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?

As pp said what level of care did the parents need? From reading several different threads there's often when family want a full time carer but don't actually need one. B&C may not have agreed that A needed to give up her life.

Catsinthecupboard

The problem is that we don't know how much B and C did, or how much care was needed.

Did the dm want the money split by 4 or was this the DF’s decision after she died? I wonder...

I think the parents were in the wrong tbh. If A pretty much gave up everything to care for the rest of the family they should have made more of a concession for A. Morally I think D is right. But hey, fucking wills can be a right pain.

Divided by four is fair and is what the will says. The four children’s individual financial circumstances can always change. Someone might get ill, win a lottery, death of a partner, dry rot throughout the house.... you never know. The will should be respected. If siblings want to help out A they always can.

This is not a matter that should be decided on by MN based on a few perfunctory details about A,B,C and D. In any case the decision has already been made and is outlined in the will.

Sadly legally the will should be followed but I think b&c are selfish horrible people. A gave up everything so they could have their lives and now will loose her home just because B&C are greedy. Sadly there is no protection for careers.

Maybe D is A’s secret child, born when she was at uni? The age gap is big enough and this sort of thing used to be concealed by families. Maybe A “failed to launch”? Did the parents really need 30 years of care? Did D need her sister home full-time until she was 30? Nobody knows the truth. In any case there is a will so you know what you have to do.

B and C are horrible selfish people

How do you know this? B and C left home, worked, raised their own families and paid there own way? They have done what is expected of them and did not drain their parents’ resources.

We don’t know if care was really needed for 30 years or whether A was afraid to get out there in the world and work for a living. All the siblings could have agreed on how to fund care and they could then each have built up their own financial base. We don’t know all factors here.

If a legal challenge is being considered as suggested by some A should consider that if she loses and costs are awarded against her then she might well inherit nothing at all.

C might (for example) be in circumstances where he has 100k of equity and a 200k mortgage, a stressful job, several kids he would like to help onto the property ladder. Why should he (who is working and providing for himself and his family) ensure that his sister is mortgage free and (going forward) never needs to work a day in her life?

Some posters are quick to suggest that C ties up their money in a house for A that they will never see the equity of if A outlived them. Would they give their money away so quickly if they had mortgage/working/dependents. I assume that they wouldn't.

B and C may live in areas where housing is cheaper. If they do that may be because they couldn't afford to live where they grew up and so moved away. But even so they should give their sister the money to buy outright in an area that they themselves cannot afford to live?

"The problem is that we don't know how much B and C did, or how much care was needed."

Well yes, they could have been part way through Uni, about to go, just started a job, still at school...

A could definitely buy a one-bedroom property in some parts of the south east for £125,000. How will she live after that? Get a job like everyone else. She is only in her 50s - so has 15 or more years left to work.

My Dad died when I was 48, after a very lengthy degenerative illness, and I really didn’t feel relief, I was absolutely bereft.
My Mum died a few years later, and I am still dealing with the grief of it all, three years on.

Split equally and each can decide what to do with their share. A has already been “paid” for looking after their parents - hasn’t had to work or pay bills, lived rent free and had food and clothes etc paid for - she’s already received a lot of money from the parents in this respect. And presumably received carers allowance or pocket money as well. Does A expect to profit from her past work for the rest of her life?

Haven't read the whole thread, but I also think morally the will needs to be followed. If any sibling wishes to gift money to A they can, but this needs to be their choice. D cannot and should not try to force them. If she wishes to gift her money then that's between her and A.

I do wonder if part of this is D trying to assuage her own guilt. After all, she sailed off to university and is living her life as an independent adult in exactly the same way that B & C did...

She would have finished a medical degree by age 24. Why didn't she take a year out at that point to enable A to get some training under her belt or get back to work? It's not ideal but definitely not unknown for trainee doctors to take a year out of the postgrad training system. Or live at home once she was qualified and working as a doctor? If they weren't near a hospital she could have chosen the GP route rather than a specialist route. She could have done all manner of things, but she didn't. At the end of the day, D was no more ready than B & C to take on the care of her parent.

D would probably answer: 'But A didn't want me to' and therein lies the crux of the matter. A was happy enough, doing what she did. It wasn't all sacrifice. There must have been rewards in the caring role she took on for her to do it as long as she did: lack of financial pressure, being in a home environment, no need to answer to an employer, no job insecurity, a close relationship with a loved parent...

It is very easy to paint a rosy picture of financial independence and the rewards of the workplace. But both sides of the coin have their challenges.

The will needs to be split between the 4 and get as equal amounts as they can.

