead person's money "should" be distributed.

There is no debate here, unless it's akin to "should I gift my sibling a part of my inheritance".

I’ve got it! Will is executed lawfully as per mother’s wishes, equal split four ways. After that each sibling decides for themselves what they use that money for ie no undue pressure or influence from other siblings.
So they may or may not gift sibling A in recognition for sacrifices made. Bear in mind sibling A may or may not have received financial redress from parents whilst still alive eg all living expenses covered and a small wage in addition to carers benefits..

If you decline what is rightfully yours with from will or intestacy, could that not raise concerns, cast suspicion ie tax avoidance?

Nope, no issue at all. No-one is compelled to accept any bequest they don't want.

Parents will should be honoured

If you decline what is rightfully yours with from will or intestacy, could that not raise concerns, cast suspicion ie tax avoidance?

No, you can decline if you want.

When I declined my father’s bequest the legal advice I got was that it’s only an issue if you are on benefits or receiving care and it’s done to deliberately deprive yourself of it for that reason.

Hmm difficult one. A very sad situation. Some say that A took on the care of her parents by her own choice, but there is family and compassion and love and feelings of responsibility involved here.

As many have said the will is a legal document, so split 4 ways. But it is more complex than this. Yes, the parents should have considered how they split the estate in their will, to provide for A. And maybe now morally B, D and D need to really think about what is the RIGHT thing to do, in their hearts (not their wallets)

Stick to the will. All those who wish to contribute towards A house can do so.

I really think you should post on the legal board and get some proper advice.

I am not a lawyer but I know that the courts can change wills to take care of people who were dependents of the deceased.

A has no independent income or capital, presumably no pension. She may well become dependent on the state, after decades of looking after her parents. There are plenty of cases where the courts have ruled that provision has to be made for dependents, even if they haven't spent their adult lives caring for the deceased.

Some of the things written on this thread amaze me. Would people really stand by and see their sibling left in such a bad situation after years of caring for a family member? Whatever the law may or may not say (which I don't think most of us on this thread can judge anyway) it's not morally right. And the three other siblings could easily make things right if they (or rather B and C) wanted to.

Aah families and inheritance. A was a good person, but won’t be rewarded by her siblings for being so. Was his/her choice to be caring. Wills are binding, unless you pay to get it unravelled.

We had something similar. A should request that the costs of care are taken from the estate and go to them prior to the estate being split.

If A hadn’t moved home, mum and dad would likely have been in a home and no house/estate to share in the first place...

*Has anyone mentioned the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents Act?

I mentioned the possibility of A being considered a financial dependant of her parents upthread, but the OP hasn't responded.

A is in a lot of trouble, financially. She is likely to be at least 55 (we know A, B & C are in their 50s and she is the eldest) with no home, no job history, no NI payments, no pension. She will lucky to get anything more than a minimum wage job and she has no time to save for retirement. She might scrape by while still earning if she can buy a property outright, but she'll be in poverty as soon as she retires. £125k is not going to buy a property and provide for her old age.

D should be forcing her to get legal advice.*

This was posted upthread - sounds like really good advice.

I'm wondering if A,B,C and D are from a culture which tends to see women as being duty-bound to look after family, and which values sons above daughters? If so, it might have been very, very difficult for her to go against pressure from her parents to take on the carer/dependent role. In any case, from the facts we've heard, her treatment is unjust.

Has anyone mentioned the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents Act? I don’t know the circumstances and lots of things are unclear, but A may have a claim against the estate

Unlikely to succeed as provision has been made for her, of c£125k

Has she been provided for, though? It sounds as if she lives in the south of England, so £125k will barely be enough to buy her a flat; it certainly won't provide any income.

Of course, with a relatively small estate, it would be much better to agree a settlement through mediation, to avoid the estate being eaten up by legal fees. But, if I were D, I would be seeking legal advice for A as the prospect of a court ruling against them might be enough to make B and C see sense.

