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?

So OPs friend and is 30's, the Dad must have retired at 65...
So if he had 12 years of retirement, he could have looked after the wife/mum and A could have gone to work.
A must have had some form of income, as no one lives on nothing. Food, utilities, clothing ect.

She must have had free time as she looked after C's children.

I think D is playing the game.

On a wage of 150k there were lots of ways this could be resolved. D seems to be making decisions for A. That all, could potentially benefit D

I also suspect that the OP is actually d.

Her plan now is to give her sister her entire share and look into become a guarantor on a mortgage so her sister can buy a flat.

This was going to be my suggestion.

FWIW I think B and C are being knobs... the will should be respected but if they were decent they would give her something at least.
Equal doesn’t mean fair and A did not have the same advantages from the sound of it they basically dumped it all on A and swanned off...

If A was expecting some sort of payout for looking after their parent then that should have been discussed at the time and put in writing (there is literally a space for this on Power of Attorney forms), yes it would be kind of the other three to help them out but if they’ve got their own children to think about then I can see why they wouldn’t. A should have thought ahead and planned for their own future.

@mummmy2017 alot of what OP says doesnt make sense.

Like A needed a 2 bed house, to provide C with free child care. OP says that was a mistaken use of childcare. 'Providing free childcare for C' is very different to 'As nephew/nieces in their twenties stay with her sometimes'. Seema more like OP forgot she said they were in their twenties. Also downplayed that A looks after D children occassionally.

It also doesnt make sense that A seemed to have no free time to have her own life due to caring duties, but there are clear gaps in this but OP wont fill in what did then.

It also appears, as a pp said, that if A is so close to Cs kids that its possible she would prefer to see then in the property ladder.

Also B & C 'moved away'. But also were close enough that A provided regular free childcare?

Not sure if OP is chatting shit or just trying to get more people to side with her.

They should see a mediator with a background in probate. Legally A is almost certainly entitled to more than the will ascribes to her ("reasonable financial provision" under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975).

ve shown her this thread. I think we are both a bit surprised that everyone felt she was in the wrong

I'm with D. At the very least the will could have ensured A's security in her lifetime.

What did the parents want to happen to A? Did they assume that the siblings would look after?

I had a friend in a similar situation. She basically gave up all career prospects to care for her parents in poor health until they both died. Her siblings had assured their parents she would be looked after.

As soon as the DM died they wanted the house put on the market.

Fortunately her DM had actually updated her will to leave the house to to her absolutely at which point her siblings tried to take her to court. If they had respected their parents wishes or even accepted the will then it would have gone to their DC eventually anyway - my friend has no children and in her 50s lives on what she can earn as a cleaner/home help.

It used to be quite common for the eldest daughter to stay home and care for the youngest and then the parents but the matching assumption was that the home would be hers for her lifetime.

Your siblings are shits frankly.

So A is going to have £250k anyway, worst case scenario (hers and D's share). How many people in their 50's, if they sold everything, would actually be sitting with £250k in their hand. I know I wouldn't. And A has no dependants, whereas B and C have raised children and are probably still supporting them through Uni.

D earns 3 x what B & C earn, and so far hasn't had to shell out a lot of money on her kids, as they are still very young (No Uni costs yet etc).

I don't think D has the foggiest idea of how B & C are nowhere near as flush as her : they earn a third and have way more outgoings.

Split 4 ways. I don't think that A has done badly, to be sitting with £250k hard cash at 50+ with no debt and no-one else to have to support.

As a PP noted, the will can be varied if the beneficiaries agree - but they don't. However, the options they seem to have been given involve permanently giving away their inheritance, which is clearly not attractive.

There are other ways to do this, for example to let A live in the family home for life and only then sell up and divvy up the proceeds between the children of B, C and D. A could then look for work (needed to maintain the house, but at least there's no mortgage). She wouldn't own the whole house, so not sure what that does to benefits etc. A variation would be for B, C and D to buy a smaller home, give A a life interest and free up some cash as well. And if B & C have greater short-term needs than D, D could own a bigger share of that home, say 40/50/50 or 50/25/25.

If B, C and D were really motivated to solve this fairly, they could consult a lawyer about such trust arrangements.

This probably still won't interest B or C who seem to have very short term motives and don't recognise that pretty much all of their inheritance only exists because A's 25 years of work meant that parents didn't have to pay care fees. I suspect C would pay down his mortgage rather than set aside an investment for his kids.

