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?

Leave B and C to their money, it is fair enough they want to provide for their kids.
I think you have a good solution in D giving A her share of the money and this will fund a place for her, then leaving it in the will to Ds kids.
We have a VERY similar dynamic in our family ( I actually thought when I started reading that it was our family!) But we all have to decide who will care for our elderly relatives and those that decide not to have the right to chose too and sell their car so they cant possibly visit
(Though it sticks in my craw saying that )

Childcare probably isn’t right word now, but they don’t contribute etc to household. She still wants them to be able to come stay with her.

No it's not the right word at all. And i suspect you are being disingenuous. You know she doesnt need the extra bedroom to provide free childcare for Cs kids.

D wants it to provide free childcare for her kids. Or some other reason.

So D has a plan to help A out. D not only wants others to pay for it despite being a huge earner. She specifically wants a 2 bed flat for A.

A is noise to Cs kids and would probably like to see them on the property ladder too. But D would prefer A to get the money. Not Cs kids. A if fine with Cs kids getting help to buy a home each possible because she hasnt been able to.

It doesnt make sense that D didnt just sort this out theirseleves given the large amount of money they have coming in rather than trying to impose a fine on her borthers because A cared for the parents.

I get the general feeling you are posting more and more drips to get people onside.

Not a chance did you use childcare for people in their 20s visiting their aunt, by mistake.

Nobody's suggesting A should have dumped her family with no support at all, PanGalatic, but there would certainly have been alternatives to her doing everything herself and perhaps living to regret it

Obviously the family might have refused those alternatives, but that too would have been their choice, just as taking on most of the load was probably A's

A and D need to pool it so that it’s A and D flat and so it reverts to D easily (as I suspect if not watertight B and C would come after it)

I think its easy for D to suggest they give up a large inheritance when she earns 3 times as much as they do. I agree that D should gibe up her share if she feels strongly about it and as you say be a guarantor or lend her some more money. Surely there are cheaper properties in the same area but slightly further out? Is she just being picky on area or size?

I think its fab that D wants to thank her sister for bringing her up, and caring for their parents.
The suggestion to B&C was ok, but it has been rejected, and should be forgotten about.
Might be worth getting an official deed of variation to the will, so that it is split 4 ways, 2 parts to A, none for D. That removes any issue of D "giving" money to her sister. It practically amounts to to the same thing, just avoids the money passing through Ds accounts.

@squeaver Well said, I thought I must have been living in an alternate universe for the last 35 years when I read this! None of my friends, or I, gave up our careers when marriage & children came along!

I think A should get larger portion to buy a flat. She has dedicated her life and this her potential earnings. The brothers are being bloody selfish with their sister sacrificing so much. Tbh A should have been left the house just to her as sounds like everyone else is comfortable

@RainOrSun thanks for that. Sols still involved with estate so she will speak to them about a deed of variation re her quarter and giving to A.

D is awesome btw. Good for her for looking out for her sister

I think morally and legally it should be split in 4. If D chooses to give half of his money to A so she can buy a flat, that's fine. It's inheritance, not a wage for the work A did (which she should never have expected to be paid for - though I expect she didn't).

Nobody's suggesting A should have dumped her family with no support at all

No, but plenty of people basically saying tough shit to A for doing the right thing and stepping up while the siblings benefited from not having to pay the costs of a care assistant or home. Some of the attitudes here absolutely stink.

Just came on to say the same as @squeaver.

Women in their 50s didn't have to give up their careers when they got married, ffs!

Is A over 55? Some retirement flats have that as a minimum age and they can be cheaper than buying a non-retirement property. Ongoing expenses might be higher, but D could possibly help out?

People care for parents for a variety of reasons, and do it sometimes to benefit themselves, so it’s often a two way thing. For example my DHs brother (divorced) lives with and cares for their frail DM. He obviously has no bills to pay, lives there for nothing and, as a result, doesn’t work. But we know that he does it not just for the benefit of his DM, but because it is also hugely advantageous for him. It’s not always a case of a sibling sacrificing their lives to dedicate to the caring of a DP.

Divide it equally. If people want to donate to others separately that’s up to them.

Deed of variation.

All beneficiaries have to agree though

Legally there is nothing A can do Ive explained

Are you sure? Depends on where A lives, but she may financially be her late parents' dependant if she has never worked and lived on their income. A should seek independent legal advice.

It should be split 4 ways as per the will.

It's up to D what she does with hers, but it's none of her business what B and C do.

- if all beneficiaries agree you can change a will. It's called a Deed of Variation.

This is slightly wrong. Only those who will be affected by the amendment have to agree. So if D wants to divert her money she can do a DofV without any involvement from B or C. Its only effect is for tax purposes really though. Dealing with the will as written and then just gifting the money would have the same effect, assuming D doesn't die within seven years in which case it would be included in her estate for IHT purposes (this may or may not be an issue).

We have a slightly similar issue with my parents' wills. Both currently still alive but I know what the will says, basically my half sister is totally excluded. I've not told her, of course. I intend to apply a variation so a third of my inheritance goes to her. If my brother did the same (he won't) then all three of us would get the same. It would be useful for my beneficiaries in future as it would reduce my IHT bill as I have no offspring to take advantage of the current rule on no IHT on family home passing to offspring (my sister does so it makes tax sense to divert the money to her as my bequests are all to her kids anyway).

There will be inheritance tax to pay on the house of about 70K. A has been shafted by the father. He should have had greater concern about how A would manage and arranged for some IHT planning and perhaps given A a life time tenure in the house. The other siblings should recognise that they are only in receipt of this money because A cared the father and thus he didn't incur residential care home fees. However, legally it is crystal clear, a four way split.

Where is A going to live now?

Nothing.

You should do absolutely nothing. Leave the people who own those assets to write their Will without coercion.

I think it should be split 4 ways as the will said, both morally and legally.
Morally because A may not leave D anything at all when A dies, and personal circumstances should not come into it, as they can change. D may have a good job now, but next week, he could be made redundant, etc.
Although I said morally, I guess A believes she deserves more for looking after D when young, and acting as carer for mother. I rather dislike the idea that we only look after elderly/sick parents in the hope of an inheritence. It is possibly a shame that neither parent left A an extra sum, in recognition of A's help, but that did not happen.
I am guessing that when the mother died, everything went to the father.
There is nothing to stop D from giving up half his inheritence to A, if desired.

Share it as it says in the will. There is never an equal starting point, people's situations are irrelevant.

Even if C and D gave up their share how is a woman in her 50’s who has never worked going to pay the bills and feed herself?
All very well saying she will get a job but as a woman in her 50’s myself I know that employers are not falling over themselves to employ us. She has approximately 10 years before retirement so even if she gets work she is not going to qualify for a full state pension nor would a full state pension be enough anyway.
I think A has a lot more long term problems than you have considered.