I feel incredibly sad for A. It does sound like they gave up their whole life for their parents. I feel B & C are being a little selfish. But A surely should have at some point told B, C and D that they needed to move on with their own life and each child contribute then to live in carers etc if that is what was needed?

D sounds kind though. Maybe D will be able to help A in buying a house - knowing that eventually that house will then come back to D if anything were to happen to A?

Lots of assumptions here....that A will die before D...that A will leave property to D. None of us know how long we’ve got but they are all relatively young and A could have another good 30 plus years.

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.

This is rubbish. Find me a male child that was expected to give up their entire life to raise their younger sibling and care for both parents that has been called a scrounging freeloader. Whereas female children that don't help and rely on parents for childcare and funding despite not working or contributing are called freeloaders and cheeky fuckers all of the time.

FWIW I do think the will has to be followed but I can understand why it leaves a bitter taste in D's mouth. It's good of her to recognise her sister's contribution to her own success by choosing to give her her portion of the inheritance, even if her brothers aren't willing to meet in the middle.

I also think it is worth investigating the possibility of A being classed as a dependent to see if that will have any impact on the position.

Either way, A sounds like a thoroughly decent person.

A PP asked if the family were from a culture which expected daughters to take on caring responsibilities and sons were more highly valued- I think the UK has just such a culture. Look around you and it's always the women doing the caring. I know various extended family where the daughters rally round and the sons do fuck all.

It's just the same as childcare- society does not really expect it of men, it's women's work.

Agghhh, some not very empathetic responses here. I think D is very much doing the decent thing, and I would like to think that I would do the same in that situation. There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement of As contribution to the family by caring for the parents by the father or the brothers. I feel sad that it appears that A seems to have been very passive in her choices but it seems that people have benefitted from that passivity. She may have felt very pressured into it and lost the confidence to want to do something else and fight for her right to not have to be the main carer. There is no mention that A ever wanted to do anything else or encouraged to do anything else. I hope A is able to get a decent 1 bed flat from her and Ds share. I dont think D should feel obliged to gift her the share left to her - rather invest it in the property. Giving her the money or investing it makes little difference. Then if A is able to do something with her degree or retrain she could possibly take on a small mortgage in the future and upgrade to a 2 bed. I think the most important thing is to just secure her a place to live.

A has been thoroughly shat upon by her circumstances, sense of moral obligation, parent's failure to give consideration to her contribution to the family, siblings sense of entitlement and lack of recognition, and will soon be shat upon by her resulting lack of earning capacity, the benefits system, lack of pension (has she paid any NI contributions?) and so on.

Morally, B & C should be recognising that without the contribution of A, they would either have had to give up their own careers, or have lost their inheritance through care fees.

Personally I'd be sending B & C an invoice that takes into account care fees saved (split 4 ways), as well as A's lost earnings and pension (partially offset by her quarter of care home fees). It would at least crystallise the point.

I wonder if A might have a claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975?

various extended family where the daughters rally round and the sons do fuck all.

I'll agree with this, wholeheartedly.

It starts with little things like a wife getting her husband's relatives' birthday cards because it's "easier" or he's forgetful, and fast forward it's led to the same woman (who, let's face it, these days is usually working outside the home in some capacity too!) being expected to take on elder care for the network of family members, especially once kids are older. Women go from raising kids to caring for family and it's a message a lot of families don't consider: do we want this same limited life, these low expectations, this double standard for our future daughters?

Most UK families would say no, but do very little to reset those unfair expectations at any point of raising the next generation.

I've stopped really listening when my best friend talks about family expectations like this because she's the same one who hasn't let mil's birthday go uncarded for 20 years because her DH is "useless". A tinkly laugh usually follows. And I'm betting her two daughters will be doing the same in their relationship in another 20 years....

D needs to lend her own 100k to A for her lifetime, with the understanding that it may never come back if it gets swallowed up in care fees. A needs to will that amount back to D, or to her spouse or children if D predeceases her.

D needs to stop pressuring B and C to give up their inheritance. It would be nice if they gave some of their share voluntarily, but she is much richer than they are and is behaving very unfairly with this emotional blackmail.

A needs to use her 200k to buy a one bed and go shares in an air b and b cottage or something a couple of weeks a year if she wants to see C's children. Expecting her siblings to fund her to live in a larger than needed property out of their own inheritance is daft. In fact, they might be more inclined to accede to D's request if A's demands were seen to be more reasonable.

D needs to help A retrain and find a job. She can't spend the next fifteen years living without working and will need support with that.

Gavel!