Oh and £350k for a 2 bed flat? Outrageous. You'd get a 5 bed detached house here for that. Why do people live in these stupid places?

"A could stay in the house "

How?

It's not hers to stay in.

As A has lived in the house for so much time, does she have any rights? I think A and D sound very caring and decent.

Oh and £350k for a 2 bed flat? Outrageous. You'd get a 5 bed detached house here for that. Why do people live in these stupid places?

Totally beside the point!

But since you ask, the reason why the housing is expensive is because people want to live in these places! Prices are set by supply and demand.

Of course, A could have refused to care for her elderly parents and the inheritance could have been spent on care home fees, instead. Personally, I think the Dad sounds like he was a bit of a thoughtless old git. B and C sound selfish if they recognise the validity of the reasoning behind giving A more, but want to keep inheritance money for their children. The Dad probably conveniently believed his children would look out for each other when the time came and not shaft each other - or he had no respect for A's choices.

Also women back then would have had not a great earning potential anyway and would have been expected to give up their careers if they got married

In the 1980's? Are you being serious with this bollox?

Does A even want to stay in the house.

I think A needs support to start living and speaking up. The OP and/or D, seem to paint A as someone who had no choices over her life. She was forced to do this. Forced to ignore the impact on her future etc

But now is seemingly deciding what A must haven she must have a 2 bed flat, she is wrong to m, apparently, be happy with her niece and nephew benefitting etc.

I wonder does anyone ever listen to A and what she wants.

The will states split equally into four and that is what should happen. I don't understand how anyone would object, there will be plenty for all when the house is sold. Of course some of the four will be better off than others but that's life and is not the point.

Equal shares!

The executor has a duty to follow the will. If probate solicitor is involved so too will they. A deed of variation is complex and costly. What happens after distribution by executor of the estate is then not ruled by the will but may have significant tax implications. Anyone aggrieved by the executor not following the terms of the will can enforce it and ask for the executor to be replaced or instruct probate sol to ensure the will is followed. All costly and will delay distribution I. An already slow process.

Morally I understand A should be recognised for what s/he did re care for prolonged period. However the will does not reflect this and given the competing arguments amongst the siblings i can’t see how anything other than following the will strictly will be cost effective or bring about peace amongst you all.
Good luck.

How many here got Divorced at 50 and got £125k.
This is more than enough to restart a life.

it is easy for D (who has a good income) to decide what others should do with their inheritance. A looked after D, they would not have had to give up a chance of a career if it wasn’t for D, so maybe D should give A the inheritance (as they don’t really need it, whereas the others do)

Ime it is usually women who end up with the bulk of the care for elderly parents, and who then often get shafted if the will is an equal split, as they will have given up career and relationship opportunities to be a carer.
I agree with D, that this is incredibly selfish, and that the other siblings should be sorting out some recompense for their older sister- if she had refused to care for their parents there would be far less money in the pot anyway, as the house would have been sold ages ago to fund care home fees.
However, I do think the will should be split as it is written, even though it is so unfair. I just think that B and C are being very selfish and unkind.

Women’s care work is always undervalued and taken for granted, even by the people being cared for. D should get the other two together for a meeting, and work out the lost costs of care, then they should all pay a sum towards that, as they would have done with paid carers or a care home.
I think this should be established at the beginning of any care arrangements , to avoid women being sold down the river by relatives.

I'm an old git and, due to my job, have seen many similar situations over the years. In every single case that I've witnessed the daughter has been the carer, the sons have mostly done fuck all. Then, when it's come to the inheritance, the non-carers have happily taken their equal share and have justified it in all sorts of ways.

Carers allowance is £66.15 per week. Some care homes charge £2k a week.

D should get the other two together for a meeting, and work out the lost costs of care, then they should all pay a sum towards that, as they would have done with paid carers or a care home And presumably D will be adding a lot more than B and C because she has benefited the most from A being a carer. A caring for D as well as her parents has enabled D to go on and have a very high paying career.

*A doesn’t need a 2 bed flat, but regularly provides (free) childcare to C’s children. The kids have regularly spent a large proportion of her holidays with them and A would like to continue doing this.

D has explained she should tell C to find his only solution, but A loves the children and really enjoys having them to stay. Again D doesn’t want to deprive her of this.*

I don't want to sound harsh but there are things I would really like to do and can't afford to - that's just life and not a reason for others to give money which is legally theirs, to A. Also I used to stay with my godmother when I was a kid - in a 1 bedroomed flat. This does not make a 2-bed flat the only solution.