An arrangement whereby a property is purchased for A for her lifetime from the money that would have gone to B,C and D, with the proceeds to be divided between her surviving siblings or their issue on her death, would leave A her £125k lump sum to be a (still very small) provision for retirement. If she lives 20 years from her date of retirement, it's still only £6250 per year - and that assumes that she manages to find an investment that keeps pace with inflation

@XXcstatic seems to be the voice of reason on this thread.

@XXcstatic seems to be the voice of reason on this thread

That's kind but I'm not a lawyer (though I do work with the law in a different area - not probate). So my ideas may not be right, but I certainly think the situation is worth a discussion with a solicitor who is independent of the executors.

But, if I were D, I would be seeking legal advice for A as the prospect of a court ruling against them might be enough to make B and C see sense.

Only A can seek legal advice for A and A has said she wants the will followed. So she's not going to enter into mediation anyway.

But, regardless of that, I really doubt the Act would work. It's not there to ensure an adult is kept for the rest of their life.

Only A can seek legal advice for A

That's not true. Only A can instruct a solicitor to act on her behalf, but anyone can speak to a solicitor about anything. There is absolutely nothing to stop D putting the situation to a solicitor for his/her view.

The problem with A is that it sounds as if she has been putting everyone else's interests before her own for 35 years, and it's a hard habit to break. Also, as the child closest to her parents, she is probably suffering the most severe bereavement reaction and part of that is likely to be a reluctance to accept that they have treated her badly in the will. She may not want to contest the will now, but that may be a decision she bitterly regrets in a few years' time, when she is impoverished. D can't force her to contest the will, but she can try to ensure that A fully understands the consequences of her decisions.

But, regardless of that, I really doubt the Act would work. It's not there to ensure an adult is kept for the rest of their life.

There was a recent high profile case on inheritance where the court thought it highly relevant that the adult child should not end up being provided for by the state, where the parent's estate could prevent that, and so the will was altered accordingly.

I would say split equally. Unless A splits the house in THEIR will between B, C, D. Or a third to B's, kids a third to C's kids, and a third to D. Howey, this would have to be done in a way where A couldn't change the will later.

I had a feeling that B and C were boys .... quite often the case and I am really hoping A can now get on with building her own life .... and at least she has D who will look out for her ... because they care not because of money ... A could work in the caring profession she has been extremely loyal and caring & she has no doubt got patience in spades I imagine the future looks quite scary at the moment ...I hope she claimed careers allowance and if not she should try and get it back dated ... look at training grants and try something new or study part time ... I really really wish her well ...I’m sure D can help her move on with her own life... ( maybe she could travel for a bit and see the world first)
Good luck

It’s not a always/ only a culture thing ... it’s also an old fashioned out moded way of thinking... some women still leave finances to men and some men still believe that their daughters will marry and be looked after so they won’t need financial provision.... thankfully this way of thinking is disappearing ... but there are still old fashioned traditional types out their that do not move with times...
20 years ago my dad honestly believed he should leave our family home to my brother!
My mother would never let that happen ...

On Mumsnet unemployed adult daughters who live at home their whole lives are seen as caring downtrodden victims but unemployed adult males are seen as scrounging freeloaders.

'A' appears to legitimately fall in into the first category but I bet you would struggle to ever find a male referred to in such terms on here.

B and C should do the 60k thing. They did not help with parents, A did. The estate would have had to pay for care without A.

Figure out how much the estate was saved by A.

If D is so concerned for A why doesn’t she offer A a home. With the £125k A inherits she could pay for an annex to be built on D’s house.
Not only would it solve A housing problems but could work well if D still has young children as A could offer some childcare ( D has already said she does some)
If the annex was done well and self contained A and D would still live independently of each other but be close at hand to help each other. A might need the support if she has never lived independently and it could benefit D as well.

Also, as the child closest to her parents, she is probably suffering the most severe bereavement reaction

This is not likely. When you get to A's age and your elderly parents die after a long illness, you're more likely to feel relief . Mother has been gone for years , and Father has been declining for years. My guess is that A would accept his death calmly. There is no suggestion in the OP that she is prostrate with grief.